By Pam Robinson
"Invasion" is an angry, deeply troubling book on several fronts, though not limited to what the author would prefer her readers to find disturbing.
It should certainly make readers think. Think about the facts presented, and think about the motive and thought that led to this book, "Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists Criminals & Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores".
The matter of immigration, in itself a rather simple sounding concept, is fraught with controversy, corrupted by clashing facts, historical amnesia and misinterpretation, and community self-interest.
Oh, and race. Let's not forget that. (Does anyone really think that we treat Cubans one way because we're still shocked and appalled by Castro's communist behavior, while Haitians, who are starving, are less deserving? I know that's the law says but isn't it just maybe time to reconsider? Why don't we? Hmm. Picture starving Canadians desperately trying to make it across the Great Lakes. Looks different, doesn't it?)
But I wish the immigration mess were as simple as this author and the many TV shouting heads, on a variety of sides, make it out to be. Polemics make for great TV; solving problems, or even just understanding them, requires something better than the endless parade of alleged experts on every cable news show, all with their own agendas. Author Michelle Malkin is one of the chief guests these days on Fox, banging away at her thesis that liberal immigration policy led to the terrorist attack.
Malkin sees danger lurking everywhere, and finds enemies of America at nearly every turn, especially within the bureaucracies charged with protecting our shores while allowing the country to continue to grow through immigration.
There is no shortage, in these post-Sept.11 days, of examples of outrageously stupid, venal, reckless behavior on the part of the bureaucrats at the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Or other parts of government, which, with the help and encouragement of some U.S. industries, have allowed the wrong people into the country.
Here are some of her examples, and she has plenty:
The 12 American civilians murdered by people who immigrated, legally or illegally, into the country, and who, if someone had been paying attention, would never have been killed. (That's not counting the recent Washington area sniper case.)
The many law-enforcement officers slain on the streets by immigrants.
The INS issuance of visas to two of the Sept.11 hijackers, months after the attacks.
The obvious misrepresentation, by INS officials, of events, files and activities at a Miami detention center.
The obvious misrepresentation of operations at Miami airport, just in time for an inspection by INS bigwigs.
Bribery of an INS official in San Francisco
Bribery of an INS official in New Jersey
Bribery of an INS official in Hong Kong and Honduras
Bribery of an INS official in Russia
The visa waiver program, which allowed a variety of bad guys to enter the country without a visa.
The admittance of a variety of people convicted or wanted in the torture of dissidents in their own country.
The nakedly obvious attempts to speed immigration for people from certain countries for purely political reasons.
On and on, appalling when read in sequence. But...
Malkin is selective in her facts, understandable though that might be. Malkin has become a darling of the right, the daughter of immigrants herself, who stands ready to shut the doors on those who follow. Is she wrong? Is everything she says correct? Her book, written clearly and with the layman in mind, will inflame you, one way or another, regardless of your thinking on immigration.
But I wish I could see a little of the same outrage brought on behalf of people treated horribly by those same bureaucrats whose stupid, venal, reckless behavior has caused the immigrants great harm and kept them out of the country. Should it really take 14 years to unite a husband and wife, if one is left behind after one immigrates, legally? The processing of paperwork can indeed take that long, depending on the country. Does that time issue have any effect on why some choose to cross the border illegally? Should a child of an immigrant living here be expelled because her parent dies before she gets a green card? One mistake can void years of waiting, years of paperwork, with little legal recourse. Should immigration hearings be secret? Guess what? They are now.
That the Sept.11 attackers were able to freely do what they did, we should all occasionally remember, had virtually nothing to do with illegal immigration, and everything to do with our openness as a society, our foreign policy and who we are. And no, I am not criticizing us.
I wish, too, that someone would write a truly honest book, one that says, somewhere between the demands that all be let into the country if they so desire--regardless of their criminal records, regardless of their failure to follow the rules to immigrate--and those who would keep out all but a few, preferably European, or monied or somehow classier, less demanding, more willing to speak English immediately, blend in and stop demanding their human rights.
An honest book might force people in this country, too, to face facts and decide, truly, what they want this country to be and whether the benefits of immigration outweigh the cost.
Do people want to continue to turn a blind eye to the illegal immigrant, the guy who's cutting the lawn for a few dollars, because that's all the work he can get?
When people complain about illegal immigrants not paying taxes or clogging up the school system, is that really the issue?
Or is it that we don't want that Filipino family living next door to us?
Should people who are just trying to survive, often because their own countries' economies have been wrecked by larger powers, be afraid to report a crime police, get medical treatment, talk to their children's teachers?
There must be a better way. But...
It doesn't hurt to remember that traveling to other countries can involve serious restrictions: When I went to China in 1996 to adopt my daughter, I had to pledge not to write about my experiences or interview any Chinese citizens while I was there (and the Lutheran pastor in the group had to promise not to proselytize); while we were there, I know I was followed and photographed by a policeman on several occasions, and, as a visitor, I could expect to be viewed with suspicion. So it's not only here, not only post-Sept.11 Americans, who are paranoid about strangers.
But--again--what kind of country do we want to be? The repressive kind? Or one that isn't safe because anyone can walk in and nobody bothers to find out what they do once they get here? Should we be comparing ourselves to repressive regimes or should we be comparing ourselves to, oh, say, US?
There must be a better way.
A disclaimer: In the 1980s, after spending some time as a volunteer working with a Southeast Asian family that had suffered through three years of hard times in a refugee camp because they'd sided with the Americans during the Vietnam War, I spent a year working in a church-based immigration program. The red tape was stunning. Coming from a career where people must react quickly to immediate events, I found the shift to a program where both ecumenical church funds and government money and rules were involved quite painful. You did not want to mess with the government. All my life, I'd been told not to mess with the IRS. Well, you shouldn't mess with the INS, either. Ever. Because, if you're an immigrant, your life, your entire future, is in its hands. There's nothing you can do about it.
I can say I've come a long way from my earlier "let 'em all in" attitude but I can also say that I am no where near where Ms. Malkin is. Even given the events of Sept.11, I never will be. At least, I hope not.
That said, I confess to finding some demands of immigrant groups seriously and deeply irritating, the sense of entitlement overwhelming at times.
For example, when the widow of an illegal immigrant who was apparently killed at the World Trade Center insisted that the United States not only admit her to the country but issue her a green card to live here, I found myself getting angrier by the minute. The husband's death was a tragedy. The U.S. does not owe anyone residency to make up for it.
And watching a Middle Eastern man complain on TV that he'd been arrested for an immigration violation when he "only" overstayed his visa by four years, made me want to go down to the local INS office and picket until it closed. Not to mention wanting to reach into my TV set and slap the guy, who genuinely felt betrayed because the law was being enforced.
In the New York area, there have been several of what I call "poor immigrant" stories in recent months: the immigrant family that foolishly, and I mean FOOLISHLY, sent their daughter off to visit family in Russia, even though she didn't have the paperwork to travel back and forth, and then moaned and groaned when the INS didn't immediately let her back in; the immigrant wife of an American sick with cancer who is complaining that she might get arrested because her paperwork expired three years ago. I'm sorry, I'm out of patience. Do it right. And let's not even go near the outrageous behavior of Elian's Miami relatives who thought their alleged rights were more important than those of the boy's father.
But my personal irritants are selective, too, as are Ms. Malkin's, the difference being that I am willing to see other sides. Not just willing. It's imperative on all Americans to open their eyes, their hearts and see the truth. I think it's essential to welcome those who have proven they should get the chance to come here, to contribute, because it reminds us of who we are as a people.
The country was built on immigration; it continues to thrive with the youth and energy of so many who want to come here for many reasons: economic, political, religious, personal. In other words, for the same reasons that people have always come here, the same reasons that built the country in the first place. When the descendants of the English, Germans and Dutch ruled, the Irish and then the Italians and then the southern Europeans weren't wanted. Asians were never welcome; blacks came in chains. Now, we don't want Mexicans, or Salvadorans or Haitians. We have always found excuses to exclude--the population has grown too big, the economy is lousy, we must secure our borders, they have different values.
Malkin's book doesn't allow for gray areas, doesn't look for simpler solutions that would indeed control access to our country better while treating the people we want to come here better than they are now. We cannot point to our history with pride and then slam the door in every else's faces.
There must be a better way. Malkin's isn't it.