The Edmond Sun

Opinion

March 28, 2008

The difference between illegal immigrants and us

EDMOND — Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

There’s been a lot of talk about House Bill 1804. Some people hate it, including most business leaders and many religious and humanitarian groups. Yet some are quite proud of it and point to the fact that some other states want to copy Oklahoma’s model. Maybe we shouldn’t be so proud.

Oklahoma wasn’t always the prosperous state it is today. In fact, in the Dust Bowl era of the Great Depression, Oklahoma suffered more than most of the rest of the country. Good jobs, or even bad ones, were hard to find. During the 1930s and 1940s, many moved their families to the West Coast where there was work and wages were good.

These people did something quite remarkable. They left the sovereign state of Oklahoma, crossed the sovereign states of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, and entered into and established permanent residence in the sovereign state of California, all without the permission of any of these states. So what you say! Any American can do that. Yes, that’s true. But Americans can do so only because the sovereign states of the United States of America have worked out a system of unimpeded cross-border passages, and they may move freely within the states of the union.

No law forbade the Okies from leaving Oklahoma without approval of the Oklahoma government, and no law forbade them from entering California.

Actually, in 1937 California did enact a statute that became known as the “anti-Okie law” aimed at preventing certain Americans from entering the state. But the law was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1941. This law was designed to protect California jobs and the economy from being hurt by all the invading Okies and other poor outsiders. Is this theme sounding a little familiar? Are you feeling a little offended yet?

Occasionally, some of these people were rounded up and deported. What was their crime? Picking cotton? If so, many Okies were guilty, too. In the ’50s and ’60s, many of the ranchers had yet to switch from Okies and Mexicans to mechanical pickers. So far as most people could tell, the deportations pleased no one: Not the unlucky individuals wrenched from their homes; not the ranchers and business owners who readily hired these hardworking people; and not the rest of residents.

La Migra — the immigration officers — was like a natural disaster. These obnoxious state functionaries descended on the community like a swarm of locusts, benefiting no one, yet collecting salaries at public expense for their mischief. Are we now suggesting we go back to these types of practices today to rid ourselves of illegal immigrants? Surely we’re better than that.

Some claim that the “illegals” crowd the public schools and hospitals, sucking resources away from the taxpayers. Most of us attended public schools. Whether your parents paid any more in taxes to the state of Oklahoma and the school district than the “illegals” paid is doubtful. Everybody, regardless of birthplace or documentation, pays excise, gasoline and general sales taxes whenever they make certain purchases.

Everybody, regardless of birthplace or documentation, pays the property tax indirectly whenever they rent a house or apartment. Everybody, regardless of birthplace or documentation, pays fees for tolls and other privileges.

I am not suggesting that we open our borders and turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. I am suggesting that we work harder to increase legal immigration. We clearly need these people and they want to come. As our population ages, we will need them even more.

As for the illegal immigrants already here, whether we like it or not, they’re here. Most are hard-working, productive members of our society trying to make a living and support their families like the rest of us. We need to find ways to help them become citizens and become even more productive members of our country.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. We already are seeing some of the adverse consequences of this misguided legislation and there is more to come.

Perhaps we Okies would do well to remember that the shoe was once on the other foot and we were once considered the invaders. That was unjust and so is this. If you look at it that way, maybe HB 1804 doesn’t make you so proud.



NICK MASSEY is an Edmond resident and a financial adviser who is a frequent guest analyst on CNBC and Bloomberg.

Text Only
Opinion
  • OUR VIEW: Feb. 14 vote about ideas

    If you read any of the letters to the editor in the past two weeks regarding Tuesday’s District 2 Edmond school board race, then you already know that this election is not about the individual candidates so much as it’s about what type of school board do Edmond residents really want governing their school district?

    February 11, 2012

  • What are your presidential 10 Commandments?

    As we brace for the upcoming presidential campaign, we should be honest about our responsibility in the process. Before we get pushed, pulled, bribed, frightened, bullied, flattered, fooled or charmed into voting for a candidate, let’s take a mature thoughtful look at what the profile of the president should look like. In order to do that, let’s do an exercise. Sit down with a pencil and paper and draft your proposal for the Ten Commandments to be obeyed by the president. Let me share some of my suggestions.

    February 11, 2012

  • What would Reagan do today in Oklahoma?

    As we celebrated the 101st anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth on Feb. 6, several of us at Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs started discussing what Reagan might do today. Here are some of the ideas we came up with.

    February 11, 2012

  • LETTER: School counselor says Roy ready to help all students

    February 9, 2012

  • LETTER: Supporter calls Duncan 'a firecracker'

    February 9, 2012

  • Consequences of an overregulated nation

    Overreaching government regulations are costing jobs and killing our economy. They are a heavy burden on our nation and its citizens — in some cases worse than our nation’s increasingly out-of-control debt.

    February 9, 2012

  • LETTER: Supporter: Duncan shows passion for children’s needs

    To the Editor:
    The families in the Edmond Public School District are fortunate to have Kathleen Duncan as their advocate on the Edmond Board of Education. Duncan has worked tirelessly for the welfare and benefit of the Edmond schools’ students.

    February 9, 2012

  • LETTER: Teacher supports Duncan’s re-election

    To the Editor:
    On Feb. 14 patrons of District 2 have an opportunity to re-elect the current president of the Edmond School Board, Kathleen Duncan. Duncan has served as a board member for 10 years. When people move to the Oklahoma City area, they buy a home here because of the exceptional quality of Edmond Public Schools. This speaks to Duncan’s goal of “Excellence in Education for All Edmond Public School Students.” 

    February 9, 2012

  • LETTER: Supporter: Duncan understands diverse issues

    To the Editor:
    Kathleen Duncan understands the diverse issues that effect our schools. She carefully studies the district’s issues and works tirelessly as an advocate for all students. Her votes as a board member have an impact for years to come and she takes that responsibility very seriously.

    February 9, 2012

  • LETTER: Reader says incumbent's personal agenda in the way

    February 8, 2012

Poll

Voters in the Edmond Public School District 2 will go to the polls from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Feb. 14 to decide between school board candidates Steve Roy and Kathleen Duncan. District 2 is roughly centered in northwest Edmond. Who will get your vote?

Steve Roy
Kathleen Duncan
     View Results