Don't tear down the wall

Last Tuesday, Lucha erected a temporary “border wall” on Low Plaza. The group aimed to raise awareness about the plight of illegal immigrants and the ostensible unfairness of a border wall. In the words of one of the leaders of Lucha, Malena Arnaud, BC ’11, “So much of U.S. money is funneled into building these walls, and the outcomes are ineffective and negative.”

That’s not true. A wall is not bad for immigrants, but good for them—and the stronger the wall, the better it is for all immigrants, both legal and illegal. Lucha is right on one count—undocumented workers are treated deplorably. In a survey of southern Latino workers by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 41 percent of undocumented workers reported wage theft. Beyond monetary cheating, 32 percent reported on-the-job injuries, and of those, only 37 percent reported adequate treatment or compensation. The remainder were either not treated, or outright fired. These abuses frequently go unreported because the workers, not being citizens, are afraid of deportation and unaware of laws that might protect them.

With over 11 million illegal residents in this country, an influx of more unregulated immigrants is not a solution to the problem, but part of it. More cheap and unregulated labor can only lead unscrupulous employers to treat workers as expendable as they depress wages further. That surplus of non-citizen labor also serves to punish immigrants who waited long years to obtain visas and immigrated legally, but are not skilled laborers.

But why do people immigrate illegally, rather than legally, especially given the abhorrent treatment that is so common? They take that bad risk because the alternative, legal immigration, is comparably slow and difficult. Illegal immigration requires no paperwork or waiting on sluggish bureaucracy. For instance, according to the Department of State Bulletin, applications filed after Jan. 1, 1994, for non-skilled laborers have yet to be looked at. There are longer wait times than that. In the case of one Ruth Ceballos, by the time her visa was approved, her children were no longer minors and thus could not immigrate with her. They had to restart the process.

Lizet Gonzalez, an illegal immigrant, traveled five days without food or water in order to cross over the border. She regrets breaking the law, but says that she wouldn’t have gotten in otherwise, given her poverty.

Legal immigration must be as fast and easy as possible, and illegal immigration prohibitively challenging. To that end, the wall should be expanded and the border protected to the point that illegal immigration is as difficult as possible.

After the border is secure, a limited amnesty period should be granted to every single illegal resident in the country who is not determined to be a criminal. As citizens, these people will be able to vote, pay taxes, collect Social Security, and earn at least minimum wage. They will be able to report employer abuses to police without fear of deportation. Their lives will be improved.

After amnesty, our failed naturalization process must be streamlined and shortened. Since only a fixed number of people can be supported by a given amount of land, immigration cannot be unlimited—but the maximum number of people possible should be allowed citizenship so that they, too, can work hard and have a piece of the American Dream.

For instance, instead of having six different agencies to deal with reams of forms filled with repetitive questions, we should have one body only for naturalization. Immigration should not require a lawyer to discern the forms, and it should not cost money to file the forms.

Lucha protested the wall as unfairly exclusive and thus wrong. A wall does keep people out, but the alternative is worse. An open and unregulated border paves the way for those entering to be mistreated and treated as an underpaid, unrepresented, politically powerless second class. Lucha is the only voice I’ve seen speaking about immigration on campus, and to move forward toward a solution, we need to move away from left and right slogans.

The author is a first-year in Columbia College.