« Colorado Civil Rights Initiative Clears One Hurdle | Main | Plans, Principles, Preferences »

Preferential Treatment For The (Formerly?) Illegal Immigrants

Today Ward Connerly and a group of other worthies (and one considerably less worthy: me) have signed a full page open letter, published in the Washington Times, calling on Congress to bar immigrants legalized by the legislation currently before the United States Senate from receiving preferences based on race, sex, national origin, or color.

Here is the text of the letter, minus the fancy layout and graphics:

Immigration Reform Must Address Race Preferences

For many years now, our nation has debated the merits of race preferences (“affirmative action”). This debate has been conducted in our legislatures, our courts, our schools, our communities and at the ballot box. Now, our nation is engaged in a debate about immigration. This debate is wide ranging and many people honorably and strenuously disagree over what course America should take. However, immigration and race preferences cannot be considered in isolation. Under existing laws and policies, the majority of immigrants coming to America will automatically be eligible for race preferences and privileges not provided to the great majority of Americans.

This is unfair! As voters in California, Washington and Michigan made clear in their overwhelming support of ballot measures banning government mandated racial preferences – and as voters in five other states will have the opportunity to prove again in November 2008 – the American people strongly oppose the idea that our government should treat us differently based on race, ethnicity, sex or national origin. They understand that while preferences were aimed at giving a helping hand to those who had historically suffered discrimination, in practice they have served above all to compound injustice, needlessly breeding resentment by systematically privileging some Americans over others. Yet, immigrants cannot even claim to be victims of the historical discrimination that “affirmative action” was designed to redress. It is essential that any new immigration legislation not perpetuate – indeed not exacerbate – these injustices. Any new legislation should include carefully drafted provisions to ensure that the new immigrants and their children not be afforded any special privileges that put existing Americans, including minority Americans who have suffered actual discrimination in the past, at a disadvantage. We, the undersigned, hold a variety of views about immigration. But we are united in the conviction that each individual should be judged on his or her merits. While immigrants and their descendants should be afforded the right to compete fairly and freely in every aspect of American life, they should receive no special benefi ts on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity or national origin. We have drafted language that would enable the Congress to preserve this very important objective.

Ours is a nation dedicated to the proposition that all of us should be treated as equals under the law. Those who seek to join the American family should likewise be treated as equals. No individual or group of individuals should bring to our land an expectation for a future entitlement to preferential treatment – and under no circumstances should we grant it.

Now that the immigration bill is dead, for now, or at least dormant, there will be time to consider the best way to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving preferential treatment before the next attack of “comprehensive reform.”

My suggestion? A provision barring preferential treatment based on ethnicity or national origin to anyone — both native born and naturalized citizens; both legal and illegal immigrants; permanent resident aliens, guest workers, everybody — in all federal programs and programs receiving any federal assistance. In other words, sort of a junior version of the state civil rights initiatives.

It has never made any sense to give preferential treatment to immigrants, legal or illegal, or to native born Hispanics who have been here in some instances longer than either blacks or whites.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.discriminations.us/sa/mt-tb.cgi/6197

Say What?

Was Linda Chavez one of the signatories?

Just found the text of the letter, and indeed Linda Chavez signed it.

Again, even if such an amendment became law, the severe underrepresentation of Latinos in professional fields and higher education due to massive immigration of the poorly educated, would generate incredible pressure for preferences.

President Dynes of the University of California system said as much when he expressed his wish that a Latino majority could result in the reversal of Prop. 209.

That "incredible pressure for preferences" supports the argument for making them illegal.

As Linda Chavez's signing the ad illustrates, there is no inconsistency between favoring a generous immigration policy and opposing preferential treatment of anyone, including immigrants, based on race or ethnicity.

BRAVO! to John's suggestion: "A provision barring preferential treatment based on ethnicity or national origin to anyone — both native born and naturalized citizens; both legal and illegal immigrants; permanent resident aliens, guest workers, everybody — in all federal programs and programs receiving any federal assistance. In other words, sort of a junior version of the state civil rights initiatives."

The provisions described in the Open Letter sound like a great start. But it's unclear whom they would cover. The Open Letter suggests a limitation to NEW immigrants and their children. But John's lead indicates the preference bar would extend to any immigrants who would be legalized by the new legislation, which could include the 12 million or so illegal aliens already here. What does the language drafted by or for Connerly et al. actually say?

As a practical matter, anything that reduces the amount of racial preferences is good. Furthermore, this letter capitalizes on a situation in which the absurdity of preferences may be especially salient to some.

Yet the proposal, which bars only a select group of individuals from preferential treatment, seems flawed and inelegant in comparison with the state initiatives that you and most of the other signatories have supported (basically, "nobody shall receive preferences").

The letter bothers me, because if everybody should be treated equally, then why are immigrants treated more equally than others? Native minorities, currently preferred above Asians and whites, will now also be preferred above immigrant minorities.

Also, a matter of wording: The proposal specifies "new immigrants and their children." Does this include grandchildren and so on? What if a hispanic immigrant had a child with a minority who would still be legally eligible for preferences? What would be the legal status of their children? Then again, racial preferences as they stand require the same questions to be asked of bi-racial individuals.

Jian - Good points. I can't speak for the other signatories, but I do know that none of them/us favors race/ethnic preferences for anyone, native-born, naturalized, or "un-documented." I think the point of the letter/ad was to highlight the absurdity of giving preferences to the recently legalized. The cost of doing that might have been to imply acceptance of preferences for others, but we thought the benefit outweighed that cost. Besides, as you point out very well, the absurdity of preferences would become even more clear in the unlikely event the Congress took our suggestion seriously and actually tried to embody it in legislation.

Post a comment