In elementary school we awaited
with happy anticipation for "Field Day", a day just for silly fun. We
competed in sack races and bobbing for apples contests. Teams were divided in
colors, the blue team, the red, the yellow and so on. No reasons for that order
of things existed, except for the need to have different teams. All one had to
do was cheer and defend one's team. Why? "Just because."
Now we come to another
"Field Day" of sorts with higher stakes, the presidential elections.
One of the issues pressed for in the presidential debates is the issue of
illegal immigration; let's be frank, Hispanic illegal immigration. It is
expected that Hispanics choose a team. It is assumed that Hispanics will choose
the donkey team. Yet, Hispanics should be first in rejecting those assumptions
since all assumptions about the Hispanic electorate are misleading.
Hispanics have grown increasingly
tired of being either ignored or taken for granted by politicians who try to get
their votes every few years using Mexican sombreros and taco-eating photo-ops on
the electoral stage. So, Hispanics should move to a new stage, from claiming a
right to be Hispanic or accepting the designation of Hispanics imposed on them
by cultural elites to demanding and accepting an American identity. To be
Hispanic is to be American. And to be American is to be Hispanic. Hispanic
culture is American culture. Hispanic values are American values.
One of the most valuable of
American cultural values is respect and appreciation for the rule of law.
Illegal immigration breaks the law and breaks that bond of common values.
Calling illegal immigration something else by use of euphemisms is harmful to
the Hispanic community in its relations and aspirations with the rest of the community
as a whole. If one comes from another country and does not have proper legal
rights and documentation, one is here illegally, not just
"undocumented."
Yes, we are aware that we do not
want to diminish the character or person of the illegal immigrant who comes
looking for better opportunities. But that is not the point. The point is that
American born Hispanics, and Americans of Hispanic heritage, should see this
problem as Americans and not as politically bipolar persons.
Hispanics do not need to struggle
between two identities, nor do they need to have a separate identity either. To
have two identities in one is the American Hispanic experience. Although this
seems to contradict all previously said, it is the only way to affirm the real
identity that needs to be affirmed, and that is, the American identity.
At a recent university forum on immigration
a member of the audience asked one those questions that seek self-affirmation, and
through which it was declared that the proposal of President Bush was “just
another way to exploit the undocumented workers whom are already exploited.” This
is typical of the debate which assumes that all work is exploitation and that
all illegal immigrants are just passive victims. While we do have illegal
immigrants that are being used by employers that break the law, those illegal
workers come for and accept those jobs voluntarily.
And yet, it should be recognized by
all Americans, that the problem of illegal immigration is the problem of the
border, and that border has a history of mutual illegal two-way immigration.
Failure to recognize this fact is simply a state of denial, or worse yet, a
form of intellectual dishonesty.
Being anti-Bush for its own sake
should not blind “immigrant advocates” to the fact that his immigration
proposal is a step, if not in the right direction, at least to promote the
conversation that is not taking place. And if it is to be criticized it should
be criticized from the perspective of being an American. Why should an American
of Hispanic descent or a naturalized Hispanic American be defending illegal
immigration is beyond explanation. It is only understandable from the
perspective of advocacy propaganda or a militant mentality.
From a liberal perspective, any
step toward the betterment of their legal status should be seen as a step
toward the betterment of their condition in general. The fact is that illegal
immigration, as it is today, is a mutually beneficial and hypocritical
situation. Any step toward some formal and legal recognition is a step toward
the moral liberation of both sides from an impossible situation, and toward the
voluntary betterment of the present conditions in its social implications and
for national security. To discard, without consideration or dialogue, President
Bush’s proposal just because it comes from President Bush, or a Republican, is
to do so “just because.”
Hispanics need not feel trapped
in the middle of this important issue, yet they could be a bridge. Not a bridge
to bring people together superficially but to make us aware that we are
together in this boat of economic interdependence, like it or not.
The story of America is a story of conflict,
negation and affirmation, accommodation and commitment. Yes, commitment. In the
end that is what makes of anyone an American, not provenance but a commitment
to American values. A common task ahead of us is the preservation of the American
entity; one that is neither a nihilistic competition on the contributions of
one demographic group over others, nor the establishment of moral superiority
of a particular group over all others. The future of America is guaranteed in
the preservation and transmission of its values, not in the affirmation of
separate demographic entities.