Below is a copy of an e-mail sent to Jack Welch and his response:
Dear Jack and Suzy,
First off, I really enjoy reading your columns; you are the most significant reason I continue to subscribe to BusinessWeek. Thank you for all you do.
Your Feb 25 article entitled "Immigration: A Reality Check", however, invoked a strong reaction and I felt I must respond to your thoughts. First, I felt it was irresponsible to consistently characterize this as in "immigration" issue rather than what it is - an "illegal immigration" issue. It is the "illegal" aspect that I object to, and by not including that important distinction, you distort the issue.
In the article you characterize the illegal immigration debate as an economic issue and a matter of realistic response. While the issue certainly has economic impacts, it is first and foremost a legal issue. If we are to ignore the law on the basis it will benefit us financially, we cross a moral and ethical boundary. Economic benefit does not confer legality upon an illegal act.
The law must be upheld. If we allow individuals do decide what laws should be followed and what laws can be ignored, the law loses all effect. We live in a society where the laws are agreed upon in advance. If laws are unjust, America provides the ability to change them going forward, but the current law must be enforced for us to have any confidence in the processes that provide our safety and security.
You say "[...] our borders were obviously not secure enough. So let's just say accountability for the problem can be shared and move on to solutions." While I am all for moving on to solutions, I believe it is improper to to say the US government shares in the responsibility when individuals make the decision to behave in an illegal manner. When I speed on the highway, I am able to do so because I realize there is a low probability I will be caught. This does not mean that the police are responsible for my actions, and I speed with the full recognition that, if caught, I will be subject to punishment under the law. The same should be true for those that weight the costs and benefits of entering the country illegally.
I am all for fixing the legal immigration pathway that is so woefully ignored in this debate. It is clearly broken and, if fixed, would lessen the incentive for those seeking a better life to break the law. But allowing more immigrates to enter this country legally is a separate issue from the enforcement of the existing law and dealing with those who chose to break the law to enter this country.
Of course, I am not suggesting that we send teams of bounty hunters out to round up all illegal immigrants and deport them. I do, however, suggest that we make every effort to identify illegal immigrants over the course of everyday actions (speeding tickets, traffic accidents, work applications) and to deport them when identified, as well as providing them a way to apply for legal immigration once they arrive in their native country.
You are right - this is a complex issue. I hope our elected officials are up to the task. Thank you for sharing your thoughts through your article and for being open to those who might hold a different opinion. I look forward to your future columns.
Response:
Thanks for your thoughtful response to our immigration column. All in, we received 436 emails about that column and 434 of them disagreed with us, most very, very strongly. I cannot say we would change our opinion now, but we do have a more complete sense of why people oppose our point of view. Like you, we hope the next administration can turn this complex mess into a workable solution for our country.
Thanks also for your nice words about our column.
Best,
Jack and Suzy
No comments:
Post a Comment