View From The Middle
The Immigration Bill: How Absurd Can You Get?
By Charles Rogers

The immigration compromise proposal presented the week before Congress went on their Memorial Day holiday had been touted as something all parties have contributed to and worked for. And good for them. But it's probably one of the most unrealistic, worst-thought-out, irrational ideas to come out of Washington since Richard Nixon said, "Go ahead with the Watergate thing. It's only a little office pilfering!"

Now that the vacationers are back at their part-time jobs, instead of rushing legislation on immigration through their respective houses, as it appears they're trying to do (The Senate already started tossing it about and the House is talking about it this week), we can fervently hope they'll impartially first try to digest every facet of it thoroughly, take time to develop it properly - if they can - and learn to live with it.

Now, the issue has been a contemplative force for literally years and has been a thorn in every administration's side since Ronald Reagan granted blanket amnesty in 1986. It involves practically every emotion, from utter compassion for those who, along with their families, really want to become American citizens to those who only want to work here and bring their paycheck back to their home country, or, worse, those who want to enter our country to do us harm. That's not paranoia talking. Nowadays it's a real fear.

What can we do? What can our Washington representatives do about it? There are so many important facets of the immigration problem, such as those farmers and ranchers from the states bordering Mexico who absolutely need immigrants to do the work that Americans won't do.

It's easy to say, "We'll pay Americans well enough to do the job," but the ranchers and fruit farmers can't afford to do that. In many cases, they're paying below the proper limit anyway. Along the Canada division the problem is essentially the same. Industries in northern New York can't afford to pay anyone but immigrants, otherwise they'll have to fold their businesses.

The number heard in most cases (nobody can come near the actual number) tells us there are approximately 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. now. Granting amnesty to them would not only be a slap in the face to those who, under the same conditions, entered the country legally, got their cards and numbers and, through perseverance and patience, became citizens. Their lament then would be, "if only I had waited..."

Then there's the fence. That stupid, 700-mile fence that would essentially keep out those who wouldn't want to dig their own tunnel. Does our government really think that will do the job? First of all, who are you going to get to build it? Maybe we should grant citizenship to every person who builds a portion of the wall within a certain period of time.

Second - About those checkpoints as it relates to the greed of man: Don't tell me a bribe won't go a long, long way. And, yes, money talks.

Third - Even the process of applying to become a legal citizen has to be overwhelming. Forging applications, visas and admission and identification forms would become an industry of and by itself.

Then there's the money factor. Hey, the reason they are "escaping" from their own country to the U.S. is because of the money. We're not talking about terrorists now. We're concerned about the guy picking lettuce in California or oranges in Florida or, uh, cars in Detroit (well, maybe not cars!); the person who just wants to work and raise a family and live happily ever after - hopefully in America. For starters, all things being equal, it will cost him nearly $700 just to apply for citizenship, according to a report by Albor Ruiz in Sunday's Daily News. There are all those other things to go along with it, topped off by what was proposed to be a fine of something like $5,000, which the current illegal immigrant will have to pay before he applies to live here, even on a temporary basis while his papers are being legalized. Oh, and don't forget, if he lives and works in, say, New York City, or maybe Canarsie, he'll have to leave his job and go back to his home country before he'll be allowed to do all this. Fat chance!

All in all, methinks he might think it's not worth it.

And do you think Congress will even reflect on how much of a problem it is - even from the standpoint of compassion for their fellow man or woman?

Unfortunately, not until Election Day, when we hear our elected representatives ask: "What's in it for me?" or "Can I have your vote?"