As you history buffs know, the "absolut world" depicted here is what the U.S. / Mexico border would look like were it not for the 1845 annexation of Texas, and the 1848 Mexican-American war. The implications of the ad, run in Mexico, have stirred the crazies up North, and prompted some of the too-be-expected justifications for the war. Some are even suggesting that the territory never belonged to Mexico in the first place.

Laying aside that false argument, the ad underlines the irony involved in our current immigration problem; Mexicans are illegal in a land that was (let's call it like it is) stolen from Mexico 160 years ago.

If you think my use of the "stolen" is too strong, compare it with the words of a lieutenant who served in the war - future General of the Union Army, and President of the United States, Ulysses Grant;

to this day I regard the war which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger nation against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their decision to acquire additional territory. — pg. 25 Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant

If Ulysses had his way, and Manifest Destiny hadn't been so, well, manifest, the current global distribution of power and wealth — indeed, the last 160 years of history — would be considerably altered; as this article from the Globalist points out, one quarter of the United States was once Mexican territory, which in turn produces about one quarter of U.S. GDP.

As xenophobia and racism infect the debate over immigration, it's important we question the term "illegal."

***Comedian Charlie Hill on the Richard Pryor Show back in the day, definitely worth your while:

Today at Take Back America a panel titled Immigrants and the Soul of America focused on the issue of illegal immigration. In the final analysis, the panel was a disappointment, and offered very little substantive information. Talk centered around ideals, morality, and self-improvement, preaching to the choir at the expense of conducting a more productive discussion.

Very quickly it became apparent that panel members unanimously agreed that the issue of immigration reform is best framed as a fight for the soul of America. Speakers related stories of unfair treatment of illegal immigrants, painting the issue as "the new civil rights frontier," a matter of "good people and bad laws, not bad people and good laws," and "a seige on the Latino Community." It was all lofty, and justified, but wholly inappropriate given the context.

Take Back America is a progressive event, which means it is not only acceptable, it is necessary, that speakers assume their audience stands on the same progressive platform. So why waste your hour and a half preaching to the choir? Yes, we all agree that there is need for humane reform of immigration laws. Yes, we recognize that civil rights are being violated in our current approach. But we didn't come here to have views reinforced. We came to seek out solutions.

We want tools to organize, we want refined arguments, we want information on initiatives, programs, coordinators. We want effective refutations of the arguments that opponents of humane immigration reform rely on. Instead, we got idealism, and the frame of "morality." It should be obvious to anyone who is paid to work on this issue, as all the panel members are, that progressives already have their fair share of idealism. It should be equally obvious that most, if not all, individuals who are willing to see immigration as an issue of human rights are already on our side.

In my view, there are two general categories of "anti-immigrant" voters; racists, and those who are concerned about the economic impact of illegal immigration. Progressive activists citing verses from Leviticus will not change racist attitudes, and it will certainly not alleviate economic concerns. A focus on the "morality" of a humane stance is important, but, when we've gathered together folks who have demonstrated their willingness to volunteer time, sweat and intellect to help the cause, we shouldn't dwell on common ground. We should develop the tools we need to push ahead.

These professionals need to come packing precise knowledge on the obstacles; data, numbers, facts and effective talking points that can appeal to an opponent's self-interest. Economics is a perfect means of doing that. But during the entire hour and a half there was no mention of illegal immigration's effect on the economy, no mention of its perceived benefits or disadvantages. There was no mention of the possibility that the economic frame is the most compelling rebuttal to the racism-infused "rule of law" frame that anti-immigrant groups push.

When the people who are supposedly in the vanguard of a movement use their 1 and 1/2 hours in vain, it's no wonder more advances on this issue aren't being made. The real progress we seek on this particular issue won't come until we're organizing more intelligently, and, in addition to debating from the pulpit, we're debating from the pocketbook.

Yesterday in Michigan a law went into effect that will ban undocumented aliens from getting drivers licenses. All but a few states have now cracked down on illegal immigration by refusing to issue licenses to those who cannot prove their resident status, sparking a debate that has made the Democratic presidential candidates more than a little uncomfortable this election.

As with most anti-immigration policies, there is a certain shallow logic behind denying illegal aliens drivers licenses. For whatever reason state-issued licenses have become ubiquitously-accepted ID in the U.S., allowing us to do things like take commercial flights. All the hijackers on 9/11 had licenses, so naturally we can conclude that had they been denied drivers licenses they never would have attacked our country.

Whatever.

9/11 had nothing to do with drivers licenses, just like illegal immigration has nothing to do with drivers licenses. Americans are angry about illegal immigration because some extremely deft politicians have bamboozled us into believing that rowdy Mexicans are responsible for stealing "our" jobs, stealing our healthcare, and making our streets more dangerous, all of which will be rectified if we just stop doing things like issuing them drivers licenses.

The American Resistance, a particularly scary organization dedicated to keeping illegal immigrants out of America, adds this enlightening remark to the drivers license debate:

One of the arguments in favor of issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens is that it will make our roads safer. This is not likely, as someone who has broken U.S. law to come here will most likely continue to break our laws - including traffic laws - and to drive without insurance and to obtain "breeder" licenses under false names.

First of all, what the hell is a "breeder" license?

Second, by this very argument illegal aliens have little incentive to observe easily-transgressible laws — like traffic laws — when their very existence is already a crime.

While it is true that a licensed illegal driver may "continue to break our laws" and speed recklessly down the freeway, there is nothing about driving recklessly that is exclusive to illegal immigrants. Moreover, given a choice do you think a reckless illegal driver would rather drive without a license if one were available to him? Do you think he would rather put himself at risk of being pulled over and ticketed or being pulled over and deported?

I come from a city chock-full of illegal aliens, and can assure you that driving without proper documentation — just like working, traveling, marrying, raising families, and breathing without documentation — doesn't deter anyone from coming to America. Illegal aliens will drive regardless of whether we issue them licenses, but issuing them anyway is the only meaningful incentive we have — short of barricading all the nation's roads — to make sure individuals have at least seen the rulebook and the inside of a car before getting behind the wheel.

What's more, the ill judgment surrounding states' decision to ban undocumented residents from obtaining licenses is indicative of a much larger and deeper set of misguided attitudes toward illegal immigration. Aside from the very real concern that to be "anti-immigration" is to be fundamentally against our heritage as Americans, it is also just plain stupid, for the same reason that criminalizing drugs and prostitution is also stupid. People need an incentive to go about their lives in a way that doesn't threaten public safety, and relegating them and their activities to the shadows encourages exactly the opposite. Deny a man status and he is neither protected by nor subject to the law. Give a man status and he becomes part of our system, and therefore has something to lose by not obeying the law.

Making the lives of illegal aliens more and more illicit is thus doubly moronic. It neither deters immigration nor enhances public safety. It's time the Democratic candidates start framing the illegal immigration debate in terms of its root causes — like global poverty — rather than its symptoms. To not do so is to facilitate the degradation of public safety on our roads, and in a country as dependent on car travel as ours, this would be a very bad thing.

The Political Motivations for the “Sort Of” Debate

Immigration is an issue I truly dislike discussing. Personally I agree with Dick Cheney, who during the VP debates in 2000 stated, “Freedom means freedom for everybody.” America is the "land of the free," so shouldn’t it follow that anyone who wants our freedom can obtain it? But freedom, of course, doesn't mean there are no limits - but that's the really tricky part. I’m going to try to avoid talking about that as much as possible. Instead, I’ll lend you my opinions from my area of expertise, which is why some politicians even talk about the issue in the first place, and why others refuse to touch it.

The heart of the immigration (or anti-immigration) issue rests within the Republican Party's feelings towards non-white potential voters. On the one hand they need to rally their base, especially in the south, and there they use the idea that Mexicans are crossing the border illegally in order to specifically take John Q/Jane Q Public’s job. On the other hand, they’re actively courting the Latino Vote as the new “soccer mom” demographic. Let’s look at this politically, shall we?

The Prescription

Immigration Reform has long been an issue on the lips of President Bush, with the proposed solution remaining relatively unchanged by time. While the legislation that is eventually passed will surely differ from Bush’s proposal, his plan does address the basic issues that most often arise during debate on the topic. The plan is one of five points, and it breaks down as follows;

I must admit, I am not inclined to mass protests. To me, protest culture seems anachronistic, a product of the 1960's when large rallies really meant something. However, there is no doubting the power you feel when you see tens of thousands of people marching for a cause.

I am trying to emigrate from the United States to the United Kingdom and I'm having more trouble than I think I should be. Why do I feel that I should be entitled to emigrate easily where others have so much trouble? Because I think I am the perfect immigrant.

Many policy ideas on immigration in the US and Europe deal with containing and controlling immigration. One extreme example is the recent talk in the US about building a wall on the border with Mexico, a suggestion that has provoked fierce debate and deep anger.

But immigration, legal and clandestine, is not going away. Rather than hide behind walls and nationalism, Europe and America should transform immigration: by making it even more beneficial for our societies than it already is, and by using the flow of ideas and skills that is promoted by immigration to address global issues such as healthcare.

The proposal outlined below attempts to address three major problems - immigration, African poverty and underdevelopment, and a global shortage of healthcare workers - by treating them as inter-related. But first, let's briefly review some facts and trends.

Building on our May issue tackling immigration issues, this week we ask what kinds of immigration reform you support. But first, last week's results:

On the question of whether Alberto Gonzales and Paul Wolfowitz (both under fire for various scandals) would resign from their jobs by June, most of you (40%) voted that they would stay. The rest of the votes were spread out between the various answers, with a notable optimistic bunch (20%) saying that Wolfowitz, Gonzales, AND Karl Rove would be gone. We shall see what actually happened. Thank you for your votes!

This week's question: What kinds of immigration reform do you support? Do you support liberal reforms such as open borders, moderate reforms like guest worker programs, or a tightening of immigration laws?

Voting is in progress in our sidebar to the right! Go out and make your opinion known!

Anyone who has been to Britain in recent years has undoubtedly seen the influence of the most recent wave of immigration on British society. In central London, a visitor would be hard-pressed to walk a few blocks before over-hearing a conversation in Polish or spotting a Polish-language advertisement in a shop window. To say the least, the Poles are everywhere in Britain, touching every aspect of British life–from education to dentistry, manufacturing to hospitality and religion–and new immigrants arrive each day, flying on budget airlines that have sprung up to shuttle migrants across the continent. While it may seem like Britain is being overrun with Polish immigrants, contrary to initial negative speculation, the influence of Polish immigration on British society has been overwhelmingly positive. Opening its borders to workers from a less-developed nation boosted the British economy and may offer a strategy for easing America's immigrant woes.