illegal immigration reform? you're gonna have to dig a lot deeper

these days you can learn all about the different immigration reform options that are being debated....most of the arguments, regardless of stance, are pretty standard: we're a nation of immigrants, illegal means illegal, we need to close up our borders, they're taking away american jobs, they do jobs that americans aren't willing to take on, they're using tax dollars, etc. but i came upon an article that finally put out some arguments that were a bit more original and actually got to what i see as the source of the problem. i'm not gonna include the name of the writer b/c i want you the reader to not have any preconceived notions (this is what The Economist does). these statements are either sound and valid or not. if you don't see the soundness or validity, then you should share and it'll be fun (yes, learning is FuN): ...President Bush has offered an employers bill -- why does this not surprise? He'd increase enforcement at the border, but create a guest worker program so that employers could ship low wage immigrants in, so long as they promise to boot them out when they've finished exploiting them. When employers brought slaves to America, few objected as long as they were prepared to work without wages and without rights. When they began to demand equal rights, all hell broke loose. No one minded when Mexican farm workers came to pick the crops, do the lawns, clean the houses. When they started to demand the right to citizenship, to vote, to organize -- the furor started. American workers are sensibly worried that the flood of immigrant labor will bring lower wages as part of the global race to the bottom. But their complaint is with employers who prefer undocumented workers whom they can exploit without complaint, and with federal and state authorities who turn a blind eye to that exploitation. [Note: he's not talkin about the janitor at mcdonalds so much as the fruit pickers, which is by far the more common occupation for these workers] There is no way anyone is going to locate, arrest, detain and ship millions of undocumented workers out of America. Our choice is whether we want to maintain permanently a large underclass of undocumented workers that can be easily exploited by cynical employers, and slurred by callous politicians -- or whether we want to fulfill America's promise by providing them with a road to citizenship, benefiting from their willingness to work, pay taxes and contribute. How do we stop our country from being overrun by impoverished immigrants if we offer them pathways to citizenship? There is only one way -- and it is not mentioned in this debate. We passed a treaty called NAFTA with Mexico and Canada that guaranteed rights to employers and investors but not to workers. The results have been catastrophic. Wages in Mexico, the United States and Canada have fallen. Mexico now exports more cars to the United States than the United States exports to the world -- all made by U.S. companies benefiting from cheap labor in Mexico. And U.S. food exports have displaced millions of poor Mexican peasants and driven them from their communities. They don't come to the United States because they want to leave their homes. They come desperate for work. The only way to stop the flood of immigrants is to help lift their standards up, rather than drive ours down. When Europe created one trading union including impoverished Spain and Portugal, the high wage countries of the north spent billions on development in the poorer countries, while demanding that they adhere to labor rights, environmental protections and basic social protections. While those countries still are not as wealthy as those in the north, their people were given hope and opportunity -- and would much prefer to stay home. We can spend billions trying to lock immigrants out and hold those that come in down. Or we can devote energy and resources now wasted on a civil war in Iraq to help lift our neighbors up, gain real trading partners and significantly reduce the misery that drives people from their homes. Potential presidential candidates like Frist, Tancredo and even supposedly straight-talking John McCain won't say anything like this... many of us have this luxury of being able to choose b/w jobs or future endeavors ("capabilities" as Sen puts it). many believe that this freedom and ability to choose is our right, or at least we deserve such a luxury. if that's the case, then the illegal immigrants do not? is it our place to deny such an opportunity when our democracy has resulted in globalizing (NAFTA) policies which have displaced farmers and store owners around the world to the streets? most illegal immigrants come out of desperation and survival. why else would they risk their lives crossing the rio grande? i spoke with a 14 year old "illegal" honduran boy this summer in indy and he came with his mother while his father and sister were still in honduras. when i asked him when he'll see his family again, he said, "maybe never". clearly, these situations are desperate and unfortunately, as mentioned above, our very own government has a lot (not all) to do with creation of such condition. to further the argument that the proposed bills are inherently racist, i had the pleasure of watching CNN's lou dobbs get bitch slapped by Univision's Maria Elena Salinas in a tv debate. she points out that despite Mexico being the largest source of illegal immigrants, still over one million illegal immigrants are from Europe and another million plus from Asia and a quarter million from Africa. she then asks why all the proposed methods of enforcing such legislation involves investigating areas where hispanics are more prone to be working, and how the govt is going to search for the 100,000 plus blonde hair, blue eyed workers from germany or if the govt is going to go into china town to look for illegals. when asked if she think dobbs is racist, she tactfully replied "No". but i'll say what she was really thinks: Yes, and he's also fat. the path towards solutions should put race and free trade issues at the same level as, if not higher than, all the legal issues. the roots of immigration stem much deeper than just the evolution of laws. when i think about this issue in relation to my dad, i know that if my dad didn't get the foreign exchange student scholarship program and if korea was bordering the u.s., then i guarantee he would've still come over illegaly too and attempt to support his 9 brothers and sister and parents (farmers). there just wouldn't be any other way.