ShareThis
by Arnold De Villa
July 16, 2011
Do human beings have a right to be free from any oppressive environment? Are there really loopholes within the current American Immigration laws? Is America’s immigration system really broken?
Even before I wrote last week’s article about Jose Antonio Vargas, the Pulitzer Prized undocumented journalist, a buzz was already ruminating around cyberspace. Unsolicited emails had echoed from one portal to another, mostly from our own. Some stood out because they were filled anger and hostility. Check this email out.
“There is not even the slightest legal basis to call yourself an American…
“You are indeed an “outlaw” in this country, we call America. Please do not take pride in being one. I am a Filipino like you, and I am deeply shamed with your brazenness and deviousness. Your actions in the past and in the present embarrass thousands of Filipino Americans who migrated to this country through honest, lawful ways…
“America’s immigration system is not “badly broken” as you claim (it) to be. It is one of the finest in this planet. It is only because of unscrupulous people like you that makes (sic) it appear as broken. Jose, please respect our immigration system as we honestly did. Please stop breaking it and please do not encourage more people to break it…”
The clippings above are from more than a single source; sent, re-sent and forwarded from one site to another. It seems that there are groups of individuals who will always be annoyed by the achievements and successes of their fellow human being, as if there were a pattern of irritated Filipino Americans who are first to criticize, comment and negatively assess anyone who might have skipped the normal immigration process, regardless of whatever life situation they might be in. Accusations, condemnation and borderline curses seem to come so easy and first from our own, perhaps creating the impression that we Filipinos do not like each other that much.
History records human struggle against oppression and injustice and the ignorance of other human beings who fail to understand and accept that despite individual differences, there are basic God given rights everyone is entitled to. The right to be free from any oppressive environment is basically a universal right to survive. When human survival is threatened, we will instinctively fight back to preserve our own. The immigration story is the same. When there are abuses, disorder and exploitation, oppression is applicable on all sides. The favored few will feel oppressed because the product of their labor will now have to be shared “illegally” to those who might not have worked for it. In this case, the author of the clips mentioned earlier might probably feel oppressed by those who enjoy the benefits of residing in the United States without passing through a legal tedious procedure. Going back to the civil rights movement, those who opposed it perhaps felt that a new group of people who never really intended to be in this country (e.g. African slaves who were shipped without their consent) are now fighting to have the same benefits without passing through the traditional means of acquiring them. It probably would have been different if this new people struggled to go back to Africa instead, the land where they do not have to fight for an inherent right.
Oppression emerges from the reality of undue burden, that which is akin to cruelty and unjust behavior. The poor can oppress the wealthy in the same token that the wealthy can oppress the poor. As it is true that anyone can be a burden, it is equally true that justice does not favor anyone. Absolute equality does not exist. It cannot exist. The rationale behind this lies on the principles of individualism. If every individual is different and no two persons are exactly the same, then it could follow from a logical standpoint that absolute equality among human beings is a contradiction in terms. This does not dispel the fact however, that a humane approach should altogether be scrapped in favor of an exclusively legalistic argument. Men write laws to assuage peace and order. Yet peace and order do not emerge from those laws unless justice is observed. And justice cannot be implemented when and if the authentic concern for another human being is given its due attention. The immigration law is perhaps broken because the dynamic changes in global demographics require that alterations and amendments be done. That which was applicable in an older era could be obsolete in current times.
I might be wrong, but it seems that Jose Antonio Vargas approaches the immigration debacle from the standpoint of “Who is an American”, a subtle implication that patriotism and “good citizenship” somewhat transcends legal documents and legislative structures. After all, long before the notions of sovereignty and nationality became part of the dictionary, a group of people living together in harmony, with or without a cohesive ethnic or legal identity, sufficed for that society and culture to exist. And then the crowd grew…
As I said before and say again, if only every sector fighting or defending their own human rights and private struggles approached the immigration conflict from the standpoint of the “other” as opposed to their own, a spirit of understanding could replace the hostile behavior of those who are frantically afraid of losing their own status. The difficulty in this approach is that there are certain politicians who have convinced themselves of championing what’s best for their constituents like no one else. In their struggle to win votes, they will be persuaded by the number of possible voters and not by working for a true common good. I believe that the obsolete provisions within the US immigration laws can only be resolved when both the politicians and constituents approach the issues without the need to seek for special favors or defending existing benefits. And with this, more answers are required. What do you think?