“Freindly Fire Zone”

It is ironic that, at a time when Americans are celebrating their unique freedoms, a war still rages in this country concerning illegal immigration. There is fiery debate about amnesty, deportation and the building of a wall on the border. In the spirit of Independence Day, I thought it would be interesting to take a step back from the fray and gain the perspective of someone who emigrated to the United States and became an American citizen - legally, and with requisite blood, sweat, and tears.

Danny Cachuela hails from the Philippines, but he calls Pennsylvania home. Utilizing his resourcefulness and education, he held various positions throughout his corporate career, including serving as CEO of an international corporation. Danny now leads a successful real estate team at Prudential Fox and Roach in Newtown Square.

These are his thoughts:

Freindly Fire: When did you and your wife, Vickie, become United States citizens? What made you decide to leave your native land to do so?

Danny Cachuela: We applied in November 1986, and we became U.S. citizens in September 1987. Why? Because we believed in the unlimited opportunity in the United States, and we wanted to live the American Dream.

FF: How long was the process?

DC: It took as about 10 years to become permanent residents and another five to become U.S. citizens.

FF: What was entailed?

DC: The process was really easy; the difficult part was the wait. Vickie came in January 1970 as an exchange visitor nurse and petitioned to become a permanent resident in December 1970. At that point, she was classified as a "petitioner." I came from Canada in 1971 as a Canadian tourist (but as a Philippine citizen). Vickie and I decided to get married. Thereafter, I sent a letter to the immigration office and applied for permanent residence as well. At that point, I was also classified as a "petitioner." As such, both Vickie and I were allowed to work but not allowed to leave the U.S. Our turn to become permanent residents did not come until September 1981, 10 years later (due to quota requirements), when both Vickie and I received our so-called "green cards." Additionally, because we were required to live continuously in the U.S. for five years before we could apply for U.S. citizenship (and could apply only after receiving the green card), we opted not leave the country for the next five years, either. We applied for citizenship in November 1986 and were naturalized in September 1987. In summary, we had to stay in the U.S. a total of 15 years before we received our citizenship.

FF: It's incomprehensible to most Americans to leave your family and homeland for a decade and a half. That is a tremendous sacrifice.

DC: It was extremely difficult, but it was worth every tear.

FF: What are your thoughts on the immigration debate in the U.S.?

DC: I believe that each issue should be decided separately. I agree with neither blanket amnesty nor mass deportation.

The way I see it, most of those who came illegally did it in order to survive, although there may be some who came with criminal intent. I understand that the end does not justify the means. However, if the United States did not implement its own laws, such as strengthening border security, we have only our government to blame for that. If you open the door, it must mean it's okay to come in. Many times we have laws that we do not enforce, so how do we expect others to follow it? The word "illegal" is only a word unless the law is actually implemented.

However, I do believe that those who came illegally should not be allowed to get away with it so easily. They must be given the chance to earn their "residence" as well as "citizenship." One suggestion I heard is to make them pay (or perhaps "contribute" is a more suitable word) a fine that is commensurate with what they earn and use that money to fund strengthening our borders.

I believe that illegal immigrants should be required to apply for residence and citizenship in the same process that others had (and have) to go through, including the same time requirements. However, I do not believe in mass deportation because most of these people also contribute to our society. In fact, I don't know what the economic impact would be of a mass deportation. Many of these people are doing work that our citizens are not willing to do (for such a low pay rate) and at a rate that our businesses enjoy. If you think about it, who in the United States today are really the "natural" Americans? Remember that our forefathers were immigrants who forced themselves into this country. I also strongly believe that the so-called illegals should be required to learn how to speak English. To me, that's just common sense.

FF: What message do you feel an amnesty program sends to both Americans and foreigners?

DC: It becomes an open justification to ignore the law and that crime pays. Many who did not do what these illegals did will feel that they should have done something similar, sooner, to have taken advantage of the amnesty. And we don't want that. Again, blanket amnesty just does not make sense.

FF: A wall on the southern border has been funded for some time but not built. What does that say to you?

DC: That is what I was referring to when I say that our government is to blame due to neglect. So, why penalize others now for our own government's fault? We do many things (using security guards, building security fences, etc.) to deter the commission of a crime, not necessarily to catch those who commit crime. Why did we not do it? Between the immigrants and our government, I would blame our government more.

FF: Have you seen evidence that illegals working in the U.S. depress U.S. workers' wages?

DC: Numbers wise, I don't know how I could say that it does not - but probably not to any significant degree. My first reaction is to say that it did not depress U.S. worker's wages. However, if the illegals were not here to accept low wages, and our citizen workers are not willing to do the same job for the same low wage, I guess it would force employers to pay higher wages. However, I do not believe that the impact is anything significant. This is especially true today with our allowing jobs to be outsourced overseas to achieve the same result.

I believe that these are people who are willing to do the work that we are not willing to do. So, why not let them do it - but as legal, documented immigrants. I do not believe in job protection; I believe in being competitive. I came to this country knowing that I will be at a disadvantage because I am a foreigner. Meanwhile, citizens see it differently, meaning that I have an advantage for being a minority. I don't think so. I am always willing to compete by making myself better. In fact, I remember asking my employer when I first joined Sunoco if he was offering me the position just to meet their EOE quota. [i]I told him that if that were the reason, I would not join the company because I wanted to be hired for my capability.[/i] Of course, today I probably will not ask that question and will be happy to be given the opportunity to prove myself once I'm in. That was my youth then, but it showed the kind of principle, thinking and mentality I had as a foreign worker. Again, I felt I was at a disadvantage - not the other way around.

FF: Are illegals a threat to national security?

DC: I would not go that far to generalize this, although it certainly presents some threat. I say this because we have had illegals for years, but we feel this way now only because of recent events and conditions. Also, those who compromise our national security have the sole purpose of committing terrorist acts; I would not link them to the so-called "illegals."

FF: Turning back the clock, and given what you know now, would you do it again?

DC: Absolutely!