The Times Herald is running a three part series on immigration; part two, called “Living in the Shadows” by Jenny DeHuff, ran in Sunday’s edition, and this morning, editor Stan Huskey ran a column on it.
Ms. DeHuff’s piece attempts to paint a sympathetic picture of a woman and her child in abject poverty:
In an exclusive interview with The Times Herald, Arias, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, offered this reporter an expose, in an effort to clarify some points, offer her side of the story, and help Americans understand why she dodges immigration.
The last straw came on a hot summer day, more than decade ago, when Arias was living in Mexico City with several family members. Crowded in a small house with her mother, Arias was struggling to make a living for herself and her young daughter, “Jessica,” now 19.
A fruit truck drove through Arias’ neighborhood selling whole watermelons and watermelon slices, at five pesos a pop. Thirsty and hungry, her nine-year old pleaded for a morsel. After rummaging in the house for coins, Arias came up empty, not being able to afford even a slice of watermelon for her daughter. She realized something had to change.
It was not long after that Arias packed up her daughter and headed north toward the border.
She walked for eight hours with minimal food and water until she crossed the border, where a truck awaited her and brought her to the southern states.
Inquisitiveness is apparently not a trait of this reporter, since DeHuff never asks “Imelda” how it was that she found herself in such abject poverty with a child. Throughout the story, there is never a mention of a husband or father, but while the focus of this vignette was “Imelda’s” daughter, (indeed that was the only one she took north with her) her “children”–plural—are mentioned throughout.
Besides a general unwillingness to assimilate into American culture (and it’s worth noting here that “Imelda” has been in this country for TEN YEARS), hard work has been replaced by a bit of an entitlement mentality. “Imelda’s” daughter, “Jessica” feels no shame in calling attention to the hardship of having to pay the higher non-resident tuition for college. It seems never to occur to her that taxpaying citizens, of which her mother is not a member, subsidize the cost of Montgomery County Community College. We are just supposed to feel bad for her and sympathize with her struggle to “make a better life for herself.”
“Imelda” herself has the temerity to gripe about employers treating her like an “animal,” yet it never seems to occur to her that if she was here legally, she wouldn’t have to work for people who exploit her. If she spoke English, her chances of finding a better job would be improved. And if “Imelda” gets deported, we are now supposed to worry about the fate of her children, when clearly, “Imelda” herself gave no thought whatsoever to the consequences of breaking our laws when she came here.
While I can forgive DeHuff’s piece as a the consummation of a dewey-eyed cub reporter’s dream of a meaningful crusade on the side of social justice, Stan Huskey has been around long enough to know better. His piece started out fairly enough; Huskey states:
How many Native Americans do you know?
Not many, if any at all, right?
So why all the outcry over illegal immigrants?
I’ll tell you why, it’s the “illegal” part.
I don’t think many people have a problem with people who come here legally to make a better life for themselves or their family.
It’s the next sentence where he makes his mistake:
And yet, legal or illegal, when it comes to the Hispanic population, some people tend to lump them all together as one big problem for our country.
Straw man thus set up, Mr. Huskey climbs aboard his high horse and proceeds to lecture:
What Arizona and every other state in the nation should be doing is requiring employers to ask for documentation on every person they hire. We do it here at the paper, so why doesn’t everyone? You probably already know the answer — it’s because the people hiring illegal immigrants know they’re hiring illegal immigrants. They know it and they don’t want to change a thing because they’re getting good, cheap labor.
So why don’t we want them here?
Could it be because they don’t look, talk and act like us? Could it be because of the color of their skin?
I’m going to go with D, all of the above.
Look, folks, we have to figure out the illegal part. That’s all.
Hispanics have as much right to be here as everyone else. The illegal portion of the population is doing what darn near every one of us would do if we were faced with the same fate as “Imelda,” and rightfully so.
Are you folks really concerned about the law, Mr. Huskey appears to be asking, or are you just exhibiting antipathy towards those who look different than you while you cling to your guns and religion?
Funny since the election of the first post racial president, it seems that dissent can never be about the rule of law or the constititution, it always has to be about some deep seated, unacknowldeged fear of someone whose skin color is a few shades darker than yours. Or to put it another way, if you don’t like the way things are going, shut up, RACIST!
It seems to me that anyone who makes a statement claiming that the vast majority of illegal immigrants just want to come here, work hard and make a better life for themselves is just as guilty of making sweeping, stereotypical generalizations as someone who says all illegal immigrants steal jobs from Americans, services from taxpayers, and set up brothels and drug rings in our cities.
Lord knows we can find plenty of both types of immigrants on the streets of Norristown. Sometimes in the same illegal immigrant.
Huskey has a bit of a point about the employers who hire illegals, but at best I would say that’s a symbiotic relationship in that both parties are getting something out of it by breaking the law. In my mind, both parties should be punished.
To prove we’re all just uncompassionate racists, Huskey then doubles down on the race card by playing the moral equivalence card:
Native Americans are the only people who have absolute authority for being in this country, and there are very few left because the people who illegally immigrated to this country about 400 years ago nearly committed genocide on the race. And they probably did so because they didn’t look, talk and act like them. The color of their skin was off, too.
Hmmm. Sounds like someone really internalized Dances with Wolves.
Regardless of how the first settlers came here, right now, this is a nation of laws; it’s complete hogwash to say that only Native Americans have an absolute claim to this land. Exactly how far back in time should we go to redraw the world’s borders? Should all the European nations claim “natives only” on their lands and send their immigrants packing? Pick a date, someone, please, and let us know when only aboriginals can lay claim to the land they currently occupy. Then you be the first to turn over your deed.
Native Americans did not build this country or its great infrastructure as it exists today; it is the product of many people of many different backgrounds; a country that had not been “invaded” by the white man would look very different than the United States of today. Perhaps it would be better, perhaps it would be worse, but it’s worth remembering that there is a reason that people want to come to the United States of America, and it’s not because the Native Americans were here first. It has much more to do with the opportunities and freedom created by founding fathers.
I’ll leave the white-guilt and self flagellation to others; I cannot change my country’s history, and while there are events in our past for which this country should be less than proud, on the whole, America is the shining beacon of freedom and opportunity to the world; indeed, that is why so many want to come here.
Legal immigrants of the past were proud to call this country home and proud to call themselves Americans. That is not the case today with so many hyphenated Americans who seem to be more concerned with where they came from than where they are going. Legal immigrants of the past assimilated into our culture and learned our language. They yearned to rise above the ghettos and were not afraid to work toward building a better life for themselves and their progeny.
But from the tone of Ms. DeHuff’s piece, we are supposed to feel sorry for “Imelda’s” plight, which, we are led to believe, has been thrust upon her through circumstances wholly beyond her control. And Mr. Huskey insists that “only a heartless, soulless animal” would not feel compassion” for “Imelda.”
Is it too much to ask people like “Imelda” to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions? Is it too much to expect that if they want to avail themselves of the vast opportunities and freedom that this country has to offer that they agree to obey the first principles of our country: our laws?
Mr. Huskey’s piece, like Ms. DeHuff’s piece the day before, is deliberately designed to silence opposition to illegal immigration by painting the opponents of illegal immigration as racist, as prejudiced against ALL immigrants simply because these people are “different” from us.
They are different from us, Mr. Huskey.
We obey the law.
Comments, compliments or complaints? Email LisaMossie, Join the other 2 commenters or
Share This...
