Behind Joe Biden’s Immigration Position

Based on Joe Biden’s statements and voting record in the last 10 years, his policy on immigration while can seem immigrant-friendly and “Open-Border” type can be summarized in three simple words: “Maintain Cheap Labor”. He seems to maintain a position that is conducive to the creation of a low-end immigrant labor class that serves the needs of frugal exploitive employers. We have to examine his positions both on skilled workers and unskilled workers to arrive at that conclusion.

H1-B visas are provided for skilled educated workers. Joe’s stated that H1-B visas should be provided only for jobs that American’s can’t do and has voted “No” on visas for skilled workers. The key here is if he believes in “can’t do” or “won’t do”. It would be hard to take any job and argue that Americans can’t do it and stay true to the “Yes We Can” promo. So, it’s more likely that he means jobs American’s won’t do which are low-end jobs. Having a policy of immigration that supports only low end jobs would certainly be for the benefit of employers eager to exploit foreign workers.

Joe opposes granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Why would a low end worker who’s “bussed” to and from work need a driver’s license? Joe opposes requiring English as the national language. Not providing the tools that this section of the populous could use to better themselves keeps them indentured to their current job and status. Allowing these immigrants to have identification and the knowledge of the English language would probably enable them to get an education or start a small business and grow out of this cheap labor force and that Joe doesn’t seem to want.

Joe has stated that it is impractical to deport 14 million illegal immigrants. Impractical! Impractical! Impractical is the word that Joe chose to use. Not immoral, not tragic, not un-American but “impractical”. Again this goes to show that he simply values these immigrants as low-end resources for their mighty employers and it would be too expensive to bus these resources out of the country and find costlier native-borns to take their positions. Ask yourself this question: Who would choose the word impractical? Someone who’s after practical things. A cheap labor-force is very practical.

He’s voted for the border fence but has stated that it is to tackle drug trafficking, not that it would stop illegal migration into the country which is consistent with his policy of maintaining cheap labor.

Joe’s voted yes on continuing federal funds for sanctuary cities, no on limiting welfare for immigrants, yes on allowing more foreign workers for farm work, yes on allowing illegal immigrants to participate in social security by way of receiving benefits, yes on comprehensive immigration reform that legalized illegal immigrants by providing them with a “Z” visa where what they could do was limited.

Let’s analyze this voting record. Sanctuary cities are not needed for skilled immigrants as they are legal in the first place. Sanctuary cities are needed to protect the low end labor force. Skilled immigrants are not after welfare either nor depend on social security benefits though they pay into it. While voting no on skilled and H1-B visas, Joe consistently votes yes for low-end immigrant farm workers. Providing welfare and allowing illegal immigrants to participate in social security is simply because Joe realizes that the low-end needs the support of the tax payer so that wages can continue to be low and tax-payer subsidized employment can be made available to greedy employers who need them.

Looking at his protectionist policies for the natural-born American labor force, his anti-skilled immigration stand and open border approach for unskilled low-end immigrants makes it clear that he wants natural born Americans to prosper and attain great heights while the jobs they leave behind should be handled by temporary low-end guest workers creating a low class society of foreign immigrant workers. He wants to see the lower stratum of society be exclusively foreign born. If I’m mistaken, then Joe should make his position clear.

Friendly Racism

I wrote this piece a while ago and thought I would go ahead and publish it after Barack Obama's speech today.

The discussion of racism has to start again. Not so much for the old atrocities or today's discrimination for one can argue that one must be let go off and the the other is no longer blatant. The discussion must be had to begin the process of elimination of a much more subtle kind of racism - racism with a small "r" if you will. It is not the racism of treatment but of feeling. As long as a White person feels that they may offend some Black person by saying something even minor, as long as a Black person feels that they were asked for more documentation to take a test drive because they were black, there is racism. Human beings are not like video cameras that capture exactly what's out there. What's out there does not matter most of the time. What matters is what's in here, buried deep in your heart.

So this is what I wrote:

"I hate to call myself anything but American, but to illustrate a point I'll offend myself by hyphenating me for a little while and calling me "Indian-American". Well now then I am special. That's how this country of mine makes me feel everyday. I would still like to hope that a majority of the people who treat me differently do so not with malice but out of ignorance. That is consolation to a degree but some days I think, can I not expect, given the opportunity that this country has for people to know about me, where I come from and more importantly what I aspire to be, to not treat me special? Is this ignorance justified?

So who are these ignorant racists I keep running into? The store clerk who asks me to repeat my question due to his unshakable belief that he’s got to struggle to understand me? The insurance agent I've been talking to over the phone for several years, talking slowly to me in person as suddenly my look convinces him that I may not understand what he's saying? The nice people at church who welcome me to "their" culture despite the fact that that's the only culture I've known since birth? The people who make it a point to tell me there's meat in what I am eating? The people at work who seem to think I have two countries where I can search for jobs in case of a layoff? The people who simply wonder why I won't retire in my "own" country? Yes, these are the friendly racists to whom I feel like screaming, "I am in my country idiots. Stop handling me with care."

The recent George “Macaca” Allen episode is such a classic example of the assumptions I talk about. An Indian-American was welcomed to America!! I don’t know George and am not going to judge him except to say that he did make an assumption. On the other hand, I am not sure why Webb sees it necessary to repeatedly point out that Siddart stayed at a family member’s house. Should Siddart feel grateful that he’s been accepted!!

It is not just White people who fall into this category of ignorant friendly racists that I am supposed to forgive. People of my "national origin" - to use a term that no one can clearly define - expect me to be "them". I get invited to "festivals" that I have never celebrated in my life but my co-national-originees seem to think I would want to anyway. These people, who expect me to be somewhere, do something; vote in one way, wave one flag or the other, are also an increasing and annoying makeup of the friendly ignorant racists I tolerate each day.

I ignore the deliberate caustic racists who just won’t change but am saddened by the unbeknownst racism that exists in many a decent, fair person’s heart. I believe that people do understand that others who look different want the same good things in life. To these people, I say it is far better to make mistakes due to ignorance of specific customs than to follow an assumption that some people are different and continuously exhibit to them that they are. The commonness of where we are going is more important to me than the differences of where we came from. So let’s simply bond on that, stop the unintended insult and for heaven’s sake, let me eat my pork."

Separation of Citizens

Among all the discussion about separation of citizens into Blacks and Whites and Hispanics and Asians and so on, there’s a separation that’s more accepted but less talked about which is the separation of the native-born and the naturalized. The constitution required naturalized citizens to have the same rights as their native born counterparts, but there are several laws and policies on the books today and several more news ideas burgeoning that effectively accomplish segregation of the two kinds of citizens and create the second class citizen.

The first separation is attributed to the constitution itself which simply says that only native born citizens can qualify to run for President. Given the lengths the constitution goes to create equality among citizens and also argues for equal rights for all people living in the US, I question the intent here. I for one believe what they were trying to say was that a President must have exclusive allegiance to the country and in those days they were simply native born. Today with “naturalization”, a foreign born swears to lay down all allegiance to a foreign land and in many cases looses citizenship of his or her birth country and becomes an exclusive citizen of the United States. I believe that the framers would see no issue with such people participating in the good of their country and running for the highest office. After all, these people are Americans by choice, not by mere accident of birth. They know who they want to be and strive to become that and are not simply living a fate. People on the other hand who are native born but own dual citizenship should be, based on the constitution’s intent, barred from running for President.

Naturalized citizens as they go through the long process of becoming a citizen have in that journey made a lot of accommodations that native born citizens have not and many will not. For example, from the day a person holds a visa to work in the US, they pay state and federal income taxes with no representation of any kind. It’s hard to assume that the makers of the constitution after having raised this as the primary grievance in the Declaration of Independence would have meant for this to be the norm for Naturalization. First generation Americans are subject to having their fingerprints recorded very much like incarcerated convicts. They are subject to drug and medical tests to qualify for permanent residence. They are required to keep the government apprised every time they move. They pay Social Security taxes even if their visa is of a temporary nature, which implies they have no way of receiving any of the benefits they are paying for. They are not allowed to avail public services for several years. While arguments can be made that these distinctions are necessary, at naturalization everything should be made on par with native born citizens, including retaining on Government records only information that’s maintained for native born citizens. The fact that there’s no real naturalization is apparent by the name change of INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services) to USCIS (US Citizenship and Immigration Services).

In addition to existing laws and policies there are several new proposals that further separate naturalized citizens from native born. The proposal by the Nevada Senator, John Ensign, to require that naturalized citizens demonstrate that they were in the nation on legal status from the day they arrived to receive social security benefits while may make the case to separate those that came here illegally from legally nevertheless imposes additional burden on naturalized citizens making them second class. The proposal by the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich to create a foreign person id card is another example. This policy while attempting to reduce identity theft creates more data that’s collected and retained on naturalized citizens that does not apply to native born. How’s a person not carrying the card going to establish that they are not of foreign origin? If they can with mechanisms that exist today, then what’s the need for the new system?

This divide between native born and naturalized citizens may not be of immediate concern for "main stream America" but is just as harmful as creating second class citizens based on any other criteria like race, religion or gender. The law of the land at various times has created such classes of citizens but have all been abolished as they were fundamentally unjust. The divide between naturalized citizens and native born citizens is still the law of the land and till we get rid of this and treat all citizens as one, we are not “one nation under God.”

Fear of Chain Migration?

The White House website talks about the myths of the immigration bill and has this:

“10. MYTH: By providing an opportunity for citizenship to illegal immigrants already here, the bill will exponentially increase extended-family chain migration.”

It goes on to explain how capping legal residents and citizen’s rights to bring family in addresses this “Myth”. What is this myth really saying about the concerns people have and what is the trade-off here? There’s nothing illegal about chain migration as only legal residents and citizens can sponsor their family. So the ones that are concerned about chain migration are concerned about it why? Is the White House saying, let me keep some illegals and you can block some legals? What a wonderful compromise!

Chain migration has been the name of the game and the fact that it takes somewhere between 10 to 20 years to become a citizen is the natural throttle to that. Curtailing legal citizen’s rights as it exists today is unnecessary except as a cheap bargaining chip. This is true, even if 12 million are made legal tomorrow. If there was no prejudice and people were only against the illegals, then simply extend the duration required by a Z-visa holder before they can become permanent residents. This way it does not take anything away from legal residents or US citizens. But, the White House knew that wouldn't be sufficient to address this myth.

So the point I am making is that not all people opposed to the immigration bill are against it as it pardons a crime or condones illegality, though that’s the argument openly made. The fact that the White House had to address this myth and the way they addressed this is indicative of a sizable portion of bigots among the opposing crowd, not all, but sizable. It's okay to give up on citizen's rights as long as it keeps foreigners out. What do you call that? Patriotism? I don't.

Why Guest Workers are a Bad Idea?

Bush’s Comprehensive Immigration Plan includes a temporary work permit or guest worker program. In our personal lives, yes we want guests to leave as soon as possible, but is that really good for a nation? When people come here on a temporary basis for a short period of time, they come in legally, but they come in with a mindset to make money, live disconnected and “go back home”. So what’s wrong with that? Well, let’s look at the economical, social and historical aspects of this.

First, on the economical front, let’s address the issue of social security. As temporary workers get paid should they pay social security taxes? Note that the way the system works is that you pay for retired people today hoping that you’ll be taken care of when it is your time. If these people are not going to even be here, should they be paying social security taxes? Is a sizable population not paying into social security a good thing? If people instead are given the option to become permanent, we can ethically, collect social security taxes. Another economical aspect is all the money that guest workers will have to invest outside the country to have a secure landing when they go back, including buying property and owning homes. Wouldn’t it be better to encourage them to invest locally? Finally, their temporary mindset will keep them from buying a home here and participating in all the buying and spending that comes with owning a home.

On the social front, a temporary stay provides no motivation to assimilate. Lack of assimilation will require accommodations on part of the majority like multi-lingual education, special job selection programs and other affirmative action. Forcing them to be temporary, can we really require them to assimilate and learn skills that will be useless or even detrimental when they return? Moreover, we cannot separate them from their families or prevent them from having one during their stay. This will not take away stress from public education and other systems that support basic family needs and will also not stop illegal immigration as their family members will have no legal ways to immigrate. We’ll also have to readdress the difficult issue of separating locally formed families when it comes time for the breadwinner to leave. This will be the biggest issue of a temporary worker program. Another social issue is that all legal temporary immigrants will pay taxes but will have no representation and no right to participate in any political or community process. This will over time undoubtedly result in isolation, resentment and distrust.

Historically, temporary work programs like the Bracero program and other programs created to address temporary worker shortages have first caused large groups of illegal immigrants as several overstay as their roots do sprout here and at the same time disappear from where they came from. Secondly, these programs, intentionally or not, have been targeted at one race or another and when it comes time to enforce removing these workers, it has resulted in racial tensions due to several permanent and even native born citizens of that race, “caught and released”. The handling of these types of programs does not constitute a proud part of American history.

Hope may be the most important ingredient of peace and prosperity. A right to stay, a right to participate and a right to dream may be snatched away from thousands who are treated as temporary residents. A temporary worker program may solve immediate issues and appease some specific groups for now, but is a problem seed that we are sowing for a much larger problem for another generation to solve. We must treat immigration the good old way, where people came here to live for good and participate in the grander process, not just for quick money or fill some employer's greed. The right to leave ones birth country and live in a country of choosing to correct the accident of birth, is a basic human right.

History of American Immigration Policies

Every time I hear, "We are a nation of immigrants but we are also a nation of laws", I wonder do these people know the history of immigration and immigration laws in our country? What immigration law are they really proud of? I think these are deliberate statements to mislead people who have no clue about the racist nature of our legal immigration. Legal immigration till about 1965 can be summarized in two simple words, Whites only - or at least - Whites preferred.

The first Immigration Act came immediately after the Constitution was written and was signed into law by George Washington. The act very simply states that only free Whites can immigrate and become citizens. All others were excluded. Immigration laws placed non-whites among “convicts, lunatics, idiots and persons likely to become public charges" who were the other class of people denied immigration and naturalization. It is hard to believe that the founding fathers who wrote "All men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence and “Naturalization must be uniform” in the Constitution, can immediately turn around and make such a racist unconstitutional act. What then they really meant by “men”, only they know.

Almost a hundred years later, you would expect things to get better, people to get wiser, but the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882 went completely the other way. It not only denied Chinese naturalization which was already denied but prohibited them from even entering the country. The people here did not have to leave, but government sponsored seclusion of these people not only effectively kept them from their “American” dreams but several Chinese were slaughtered in Los Angeles and the perpetrators were hardly prosecuted or even charged. Further, White women married to Chinese lost their citizenship and Chinese men living here could not bring their Chinese wives. So in effect, the congress had passed an act not just of exclusion but also of elimination.

Fast forward another 50 years, did things change? No. In the case of Takao Ozawa v United States, the Supreme Court had ruled that a light-skinned native of Japan could not count as "White", because "White" meant "Caucasian". Later, in the case of United States v Bhagat Singh Thind (1923), an Indian was denied citizenship and the same Supreme Court ruled that even though anthropologists classified Indians as Caucasians, common knowledge is that Indians are not White and so cannot be given citizenship. What a bunch of phonies! Since then the Census board has had a tough time classifying Indians. They refuse to classify them as White, later classified them as Hindus and now classify Indians as Asians. Asian is one race that has not been in India! Indians are mainly descendants of the Aryan race and are Caucasoid. Only in America, Indians are classified as Asians to keep them non-white.

Only recently, after almost 200 years since the creation of the nation, the Immigration Act of 1965 abolished racial limitations on Immigration and Naturalization. Emanuel Celler, a congressman from New York had to work a lifetime to get a fair immigration law passed. Kennedy and Johnson saw the wisdom in supporting it. Most of this was possible due to the Civil rights movement and so new immigrants owe a great deal of thanks to Martin Luther King Jr. Now, when Black people oppose Latino immigration or see racial profiling fit at airports, I am certain he weeps in his grave.

Several people who were influential in the periods of racist immigration laws are still alive and have ears that listen to them. There are others like Lou Dobbs who in the name of supporting the middle class speak as Dennis Kearney did in the Chinese Exclusion days promoting so much hatred against Latin Americans by blaming every thing that goes wrong in the nation on illegal immigration. To the people who say, “My ancestors came in legally, so should they”, now know that they simply could not. All your ancestors needed was not to be lunatic and carry 50 cents! Finally, to the presidents who are going around apologizing in Africa and Vietnam for past evils, an apology is overdue at home.

Illegal Immigration Debate

There are two ways to go about addressing the immigration situation in our nation. One is to think about who deserves what and who's right and who's wrong. The other is to think very simply about what's the only possible solution that's human and holds up to the moral values our nation has always upheld. The answer is then clear, we cannot cause suffering to twelve million people. There are few but absolutely dreadful episodes in history where such a large number of people were at the receiving end of one policy, one law and every time the end has been to cause them harm, history has not forgiven the perpetrators.

There's an old saying where I come from, which says if you can't be the Sun be a lamp and provide some light. There's a need to address the whole issue of immigration but we can certainly solve several independent pieces separately. Take the concern that several main stream Americans have - free services provided to "illegal immigrants". Now, we cannot not provide a way to pay the bill and then claim that bills are not being paid. Why not provide a mechanism for them to pay taxes. Today, young men, illegal immigrants have a legal process to join the military thru the selective services program. If there's one government program that expects illegals to show up and register why not have another where they get some kind of an id which allows them to legally pay taxes. Now, what we cannot do is complain that most will claim one kind of protection - earned income credit – or another and not even try.

Any successful organization values its people the most. As a nation, we must value our people the most. A large population living in this nation as working members is a valuable workforce that we cannot ignore. We do not have a legal way for poor people to immigrate into this country. A large economy depends on availability of people of several classes. Not everyone can be always comfortable and "rich". A society can't work that way. Yes, it’s not the nicest truth but it is the truth nevertheless that someone's got to do non-ideal jobs. A large portion of illegal immigrants compete for these low end jobs. I often wonder if we would even have a debate if we had a large volume of English speaking, educated, "rich" illegal immigrants from North of the border or across the pond!

To the people who want to "punish" the job providers, take communities that have a large portion of low end job owning illegal immigrants with quite large families. Fire the man and put him on the street. If there are hungry mouths to feed and no legal means to do it, what do you think the heads of these households are going to do? Crime. Without solving the problem in a comprehensive way, just requiring punishing job providers is foolish. This is not to say that we must not uphold our existing laws to hire only those that can legitimately work, but the order in which we do it given today's situation is extremely important. Document the existing illegal immigrants, provide them with identification whereby they can pay taxes and have a path to citizenship, create a streamlined legal means for jobseekers to immigrate and then go after the job providers that still hire illegal immigrants.

People who come in thru the southern border are coming here in search of a better life. Now, take a look at the lives they have here currently. Constantly living in fear of being deported, separated from their children or aging parents, working for slave wages, living in shacks, putting up with domestic abuse with no rights whatsoever and so on and so forth. So this is the better life they came to live? The answer to that question is a shocking yes. These people are under no illusion and know very well what to expect here. So why come here? How can life be worse than this elsewhere? This is so unfathomable to so many of us, but take a look at what’s on the other side. A corrupt government breeds corrupt people. Basic needs like electricity and water cannot be obtained without paying kickbacks. So you are school teacher and you got to pay the guy in the city office. What do you do? Fail five students and tell their parents, that they need "special tuition". The special tuition money goes towards getting water and electricity. Now what do the parents of those children do? Do they work in government offices or pharmacies or - you get the idea. But, several people at the bottom of the pay scale simply cannot pass their costs, get poorer and poorer and loose everything. Beg on the streets of their homeland or slave wages across the border? That’s the question they are answering as they walk across. Not everyone is born into an ideal life. The argument that they come in for free "stuff" is simply so filled with hate.

There are several legal immigrants that seek justice saying, "We came here legally, they should too." To those, I can only say, have some compassion. Most legal immigrants were well to do before they came here and are well to do since, many more comfortable than a large population of native born citizens. Looking at a suffering people and wanting them to suffer more, how can that provide satisfaction? How can one be jealous of these unfortunate people?

People here also have to understand that immigration like several other challenges is not exclusive to our country. If you are born here and haven’t paid much attention to what’s going on in the world, you may think that. There are large migrations going on in the world and a very small percentage come into the United States. In several of these places there’s no documentation to separate legal from illegal immigration. There’s just migration. The influx of Chinese natives into North-West India has created a vibrant new culture – Indo-Chinese. Have you tried their food? It’s awesome. Somehow we have, here, in recent years found a way to keep a large portion of people under the radar and call them illegal. Which immigrant into Boston in the boat-in days had papers! Migration has always happened in history. Those that oppose any kind of “Family Planning” should in fact understand this more.

Now, once they are here, what should we expect of them on their way to citizenship? Assimilation is a must. No country can survive polar separation of cultures within its border. The migrants must believe in the fundamentals of this nation and try not to create "little" nations. No "little Mexico" with waiving foreign flags. Learn English and don't ask for a bi-lingual state. Do not depend on free services. These services are detrimental to the ones receiving it today anyway. Pursue your happiness. Don’t expect others to secure it for you. Do not be secluded, but participate in the broader process and become a decent, moral, proud, American.