I have no intention of boring my few loyal readers with the specifics of the 300+ page immigration reform bill that is being debated in the Senate currently but I must expose an interesting dichotomy inherent in the issue.
Though I am fully aware that not all illegal immigrants are Mexican, it is a high enough percentage to use Mexico as an example to prove a general rule. I am also going to state up front – even though it will become very clear as I lay out my argument - that I am a fan of Latin America's culture, language and most of all its people. This is not a racial issue.
Most people who argue about immigration reform focus on its effect (both positive and negative) on the United States. It obviously makes more sense to develop American law with American interests in mind, but that isn’t the angle from which I am going to approach this post. US law aside, the argument usually divides “bleeding heart liberals” from “cold-hearted conservatives”; ie compassion vs. rule-of-law. I don’t think anyone whose read my blog would have any trouble guessing which side I tend toward, but I contend that rule-of-law is actually more compassionate as well. Here’s my rational:
There are somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States as of today. Since we are using Mexico as an example for statistical purposes, let’s assume, based upon Pew Hispanic Center estimates, that roughly 60% of these are Mexican nationals. That gives us a minimum in the neighborhood of 7 million illegal Mexican citizens in the US.
Next number; estimates on remittances (foreign nationals sending money to their country of origin) to Mexico are as follows:
2003 - $12 billion
2006 - $23 billion
That is nearly a doubling of US dollars leaving the country in just 3 years. Obviously this figure also includes remittances by legal immigrants and naturalized citizens who send money to Mexico as well. Still, if the per capita remittance for the 7 million people is $2000/year (not a great number from my personal experience with the labor segment of the immigrant population), that’s $14 billion and more than half of the annual total for all Mexican immigrants.
Where does the compassion come in? Mexico is a nation of just under 110 million people with an average hourly manufacturing wage of $2.63 (barely 1/10 the US rate) despite being rich in oil, minerals, agriculture and having a potentially world-class tourist industry. Unfortunately, these natural resources have been managed by the elites in such a way that they only nominally benefit the common citizen. Many of the Mexicans not blessed with “noble birth,” but have motivation, work ethic and responsibilities that require an income, flee to the US where at worst they can make double the average wage available south of the border. They live frugally and join their 7 million compatriots sending $14 billion back to those they have promised to support.
How does this concern those of us here in the States who have compassion on these people whose primary motivation is an honorable one? The answer is this: the $23 billion that goes to Mexico has become that nation’s top source of income, thereby allowing the leadership in Mexico to continue ignoring the needs of their population. Which of the following is more compassionate?
1. Not close a porous yet treacherous border so that some 7 million desperate people can roll the dice, hoping to taste a shadow of the American dream.
OR
2. Utilize the ingenuity of the American spirit to seal our southern border, deport those who are found to be foreign felons, revamp the criteria for legal immigration (to allow MORE hard working Mexicans to come legally) and put the burden on the Mexican elites to allow the riches of their nation to make life better for a much higher percentage of their population.
If we do not at least make an effort towards the latter we are, in effect, supporting the unjust disparity of wealth in a nation that is on the cusp of fulfilling the economic promise its wonderful people deserve. By not closing our border, we provide the method by which the ultra-wealthy of Mexico maintain the status quo.
UPDATE: Yesterday, soon after this posted, the Senate voted for cloture (ending debate and bringing the bill to a vote) and came up significantly short of the 60 votes needed. Public sentiment seems a bit schizophrenic in that a majority wants the borders closed and the law enforced while still favoring a regularization of the 12-20 million already here.
The bottom line is this: If the Senate would put a serious and irrevocable effort into closing the border to illegal entry, many of those on my side of the debate would look favorably upon being generous to those already here. What is unacceptable is the idea that we give blanket regularization to millions without any honest effort to stop the next 30 million. In 1986 amnesty was granted to 3 million with empty promises to close the border and that gave us the number we have today.
Posts
Hey man, that’s an interesting view – to look at it from the Mexican perspective. I’m trying to connect how sealing the border would force a change in the status quo though. Are you saying that doing that would force them to confront the issues in their country, instead of running to the U.S.? If so, history seems to suggest that the method may come down to a revolution and/or civil war. I would think the wealthy elite would be hand in hand with the government, meaning the people may not be able to look to the government to protect their interests. Do you know if this is the case? If not, do the people have the method to make changes? I really have no idea, but the fact that they are running makes me think not…or at least running is the easier of the two. I'd be interested to know what you think or have heard.
ReplyDeletep.s. these questions don't mean I don't support border control...just that I'm curious in what people say may happen in Mexico if we seal the border.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the questions and I really am thankful for you honest assessment. I realize that this post is not one of my best composed pieces and doesn’t fully explain my position.
ReplyDeleteI will concede that "forcing the hand" of the Mexican government/elite (the government IS the elite) makes revolution more likely, but only marginally. While it is not on par with the US economically, Mexico is improving and has been a stable democracy for almost a century. The orderly transition of power has been the norm for quite some time and a democratic wave of public sentiment for change would very likely be peaceful.
My point about the remittances is that the Mexican government relies on them to pacify the populace and discourage change (aka. weaken their position of control). They go so far as to supply booklets of tips to facilitate illegal border crossings. They are exporting their unemployment. Reasonable estimates show that roughly 10% of the Mexican population is in the US at any given time.
Of course, they bemoan any efforts by the US to strengthen our border, while hypocritically militarizing their southern border with Guatemala, thereby blocking immigration (or pass-through) from the less stable and economically viable nations of Central America – and I believe they are right in doing so.
I can’t speak for the entire enforce-the-borders crowd, but I am happy to have 10% of the Mexican population here if they are non-criminal, productive members of our society. See my update to the post for the recent activity in the debate in the Senate.