Original immigration article to compare and contrast

I have been asked to post the original article that was submitted to the Star Tribune, so that it can be compared to the edited version that appeared in print. You ask, I provide. I don't have any problems with the editing personally, although I wish that they'd left in the part about the rich resources of Mexico and their friendly, hard-working population.

------------------Begin original blog article-------------------------------------------


The new, Democrat-led Congress hasn't even been sworn in yet, and already the Star-Tribune has a front-page story on the long wait for immigration, complete with the obligatory photo of a woman cradling her "sick child" to generate even more sympathy for immigrants. (Why is this front-page news? Because it's "for the children", of course.) The article is ostensibly about how legal immigrants must wait years in order to bring relatives to this country to live here legally as well. Why, then, is the main subject of the article, a woman named Mari Perez, here illegally, the daughter of a woman who was herself not legal until recently, when she finally received a green card after 20 years. Ms. Perez apparently wishes that once one member of a person's family finally becomes legal, that the entire family should then automatically become legal as well, no matter that all of them have been here illegally the entire time, cutting in front of people who waited and did things the right way.

From the article:

"An estimated 2 million people such as Perez linger on waiting lists to become legal, permanent residents of the United States. They are husbands, wives, children and siblings of legal immigrants, who under U.S. immigration law also qualify to live here legally."

If this were the case, I would feel sympathy for Ms. Perez. Her mother was not here legally until recently, however, and I do not feel that the mother should have been able to obtain a green card as well. Now that she has, however, this should have no bearing on the fact that others in her family are still here illegally. They should be required to return to their home countries and get in the back of the line.

"About 5,000 visas for unskilled workers are granted annually. And about 8 million undocumented workers would love to have one."

I'm sure they would. Unfortunately for them, the visas go to workers in other countries who apply for them, not to people who violate our laws and then expect to be rewarded. If more visas are necessary, then we should provide them, but not to the line-jumpers.

"Relatives of legal, permanent residents -- generally new arrivals with green cards -- wait longer than relatives of U.S. citizens".

Why not? Shouldn't being a citizen of a country count a little more than being someone who arrived last month?

"Said Perez: "Most Americans don't know how hard it is to become legal."

Of course they don't, because Americans by definition ARE legal. It should be hard to become legal, especially if one is already illegal, for all of the reasons I outlined above. We have immigration laws in order to control our borders and prevent people such as terrorists and people who are criminals in their home countries from coming in. When people openly flout the law, they create chaos and a mockery of our legal system, and should not be rewarded for that with legal status. There are plenty of laws that I do not like and think are unfair. I abide by them, however, until they are changed, because that is how we do things in this country. If everyone did what they pleased, we would be no better than the Third World countries that these people wish to leave. If some of these illegal immigrants stayed home and agitated for change, they could improve conditions there immensely.

Take Mexico, for example. The Mexican government is famously corrupt, and is under no pressure to change because the poor and underserved people simply leave, instead of staying and helping to improve their own country. A recent Reuters article claims that "One in seven Mexican workers have left their country and are working in the United States". This is great for Mexico, as they get rid of their poorest and most unskilled workers, who then send billions of dollars home each year, enriching the government while also enabling it to not have to provide services for these people. As long as the U.S. continues to serve as a "safety valve" for Mexico, there will be no positive change there. Mexico is not a poor country. They have lots of resources such as agriculture, tourism and oil, as well as a friendly, hard-working population with a rich culture of their own. They only need an honest government to allow them to develop into a First World country, in order to provide for all of their citizens. I have many friends and aquaintances who are legal immigrants to this country. To a person, they are bitter towards illegal aliens, and feel like chumps for following the law and doing things the right way when they see so much illegal immigration going on. This will only intensify if "amnesty" is offered to illegals.