Text 20158, 117 rader
Skriven 2006-05-17 15:32:02 av Alan Hess
Ärende: Put refugees first?
===========================
I know all about the quotas on German immigrants during and before WWII, and
the need for sponsors - my German Jewish parents (who first tried to get here
on the "Voyage of the Damned" had quota numbers, and had to have sponsors.  In
my mother and her parents' cases, it was a distant relative.
***********


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.immigrant17may17,0,326566
2.story?coll=bal-pe-opinion

From the Baltimore Sun
Put refugees first


By Fred M. B. Amram

May 17, 2006

I was a refugee. I sought refuge in the United States.

An immigrant voluntarily chooses a new country usually to find greater
financial or personal opportunity. Not I. As a German Jew at the time of the
Holocaust, I was running from certain Nazi slavery or death. I escaped to
Belgium and then to the Netherlands, and on a Dutch ship entered the United
States - legally.

My parents were required to have an American sponsor - in our case, a wealthy
woman who guaranteed that she would be financially responsible if we were
unable to support ourselves. Welfare and public health support were out of the
question. How many Jews died in the Holocaust because they could not find
sponsors?

And there were quotas. The number of Germans entering the United States -
Jewish or not - was limited. How many Jews were turned back to burn in brick
ovens because the immigration quota from Germany or Poland was filled?

The very "liberal" President Franklin D. Roosevelt let most of my family die in
the concentration camps. They, like me, would have been refugees hoping to live
in the land of milk and honey - and I mean "live" quite literally.

Interestingly, at the time when the United States was gearing up for World War
II, no one was hiring "aliens" to provide cheap labor. European Jews faced an
"immigration crisis" while fleeing from the Nazis. Only 161,000 Jews entered
the United States between 1933 and 1942. Millions were left to die.

I support reasonably open borders. I support a liberal immigration policy. I'm
still angry that 6 million died in the gas chambers, many of whom could have
been saved had they not been turned away by the United States and other free
nations. Then why am I ambivalent about the 11 million illegal aliens from
south of the border? A closer examination may help.

Currently, the United States has two immigration crises. The first is a
question of who should be permitted to enter the United States legally, as many
do every day. This is a matter of public policy, one that can and should be
re-examined periodically by Congress.

At present, it seems to favor people with marketable skills, most often
scientific or technical skills. These legal immigrants come chiefly from First
World nations. I favor modifying that policy, making it more "liberal."

Existing immigration policy also concerns itself with national security, a
focus that I strongly endorse. The sieve that we call our southern border does
not ensure national security.

The second, and more imminent, crisis is the question of illegal immigrants. If
they were fleeing from Darfur or another mass ethnic cleansing, I would call
them refugees and I would be more sympathetic. But we're talking mostly about
people who choose to come to the United States even though they are safe in
their home communities. They seek financial opportunity. And they find
financial opportunity only - I stress only - because profiteers choose to hire
them at below-adequate wages. They enter illegally because bosses choose to
hire them illegally.

I understand poverty. I've been there. I have sympathy for illegal immigrants.
But should they fill below-minimum-wage U.S. jobs ahead of the many Americans,
born and raised here, who are looking for limited-skill work but at a living
wage?

And if we must import workers, what happened to the hundreds of thousands from
Sudan experiencing ethnic cleansing? There are millions in the world hoping to
sustain life who are excluded from this country because of quotas. Will we
prefer those who illegally seek to improve their fortune in this country over
those who want to sustain life in the face of rape, mutilation, execution or
starvation?

This dilemma gives us a chance to examine immigration as public policy.

Clearly, not all the world's frightened and needy can live in the United
States. The government must make choices. Should we let ethnic cleansing
evaporate whole populations in Africa while we welcome illegal aliens who are
safe but poor in their home countries?

Should we permit those who enter the country illegally - not fleeing
persecution - to find work and, perhaps, permanent residence and citizenship,
while we continue to have an immigration policy that sets unreasonable quotas
restricting potential immigration from other parts of the world?

Two conclusions:

First, immigration policies should be made consciously by Congress, not by
people entering the country illegally. These policies should allow a broad
spectrum of immigrants from throughout the world in order to ensure authentic
diversity.

Second, if exceptions to formal immigration policy are made occasionally, they
should favor refugees over immigrants, favor those who are fleeing from
imminent danger over those seeking financial opportunity. We should not turn
our backs on Darfur.

Fred M. B. Amram is the Morse alumni distinguished professor of creativity and
communication at the University of Minnesota. His e-mail is amram001@umn.edu.

Copyright + 2006, The Baltimore Sun | Get Sun home delivery
> Get news on your mobile device at www.baltimoresun.com

--- Msged/2 6.0.1
 * Origin: tncbbs.no-ip.com - Try the CROSSFIRE echo - all welcome (1:261/1000)