Letter to the Editor | Hazards of limiting immigration

Truth be told, most Vassar students haven’t spent a considerable amount of time on the U.S.-Mexico border. Yet at some point, everyone will be affected by the issues that governmental response to illegal immigration raises, especially living in a post-9/11 society. We must consider the consequences associated with Ian Saxine’s opinion, “On the Fence” in the 10.8.05 edition of The Miscellany News, advocating more regulation of only the Southwest border.

Saxine’s article is littered with the ubiquitous opinions of gung ho get-your-gun groups, such as the Minutemen. Sadly, the same clans would agree with him that illegal immigration is the United States’ “most important domestic issue.” Why? Perhaps it’s Saxine’s notion that “Mexican illegal aliens” are overcrowding “schools and hospitals,” and cutting “in line” without actually paying taxes. Yet this belief is fallacious. According to an article in the 4.05 edition of The New York Times , we currently have a surplus of over $7 billion in Social Security subsidies because illegal immigrants pay taxes. Their presence is ultimately beneficial for this country—a country born and still undoubtedly breastfed by their undervalued toil.

Furthermore, he claims there is an “unregulated flow of illegal immigration.” However, by saying this, Saxine discounts the throngs of Border Patrol officers I used to encounter everyday in my hometown, El Paso, TX, the largest U.S. border city. Along that imaginary and pilfered line, La Migra (INS) officials with increasing sophistication are distinguishing us from them.

Additionally, Saxine claims that no political party “out of naked political cowardice” has touched the issue of illegal immigration. Wrong. Many playing off post-9/11 sentiments have strongly used “Patriotism” and “Homeland Security”, which I consider an easy guise to conceal racist and xenophobic attitudes, for political purposes. For instance, Governor Richardson this past August placed New Mexico under a state of emergency due to the influx of illegal immigration.

Saxine also says that it is “no more prejudiced” to enforce “immigration laws affecting Mexicans” than “giving a speeding ticket to an Asian American who runs a red light.” Why specifically an Asian American? (Could it be that race “as usual” is the “weakest argument brought to the table”?) How does that illustrate the impartiality of those laws? Saxine should also realize it seems very prejudiced not to mention the via-Mexico migrants from other countries such as “Burma, Iran, Liberia, the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan, and…Ethiopia,” (newspapertree.com).

Ultimately, enacting Saxine’s opinion is immediately detrimental to millions residing on border cities. It is important to note that many of us are sheltered from witnessing the constant, frustrating, and terrifying plight endured by immigrants. We need new ways of thinking and forming efficient policies without bias and for the benefit of everyone, not merely increasing regulation and shutting our eyes to the depressing situation of our global society.

—Mikey Velarde ’09