Mexican immigration - the bottom line....

Living in Arizona and before that, California, I'm well aware that we live in highly populated Indian lands which were either stolen from the indigenous Indians or bought from the Mexican government a century or so ago. (Texas was stolen, remember the Alamo?)

Our concern is not and should not be concerned with the indigenous peoples but what to do with their southern cousins who live impoverished lives in Mexico and wish to join their more affluent cousins to the north.

Mexico, with a Christian ‘go forth and multiply' culture without the European work ethic has become one of the most populous nations in the world unable to support its own citizens. Obviously even with sympathy and empathy, we can't permit that culture to over-ride our own where we actually have a negative native population growth except for immigration. And we all know that capitalism requires some population growth of constructive citizens.

Thus we do need tough new border security to prevent being overwhelmed with the Mexican poor and downtrodden.

Let me say at this time that I think the nonsense concerning terrorists which has been injected into this problem is simply a tactic our national ‘fear-mongers' are using to attract those few ‘chicken littles' who really are fearful of terrorist attacks. But terrorism is a different subject for another day.

Personally, I think a ‘super fence' for up to 2000 miles is excessive, infeasible, and frankly, politically stupid - and it will never be built! We can do better than that by making it virtually impossible for an ‘illegal' to get a job in the US at any level, with ultra severe penalties for anyone who violates such laws by hiring such ‘illegal's. It seems that we are already doing that to a limited extent.

My reasoning is that the only motive for Mexicans to cross the border is economic and thus the best solution is also economic through enforced legislation.

Many, mostly Republicans are upset that an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants may be allowed to become US citizens. They call it "amnesty" which rewards illegal immigrants who broke U.S. laws. Well, yes, but who are they, how long have they been here, what status have they achieved since they arrived?

Let me suggest that as we become aware of them for one reason or another, rather than deport them, we evaluate them individually in a good old capitalistic profit-loss manner. If they are solid citizens and have contributed to our nation's well-being without undue expense to the system - we keep ‘em and provide them with citizenship! Lets call it "amnesty with a touch of good old capitalistic greed".

The statement has been made that "Each low-skilled immigrant household that gets amnesty costs the American taxpayers nearly $20,000 each year...." I certainly don't have the ability to refute that statement and agree that those ‘illegal's who can't benefit our economy or cause severe loss through health or crime should certainly be returned - not accepted into our nation.

After all, we, as a people have never embraced welfare nor even shown much compassion - despite what you and I were taught in grade school about our history. The truth is that even before we were a nation we used the English system of "warning-out" described as follows:

Between 1750 and 1800, towns warned out thousands of unwelcome transients. The warning out system, used throughout New England, provided the means whereby town officials ensured that transients did not become eligible for poor relief in whatever community they were passing through. The settlement laws determined who had the legal right of residence in a particular town and hence who would be supported by that town if they fell on hard times. This was a system the colonists had brought with them from England, and for the most part, it ensured that everyone, pauper and property-holder alike, had some place where he or she "belonged." But in the increasingly mobile society of the late eighteenth century, the system became overburdened with large numbers of transients moving around New England in search of work, family, or opportunity.

Town officials spent a considerable amount of time keeping track of transients, warning them out, and sending them back to their supposed hometowns should they appear likely to require poor relief.
[Unwelcome Americans: Living on the Margin in Early New England. By RUTH WALLIS HERNDON. Early American Studies. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.)]

So let us admit that nothing is new in this respect.

It is for these reasons that the present bill in congress places limits on family-based immigration. It is certainly because of the increased concern that the immigrant family can't be self-supporting and would be a drain on the tax-paying economy.

Of a totally different nature is the dire need by primarily farmers to have a labor force to bring in the crops! Gringos, quite frankly are not only unwilling, but physically unable to do the stoop labor required in the hot fields to harvest our food - regardless of pay! Thus we desperately need a temporary worker program referred to as "the guest worker program" so that Mexicans who live in Mexico can come across the border to work in our fields, send their earnings back home to their families and return home at the end of the season. Some Mexican-Americans think that is de-humanizing, but I don't agree at all. How does that differ from some Americans going to Saudi Arabia to work in the oil fields at outrageous wages?

The problem with the old Braseros program was that there were labor camps run for the American farmers to house the migrant Mexicans. The problem with that program was that neither the farmers nor the labor camps were monitored by any level of government and capitalism was at its ugliest!

Certainly protections for guest workers in any new program should be guaranteed - perhaps with at least input if not oversight by the United Farm Workers union (UFW)!

It has been suggested that even these workers who wish should be offered some sort of path to citizenship. Those opposed to the program have chosen to severely limit the numbers of temporary workers - but in my opinion, that program should be need based.

As you can see, Mexican immigration is neither simple nor brown and white. We Americans have many faces ranging from those who feel sorry for anyone who lives a miserable existence to those who hate anyone who doesn't look just like they do, or work harder, or are richer or poorer or....

The bottom line is that we need some Mexicans, but certainly not all of them and we'd like to have the ones we get to become either productive American citizens or to go home to help raise the standards and welfare of their families and homes in Mexico.