It is pretty ironic that I happened to read this five minutes after sitting with a customer who was born in Mexico and is not a US citizen, though his two children are. I sell insurance for State Farm, and I truly try to do what is best for every customer, no matter who they are. The man that I gave insurance quotes to tonight has every bit as much of a right to raise his family in this country as I do.

I think the problem that I have had in this whole mess is not that the people from other countries have come to our country, it is that they are breaking the "law" by not applying for citizenship legally. It is dangerous to allow people to break the law and have the authorities do nothing about it. Without a fear of the law, obviously all hell would break loose.

The hypocritical aspect about this is that I wouldn't wish having to go through the citizenship process on my worst enemy.

I agree with you Todd, the "American Dream" should be available to all of the people of this world. But, does that mean that we should just open our doors for all to rush in? In the short term, is a fence or tighter control of our borders such a bad thing? I beleive that 99% of the people who are in this country "illegally" would abide by our laws and would be great citizens, but in order to keep better track of the 1% of those who are not here to live peacefully, don't we need to have tight regulation? Or, is it impossible to keep track of those people anyway?

Todd, what do you think we should do?

This is such a complex issue that has many people questioning what they truly believe about our country and some of its basic principles. I live in San Diego and the city I am in has been a central focus for many of the protests surrounding this issue. In fact, a boycott is planned for next week in our town and I am very curious as to what the reaction will be.

I teach ESL and I would guess that 80% of my students are here illegally. Many are afraid to even tell me the truth ever since a few years back, CA tried to pass a law stating that undocumented children could not attend public school and the teachers would be the ones responsible for policing the issue. Thankfully, it didn't pass since immigrants getting an education and moving towards the "American dream" should not be the focus. I know many will say it is an issue because it makes our classrooms more crowded but as high school teacher with regular English classes that average 40 students, I would happily take students who are willing to learn and my ESL students work twice as hard as most of my students.

Unfortunately, the climate in CA has changed due to all the protests. Sadly, classes in two districts in my city actually closed school because they feared the violence that might ensue over this topic. Two days prior, students walked out of school and protested and it became ugly. I have no problem with the protests in fact, some are quite powerful and moving but many of these kids didn't even know what they were protesting. They were ripping down American flags and throwing things at police officers. LA based advocacy groups were sending reps here to lead the protests but their concerns were numbers, not creating a unified front. When the school districts organized a student forum as a place where students could take about the issues, two students showed up. If you give a good enough speech, high school students will protest just about anything. I know that many students had the right idea but when it lasted for a week and schools started to close, the public started to pull back their support for the issue itself since it was clouded by the politically motivated agenda.

For anyone that lives in border cities, we do feel the immediate effects of illegal immigration. I can't tell you the number times there have been horrific accidents when immigrant smugglers have driven with their lights off on the wrong side of the freeway to get people across. The gang problem in the SD area (and many other places as well) has become much larger and many of the members are here illegally. When caught, they are sent back and then they manage to get back across.  I experienced first hand the atrociously long emergency room waits that many people complain about when I had to go there three times during my pregnancy. Unfortunately, there are no other options but the emergency room for immigrants who do not have medical insurance or coverage.

I struggle with what would be the  best solution because in order to fully understand an issue you must be able to put yourself in someone else's situation and I can't even begin to imagine the degree of poverty and level of desperation that many of these people feel in their countries. If you have ever visited TJ and seen the horrific living condtions, you would understand. If I was born into those conditions and had children living there, I would do everything in my power to get myself and my family to a place that offered a better life. Even if it meant risking my life.

We can't "take away" services because we are not a third world country. People should not be left sick on the streets or be kicked out of school for not having the correct papers, but our infrastructure can not support an open door policy. We don't want to create an atmosphere of fear or intimidation which is what I fear will happen if some of these laws come into play. I know that my students were too scared to go on a field trip into downtown San Diego because they were afraid that the border patrol agents would pull them off the bus at the border check. It broke my heart that they would feel that way, regardless of how they got here.

Immigrants that are here working to make a better life should be supported but how do we distinguish the hard-working from the trouble-making when employers are "not allowed" to hire illegal immigrants. Who would admit that they are working for them so they would be able to stay? If we don't have the people power to allow legal immigrants to enter in a timely fashion, how could we ever keep track of the ones that are here illegally.

I thought writing about this issue would help me flush out some ideas, but I fear it is just confusing me more. I'm concerned that we are creating and "us" vs. "them" situation and reverting to the bad form of patriotism when people decide they own the country and have the power to say who belongs and who doesn't. Just from reading the letters to the editor in our local paper, I can tell this is an issue that is not going to go away. My belief is that when people need help, you help them. How that applies to this situation, I do not know but since our government is not known for helping in situations when it is needed, it is going to be up to us to do something about it.

Sorry for the rambling and confusion. I'm not even sure what my point was when I started but I do appreciate the fact that others are concerned and searching for answers just like me.

What would I do? It seems like such a complex topic when it comes down to it. I’ve spent several years of summers laying sod with a crew of mostly immigrant workers. Saw many evasion drills when the immigration officials swept through in their white vans. Speaking with a friend who owns a flooring business I am told that competition is difficult because “everyone” is hiring immigrant workers. This person told me he is trying desperately to hire “white” employees to avoid hiring immigrant workers, but that it is very difficult because the immigrants do a better job, are more reliable, and are cheaper. His recommendation was the “wall” because at least a wall is “humane”. No one has to get shot or have dangerous encounters with law officials. And in this scenario some measure of control, humane control is achieved.

To my view today a wall or electric fence or whatever is embarrassing, and unbecoming of a great nation. It is symbolic of the wrong attitude. America should be about the removal of walls and inequalities – not just within our boarders but outside it as well. This is cheaper, will add years to the earth, and will allow us a better lifestyle in the long run.

The whole idea of government and corporate structures, the way we conceive and empower them, is to behave a-morally; according self interest or ‘our’ interests and nothing else. Success expressed hierarchically, is how nations judge and make war each other. Our culture and thus we ourselves take refuge in the abstraction of nation and corporation, and thus are complicit in their crimes without we ourselves knowing their extent or taking responsibility for it. These are what I mean by economic structures of inequality – political, economic - those that strive by hook or crook to express success hierarchically thus generating myriad relationships and effects of inequality. I admit I pushed the slavery word in there for effect, but slavery is a form of inequality for sure, and both share very similar structures and justifications. We must see these structures for what they are and then somehow find the will to change them, even by not participating .

The other side of this fence argument is the “national security” issue. It’s amazing that national security is connected with social welfare, race, connected with education, connected with economics – all in this one issue of immigration. This forces a more comprehensive examination, wider in scope and that is why it is so puzzling, vexing. There is the “national security” issue of the fence; closely connected to the phenomenon of military activity everywhere directed against prospective terrorists, are all related to a basic attitude toward the world on which America basis its “policy”. It is the attitude of pre-emptive offense, of shutting people out, of ignoring and passing over the throng of suffering nations, AIDs in Africa, genocide in Darfur, the agony and inequality of our own disasters – all this corresponds to our unerringly predatory and interest driven a-moral action. This attitude towards the world yields: more danger, more hatred, resentment, poverty, crumbling of education, greater economic inequality, loss of hope and all the rest of it. While on the one hand we are stirring it up, batting at the wasp’s nest, on the other we are spending world fortunes to give ourselves “security”, hence, sewing even more seeds of resentment, distrust. I don’t think this is in our best interests. Peace I think can be conclusively proved to be cheaper and safer. A policy of welcome, compassion, of sharing, outreach and care for the world is ultimately more economically efficient by a long shot, as well as the basis of any real “security” to be enjoyed by our children.

“but can we just let them in?” is an omnipresent question we are all asking. If we by analogy imagine ourselves at dinner, and neighbors who suffer misfortunes are banging on our door. We wouldn’t never ask this question out loud. We will inconvenience ourselves, empty our refrigerator if necessary, without the slightest protest. Why is that which is natural and easy for us to do as individuals so impossible for us to do as a nation?

What America needs to do is to follow the trail blazed by the Europeans in their creation of the EU. This is a borderless model of a community of “nations” where there are no arbitrary boundaries imposed on employment and residency. Hence if I am Spanish I can move to Berlin and get a job there – there is an expression of and commitment to equality in this arrangement. These nations went through painful processes, sharing a currency and so on. If the world could follow such a model, then universal health care, equal opportunity for education, disability and working conditions – all that must slowly get equalized. In a global community thus leveled, lacking nation walls and the egocentric political ‘interests’ attached to them, lacking the burden of defending the walls and destroying the walls of others – we can tack on a couple more decades to life on earth maybe.

In the short run I think I favor enforcement of existing labor laws, some sort of fair and friendly legalization/naturalization (encouraging use of legal portals into the country) the extension of all educational and health services, in other words, force business and government and ourselves to invest in equality for everyone underneath our own roof. At the same time we should encourage/pressure take measures to grow a viable equality loving government in Mexico. We should also be forcing all corporations and businesses to comply with basic human standards in the way of labor laws/practices. There is no excuse for America to be the profiteers of child labor or any other injustices abroad. If an American company does business abroad they should be investing in equality abroad, same as at home.

Great comments all, and I really appreciate the philosophical dialogue here – it’s quite refreshing.  Yet as I am woefully and embarrassingly uneducated on this subject, I am also craving factual, current information that I’m hoping someone here can help with.  I have the following basic questions (again, forgive my ignorance):

What is the process for becoming a legal citizen of the US?

I’m familiar with past immigration and anti-immigration programs like the Hart-Cellar Act and the Chinese Exclusion Act, respectively.  What are the major immigration programs in place today?  Does the US officially exclude immigrants from specific countries (North Korea)?

Any explanations, links, sources, personal experiences would be appreciated.  Thanks.

Emily

Rob, I’m so pleased with the views you’ve put down here, and I hope you won’t mind if I take the opportunity to further mull over some of your points.  I am eager to learn and to be shown how the more Spartan ways of dealing with this problem can yield a more desireable outcome. I realize this is an extraordinarily complex landscape of problems and issues.  In part that is what attracts me to it so.  I know that my view may be niave and ill informed, – but still if it leads to a deeper more thoughtful discussion I think it is worth developing.  My responses are in blue.

For example, it seems to me that many of the "pro immigration reform" arguments start from the premise that illegals face terrible risk entering the country.  Thus, by removing the "illegal" label, and letting them in legally, the problem is solved.  But a credible argument could be made that keeping illegals out actually spares them the appalling suffering of the conditions illegals live under in this country.  Another popular argument is that illegals suffer by not receiving minimum wage, health care, etc.  But no one can deny that if all illegals were suddenly to receive minimum wage and health care, the economy and many "legal" workers would suffer as well.

I deny the above sentence on the basis that we will suffer a lot more if we refuse these people minimum wage, health care, education, and a fair process of naturalization.  By denying equality we are creating an underclass, a rather large one if we include the Latino/Hispanic community as a whole.  A resentful, uneducated, gang/crime ridden population is a greater evil then the public economic investment that would treat all under our roof with equality.

I do not think any of the above arguments solve the immigration problem; they just serve to point out the complexity of the situation and the futility of arguing from ignorance and emotion.

It is difficult to compare the U.S. to Europe or Asia.  Borders in Europe are not like borders here.  Unlike Euro countries, the U.S. / Mexico border is vast (so is the Canadian border!) and the disparity between the countries is huge.  I could be wrong, but I believe it is true that EU citizens are not free to simply migrate to any EU country.  They can go only if they have legal jobs.  I recently returned from living in London, England for 16 months, and gained some appreciation of the immigration problems there.  In a nutshell: liberalization of immigration laws respecting non-EU immigrants has caused tremendous problems.  In London (now called "Londonistan" affectionately by some), there is a huge Asian and Islamic population that is unhappy and not behaving very well.  In Germany, there are other serious economic problems brought on by allowing a lot of non-EU immigrants.

I also lived and worked in London, in a largely Pakistani neighborhood.  I am keenly aware of the racial difficulties there and elsewhere in Europe.  But this is really a situation which was caused by Colonialism, by the fact that “the sun never sets upon the British empire”.  The American melting pot was formed by immigration and slavery.  The European melting pot is a result of world conquest and colonialism.  Regardless of their causes, and the cause of our own melting pot, the only way out now to my view is as I said, to invest in equality.  If this doesn’t happen, then one is creating a population of resentment.  Or one needs to expel and purge the population along racial lines which is equally repugnant, and moreover impractical if not impossible.  We couldn't even move a couple hundred thousand people out of New Orleans.

Similarly, there is no likeness of our immigration situation to that of, say, many African countries or Middle Eastern countries, where there is a largely chaotic and lawless situation and borders are relatively meaningless.

The concept of opening America's borders to all Mexicans, Central Americans and Canadians to come in and enter the job market would be an economic catastrophe for all American citizens, including legal immigrants living within the system.  There is also the interesting argument that to vastly increase the flow of immigrants from Mexico and Central America would be unfair to the thousands and thousands of European, Asian and African would be immigrants who are waiting for visas.  They must follow the rules and do not have the geographic serendipity of being located in the same landmass.

Economic catastrophe is far from the worst evil that America and the world will endure.  Too often things are written off, or unwise actions are taken in the interests of the holy economy. For all practical purposes, the estimated 11-13 million and growing population of Mexican immigrants isn’t a prospective problem but a problem in full career.  They are here and coming already and it is not very challenging apparently, to get here.  I’m not convinced a legal entry is such a bad idea and that it would really lead to a devastatingly significant increase in the stream of people already flooding in.  I don't think anyone knows the answer to this.  I have mixed emotions about a fence, maybe it is part of the solution, I don’t have a solid opinion yet.  I'm surprised actually that there isn't a fence around america.  I have a fence around my yard.  Encouraging legal entry at least allows us to document and keep track those coming in.  I’m not seeing catastrophe endured by legal residences brought on by the ever increasing presence of Mexican immigrants, I’m rather seeing opportunism and inequality, and something akin to slave labor.  The creation of a second class population and the refusal to educate, and provide access to health care, and in short equality to those who are living and working among us I argue is the most catastrophic path we can walk down.  There seems to be less of a throng of European immigrants walking into the country, working and living amongst us, constituting our cities.  This is an altogether different set of issues, though I am mindful that other nationalities are seeking to immigrate to America as well.

It is also, perhaps, hubris, to assume that all illegal workers desire to live in this country and become citizens.  I believe it is true that many Mexican illegals regard Mexico as home (witness the prominence of the Mexican flag in recent protests), looking at America as a place to obtain higher wages to send back home where they can return after a few months and enjoy their families there.  Thus, you can make a credible argument that illegal workers are exploiting the U.S., not vice-versa.

I don’t disagree here, but I would add again, that if American corporations and business, such as GM for example, who are doing business in Mexico, were to invest in equality, as opposed to sweatshop labor, and all this – this would be an incentive to stay in one’s country would it not?

So, from a philosophical point of view, I hope that the above quick jaunt through bogus reasoning illustrates the danger of simplistic argument.  I agree with Todd that America has to improve and strive to alleviate suffering - both at home and across the borders.  This is not a situation we can cure with an act of Congress in the current session or any other near term sessions.  The issue is going to be around for a long time.  I think that Mexico has a tremendous responsibility to get involved in the solution.  Unfortunately, Mexico has a corrupt government and is not inclined to do much.  Much of our efforts will have to be directed there.

Meanwhile, we cannot promote and encourage lawlessness.  Our immigration laws are not inhumane.  In fact, they are quite enlightened when compared to most other countries.  The laws have to be enforced as humanely as possible.  That is our duty.

I agree here although what is being considered is a change in the law.  This discussion is around now because many feel our current laws and strategies are not working.  It is also our duty to address/redress ineffective laws and policies.

So, if I could have one wish, it would be that the emotion and false "humanity" could be removed from most of the debate.  We ARE a caring nation and we should begin with that premise.

I’m not convinced there is a factual basis to characterize our national and corporate action in the world and at home as caring.  I think this is a very dangerous assumption, although I know many individuals are caring.
 
Our country is faced with enormous pressure at the gates, and that is a strain to the system which, all would agree, is becoming a little like the hurricane waters held back by the levees in Louisiana.  Believe me, if the levees break, we are in for a disaster.

The way to alleviate pressure is to increase and promote equality inside and outside our boreders.

I find any economic concerns to be a bit repulsive. When our cumulative national debt already stands at $27,972.77 per citizen (as of 5/4/06) it is hard to claim any grievance when it comes to an economic impact. Anyone who honestly believes that we are operating with anything more than "Monopoly Money" is a fool or at least has been fooled. We will never be economically solvent and I do mean never. We are playing a game that we might as well keep playing. Our wealth is an illusion. Why not let others share in the illusion with us? At the very least we should be willing to extend the illusion to charity to the same length we are willing to extend it to tyranny. I wonder how many books, shoes, vaccinations or meals you could buy with the dollars spent to date on the war in Iraq?

The last thing we need to worry about is sharing our wealth. If you crunch the numbers, by adding 12 million people to our citizenry you would decrease our debt by $428.89 per citizen. Why share the wealth when you can share the debt .

Thanks,

Darren