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:

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.

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.

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?

Americans of Latin descent overwhelmingly make their homes along the border of the United States and Mexico. This is not to say that this is the only place Latin-Americans live, but just that it’s the most common, especially when we’re discussing the issue of immigration. President Bush, I believe, truly does not care about this issue, for I actually feel (yes, and I think he’s right on the issue) that he’s more sympathetic towards Latinos than he gets credit for, hence his weak-ass immigration platform that really didn’t get him any votes either way in the 2004 election. ‘Guest Worker’ doesn’t rally the faithful or piss off Latinos…it’s a “here you go” solution to a question that is raised by activists on both sides of the aisle.

Latino voters are interesting, though, because they blend with the ideals from both parties on different levels. Latino Voters (by this I mean, overwhelmingly, Cubans and Mexicans) are, for the most part, socially conservative when it comes to issues of homosexuality and abortion, but on the flip side they’re incredibly liberal on issues of overall equality, freedom, and workers’ rights. Illegal immigrants work shit jobs, whereas legalized immigrants tend to own small businesses and just want their shot at the “American Dream.”

Immigration, amongst the Latino group, becomes even more complex when discussing who really benefits: The majority of illegal immigrants within the United States work low-paying jobs without health care at ridiculous hours per week. A naturally born American citizen would not work these hours, but illegal immigrants do. Who does this benefit? It doesn’t benefit the worker, but rather the consumer (low product prices) and the business owner (higher revenues at a lower cost). So, follow the money: Business Owners, for the most part, vote Republican because the Republican Party gives more tax breaks to business owners at all levels, but the Republican Party faithful (the larger percentage of voters within the Party) wants no immigrants for, more or less, racial reasons. So what does the Republican Party do? How do they keep the faithful in tow yet also keep Big Business owners happy (and contributing and voting)? Here’s how!

Republicans make immigration a wedge issue! The immigration issue in America is almost equal to the abortion issue, meaning that it’s brought up just enough to piss people off, yet nothing is really going to change. Some in politics have proposed building a wall spanning the entirety of the America/Mexico border. Not to sound racist, but who do you think is actually going to end up building that wall? I’ve been to those parts of America, and the thought of an entire white-male/female crew building a wall from south Texas to southern California is just, well, unbelievable. It’s also unbelievable that this sort of endeavor will actually happen, but it’s brought up for one reason and that reason is to divide one argument from the other. Other ideas that have been proposed include finding and tossing out all illegal immigrants, as well as some 2-year work-here agreement that was honestly so ridiculous I stopped listening. A paid internship for freedom? Give me a break!

Speaking of big business, perhaps if America invested in the Mexican economy rather than exploiting it then people wouldn’t have to come to America in the first place. Maybe if companies like GM didn’t close down plants in Michigan and move the business to Mexico only to pay workers there next to nothing we wouldn’t have this problem. If GM opened a plant in Mexico and paid a salary equal to what they paid here they could create a spark…the only problem is GM won’t go to Mexico and do that when they can stay here and do it. In the end they just want to increase the size of their own wallets. The idea that Mexican workers are “taking our jobs” seems ridiculous when in reality the CEOs of America are giving our jobs away just to make, or save, a few bucks.

In order to not sound completely racist, Republicans tend to blend the immigration issue with National Security. This argument almost works for a small fraction of white voters, but it’s still ludicrous. The hijackers on 9.11 trained, through legal means, in flight schools here in America, not Canada or Mexico. Also, the idea of a border being completely closed off is kind of insane unless you want something similar to Berlin…and then we’d be living in a Communist regime…and the Wall obviously didn’t work out too well the first time, so why try it again?

In the end it comes down to money and then, to a somewhat lesser extent, voting. Both Democrats and Republicans view the ever increasing Latino population in America as the next great swing voter group due to their diverse beliefs in both social and political landscapes, and it appears to me at least that each political party is just trying their best to do what they do without pissing off Latinos too much. However, the immigration dilemma, if it truly is a dilemma, isn’t going to be solved through the political process but rather through social understanding that everyone does deserve their piece of the American pie, and that Freedom does mean freedom for everyone…not just who we think deserves and who we think does not.

Also, if you think Democrats have a better “solution,” you’re dead wrong. Democrats basically don’t talk about it and let Republicans dig themselves further into a hole by creating more in-house turmoil for the base and the moderates. Politically it’s not an issue any white person wants to campaign on. African-American candidates don’t really want to talk about it either when it comes to Latino voters because polling data suggests that the only group Latino voters distrust more than white politicians is black politicians. That being said, no one really wants to talk about this unless their constituency demands it…and if the constituents demand discussion chances are it’s in an area of the country where a strong position either way will get you elected so you can go to Washington and resume not talking about it.

It’s a tough issue that won’t be solved on a national level for quite some time. It’s an issue mostly sparked by fear and division, and that’s why it won’t be solved even IF there is some sort of solution. But for a country that talks up Freedom as though the world will eventually run out of it, it’s ridiculous to say “these people can live here” and “these people can’t.” Either change your tune, or give the statue of Liberty back to France, which is ironically a country that appears to have more racist attitudes towards immigration than we do. But what do I know? I was accused of being Xenophobic because I don’t like burritos. I enjoy salsa dancing, just not salsa…so it goes.

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;

1) Secure the Borders. This is to be achieved via increased manpower, increased funding and increased patrols. The White House likes to boast of an increase of 4,000 border agents on the payroll while vowing that, by 2008, the number will swell further, from its current 13,000 to a robust 18,000. They also cite an increase of 6,700 in the number of “detention beds.”

2) Create a Temporary Worker Program. The specifics of such a program are left to future deliberations, but such a program would aim at reducing the number trying to jump the border, encouraging them to instead queue up for the legal route.

3) Hold Employers Accountable for Hired Workers. Bush has called for the creation of a tamper-proof identification card for legal foreign workers, thereby making verification of worker status easier on employers. With the process simplified, and employers no longer able to plead ignorance to a worker’s status, enforcement will become more severe. Some in congress have floated the idea of an implantable RIF chip in migrant worker’s arms. Let’s hope this idea is a stillbirth.

4) Resolve Status of Illegals; President Bush is categorically against an amnesty. Those who want to stay will have to pay a penalty of time and money before being allowed to apply for citizenship. Payment of back-taxes, as well as English language skills, will be required. Those who have “played by the rules” will receive priority over any person who has previously entered illegally.

5) Assimilation Assistance. In June, 2006, Bush created a task force to address this facet of the plan. Methods of integrating immigrants into the communities, specifically schools and churches, seem to be at the forefront of the emerging plan.

What the Prescription Lacks

Most deem the above a rational strategy to adopt, a happy middle ground between amnesty and lockdown which avoids the sort of shameful extreme exhibited by the 109th Congress’ wall. It does, however, have its critics. Some find it too lax, some too tight. Notably absent from these detractors, however, are those who would fault the plan for having too confined a scope. Why? Immigration is a double-sided issue, inevitably involving a point of departure and a point of destination located in distinct countries, and the above plan only deals with the destination. In order to adequately address the problem, shouldn’t we view the entirety of an illegal immigrant’s journey?

The U.S. does not often miss an opportunity to involve itself in another country’s affairs. Some call it helping, others meddling, but few will deny that the U.S. government likes to shape the world to match a vision, whatever that vision may be. With immigration, however, we see an aberration; despite the legitimate platform the issue provides for foreign involvement, our men and women in D.C. have become the introspective types, narrowing their focus to things domestic. This is a strange phenomenon, and one worthy of a closer look.

Diagnosis

At the heart of much illegal immigration is a sick state; it is a symptom of an illness. This is not, at first glance, the illness of our own government, whose success in providing a comfortable lifestyle for its citizens makes the shortcomings of others that much starker. It is rather the illness of Latin American governments whose histories are filled with corruption, violence and mismanagement.

Of course, each struggling Latin American country has a unique story of how it arrived where it’s at. But regardless of the narrative, they’ve all arrived at the same general ending; a weak central state, poverty, and an elite political system which excludes the less affluent members. Facing these circumstances; no economic opportunity and, worse yet, few political means by which to change their plight, it is only natural so many are willing to take the risks associated with illegal immigration. It also stands to reason that, if we could ameliorate these problems, so many would not be so willing.

Playing Doctor

This argument will have its fair share of critics, no doubt. “Our aid to Latin America has increased by 50% under Bush’s watch,” they will say. “He recently traveled to the region to re-enforce our ties, and has actively worked to promote free trade agreements. There is only so much we can do.” This is true. We do give aid to Latin America, we do promote free trade agreements in the region, and we have been doing so for decades. But to believe that the failures of South American governments have come in spite of this fact, as though even our benevolence could not save them, is naïve at best.

The sums given to Latin America look generous indeed, totaling about 2 billion dollars a year. But since the Cold War era, when aid was substantially economic and social in nature, aid has become increasingly militarized. What’s more, this military aid is not coming from the State Department, as it usually would, but rather from the Department of Defense. The difference is significant, as the DoD is subject to less congressional oversight, and lies largely outside the reach of human rights conditions set forth in the foreign aid bill. In its infinite wisdom, the DoD interprets the rise of populism, youth gangs, drug trafficking, and illegal immigration as security threats which call for a military response. More effective means of dealing with the problems; improved judicial systems, financing for social, educational and vocational programs, economic development and social safety nets, are being overlooked for military training.

In sum, this means we are working hard to equip militaries that, historically, have been neither friends of the people, nor catalysts for justice and well-being. For proof we can take one aspect of our military training– the former School of the Americas, renamed the Western Hemisphere Center for Security Cooperation. It was initially established in Panama, then relocated to Ft. Benning, GA under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty. Former Panamanian President Jorge Illueca called the SOA the “biggest base for destabilization in Latin America.” Others call it the School of Assassins. In total the SOA has produced twelve Latin American dictators and thousands of their subordinates. Within Colombia, recipient of more U.S. aid than any other Latin American country, Human Rights Watch has listed 247 violators of human rights. Of those cited, 127 were graduates of the SOA.

Collaboration with our own soldiers, and the U.S. government’s subsequent wish to protect these collaborators, has lead to a ban on certain forms of both economic and military aid to governments who do not enter into “bilateral immunity agreements.” Such agreements exempt U.S. personnel from the ICC’s prosecution of human rights abuses.

At best, the type of aid given above is not very effective in making Latin America a more stable, more appealing place to live. At worst, it is a counter-productive, negative force in Latin American society. But why would the U.S. government contribute to instability in Latin American? Surely a steady influx of labor, eager to work and willing to be exploited, is not reason enough. No, at the heart of our actions in South and Central America is, more likely, what author Doug Stokes calls “the preservation of a status-quo favorable to our interests.” We want Latin American governments who will cooperate with our War on Terror, our War on Drugs, and our War on Socialism. All the above serve our government’s ends, and are enacted with such zeal that the perpetuation of instability becomes a natural byproduct. This has lead Mr. Stokes to add “American Intervention” to our previous list of elements (a weak-central state, poverty, and an elite political system) to be overcome in Latin America.

Finding a Remedy

In the end, this article is, and this public debate should be, about much more than just immigration. While it currently has a grip on the media’s spotlight there are issues which should be coupled with it in all conversations and contexts; the nature of our aid to Latin America, the impact FTAs have upon Latin American populations, our historical role in the region, socialism’s viability as a system to help raise its citizens from poverty, and the needs to be addressed in countries like Mexico, producer of 85% of our illegal immigrants. The occlusion of these issues from any dialogue surrounding immigration should, at the least, raise concerns regarding the intentions of our government. Do we sincerely want to deal with the problem, or do we want to quiet the American masses without staunching the readily available, exploitable labor streaming across our border? Do we want to improve, or just maintain, the less-than satisfactory health of Latin America societies? The confined scope of the debate, as well as our past actions, seems to suggest some sorry answers to these questions.

On May 1st, an estimated 75,000 people marched from Union Park to Grant Park in downtown Chicago. They marched for a variety of specific causes all under the banner of loosening immigration controls. According to the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, a main organizer for the rally, there were four main political goals:

• legalization and a path to earned citizenship for the undocumented
• reunification of families divided by broken immigration laws
• a moratorium on the immigration raids separating families
• condemn President Bush’s anti-family “Z-visas”

People marched carrying a menagerie of signs and banners with slogans like, “No human being is illegal!” and, “Keep families together!” People marched with drums, horns, and noisemakers, cheering as they moved down the steel canyons of downtown Chicago. People marched with flags, predominantly American, and chanted “U.S.A.” as they walked. People brought their mothers, daughters, sons, brothers, fathers, and extended families to protest for their rights. The rally was peaceful, exuberant, and admittedly exciting. I was able to capture some of the crowd, along with some of the message, on my cell phone video camera.

While the crowd was mostly Hispanic, many marched in solidarity. Construction workers stopped to cheer as the march passed, and whites, blacks, and Asians marched too. Churches, gay rights groups, and schools joined the procession. Socialist symbols were on display, including a poster of Che Guevara with the caption, “The worker’s struggle has no borders!” This march was a Mayday event, celebrating the hard worker as the backbone of society.

Sherri Wolf, marching in solidarity, said she was for, “Amnesty for all. If you drive down the wages of one section of the working class then we are all screwed.” This year’s turnout was smaller than last year’s, and Ms. Wolf thinks that’s because some illegal immigrants were intimidated by recent raids conducted by immigration enforcement agents. “Bus-loads came last year,” she said, “This year they were terrorised into staying home.”

Selicia, a mother marching with her family, asked me to take a picture so her children could remember this march. She supports immigration reform. When asked what specifically she supports, she responded, “For the hard workers who can prove they’ve been working to get legalization.” A worthy sentiment in my opinion.

Cynthia, a Loyola student, spoke out in favor of “fair and just immigration policies.” Most importantly, she was against breaking up immigrant families, regardless of their status. “The reason people are coming [to the US],” she said, “is because the US is ruining the Mexican economy. Leave our country alone and we’ll leave yours alone.” She couldn’t sympathize with those in the US who are against immigration. “They don’t see the realities of what’s going on,” she said, “They only see [immigrants] as criminals.”

As the marchers emptied into Grant Park the size of this rally was clearly evident, with so many people standing against Chicago’s imposing skyline.

Was anybody listening to these protesters? I truly hope so. At marches like this it often seems like the participants are talking to themselves. These days, protest rallies are so easy for politicians to ignore. In fact, I feel Chicago found this event decidedly non-threatening. Police presence was extremely light, with cops in normal uniforms stationed every couple blocks, looking mostly bored or bemused. While anti-war demonstrations in 2006 drew police in riot gear, the May 1st march felt like a family affair.

To me, this is encouraging. Immigration is not a threat to our country, and I’m glad it wasn’t treated as such. I hope political leaders in Chicago and all over the United States were watching these marches. Those protesting are human beings, and they deserve to be treated as such. In fact, US citizens should be proud so many foreigners want to become Americans. Our forefathers have worked hard to build this country, with many immigrants among them, and we should be happy to share our prosperity with the world. Certainly there are issues that need to be worked out, but I’m convinced our immigration system can be reformed to allow many more workers to enter the US while preserving jobs and our social services for everyone.

Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. Did you attend a march on May 1st? What do you take away from events such as this? Are protests effective political tools?

First, I only plan to live in the UK for a short period of time, about two years. Second, while in the UK I will be telecommuting for a US company. Basically, I will be drawing a salary from the US economy and spending it in the UK economy. On top of that, I will have US based healthcare and I will not have to depend on the UK’s welfare system to stay afloat. In short, I will only be giving to the UK and I will be taking nothing away.

So why then is there no way for me to legally emigrate? The UK immigration system, like most 1st world countries, is based on various classes of visas. There is a visa for students, a visa for those with jobs in the UK, and even a visa for “highly skilled migrants,” those without jobs but with high level degrees or training in areas where there is a current job shortage in Britain. But there is no visa for a telecommuting foreign citizen and there is really no method by which I can obtain an individual hearing with someone who could issue some sort of waiver.

Consequently, I am left with no good options. I can either spend six months out of every year in Britain as a tourist or I can overstay my six month tourist visa and risk being deported or refused entry if I leave the country and try to re-enter. The shortage of legal options or individualized alternatives strikes me as shortsighted, and frankly makes me consider breaking the law.

So what is the issue here? To me it seems that nations fail to segment immigrants into useful categories based on real economic conditions, and then fail to offer an appeal process that allows for an individual’s unique situations.

Economic Boon or Burden? It Depends.

Immigration is a loaded word in Britain, much as it is in the US. Wrapped up in the issue are fears of a diluted national or local identity, a disproportionate number of foreigners burdening the social services system, competition over jobs, overcrowding, national rights, and just plain xenophobia. To sort through all this I think nations have to move more towards segmenting immigrants by the value or burden they bring to a society instead of through proxy categories like “students” or “highly skilled migrants.” For example, the Highly Skilled Migrant Program (or HSMP) is clearly designed to allow the kinds of people Britain wants to attract into the country. People are judged on a points scale and with enough points, you become eligible for a visa, even without a job offer. However, many people have had trouble finding work even after obtaining entry. The issue seems to be that the HSMP is selecting people with proxy categories that don’t necessarily represent the amount they will put in or take out of a society. It is entirely possible for an HSMP visa holder to enter the UK and be unemployed, a burden on the system.

Instead, applicants should be selected based on their real economic input and output. Someone like me, with a US job living in the UK, would be on the positive end of the scale, all giving and no receiving. Similarly, people who were “highly skilled” wouldn’t be allowed to enter without a job. Because Britain wants to attract these highly skilled people, they could make HSMP visa holders exempt from the protectionist job recruiting requirements in Britain, allowing them to apply for British jobs even if there were other qualified UK or European Union applicants (who would normally be given priority). This way Britain is guaranteed to get migrants with a positive benefit to society while still attracting people of the “highly skilled” variety.

The Human Touch

More importantly, I think immigration needs to be handled on a more human level. Not everyone fits neatly into predefined categories, and try as it might, a government cannot anticipate the situations of every immigrant or hope to keep up with changing technology and skill shortages. If immigration systems were overhauled to encourage people who would benefit Britain economically, than Britain could in effect “make money” on every immigrant they let in. With this kind of economic incentive I’m sure the appropriate number personnel could be hired to hear individual claims. I don’t think it would take an immigration officer more than an hour to decide I wasn’t going to be a burden on UK society and grant me a visa.

An appellate system also helps ease the problem of enforcement. Especially in America, people are inclined to view enforcement of immigration laws as either overly punitive or overly lax. That is because immigration officers are enforcing an inflexible system. Instead, with a legal and flexible means to tell your story, immigrants will feel less pressure to break the law. In short, treating immigrants like human beings, instead of categories, statistics, and pieces of paper, makes illegal immigration much less tempting.

For example, if you are working in Britain with a work permit and you leave your job for any reason (firing, bankruptcy, layoffs, etc…), you must leave the country immediately. Again, it seems Britain is enforcing proxy categories and unnaturally inflexible rules. A jobless person may be a drain on society, but they also may be able to quickly recover and find more work, it all depends on the individual. Instead of strictly enforcing visa requirements and deporting those living illegally, immigration officers can focus on regular visa revues, in which immigrants can apply for visa extensions and immigration officials can reconsider the economic impact of each person on an individual level. Enforcement wouldn’t be focused on rounding up the illegals and shipping them out, instead the government would be focused on reviewing an immigrant’s status every once in a while, allowing the government to keep an eye on people while at the same time allowing immigrants a measure of individual attention. Again, treating people like human beings makes all the difference here. If immigrants know the government will fairly and individually assess their claims, they will be much more likely to pursue legal immigration routes.

It seems immigration laws need to move towards the modern era with a human-based system that respects the right of immigrants to get individual attention while protecting the state from immigrants that would burden their host country. To me, this system would refute the reasonable arguments proffered against immigration. What do you think? If immigrants were given an means for personal appeal would they be less likely to break the law? Would an appeal process make enforcement easier and less controversial?

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.

THE FACTS: IMMIGRATION, AFRICAN POVERTY, AND THE GLOBAL HEALTHCARE WORKERS SHORTAGE

The problems posed by immigration in both the United States and the European Union are well-known. To cite just a few examples, France has deep rooted tensions between sections of the white, “native French” community and immigrants from North and sub-Saharan Africa; such tensions were visible as recently as the current presidential campaigns. Immigration into Britain hit an all-time high last year, provoking serious debates about how to handle illegal immigrants and integrate newcomers, especially in a context where the fear of terrorism runs high. Meanwhile, many young African men are so determined to reach European shores that they set off for Spain’s Canary Islands by boat. Such desperation has sparked concern among European leaders, who in 2005 pledged to greatly increase their aid to Africa.

Africa’s economic and social crises are equally well-known. Three decades of instability, economic decline, and stagnation has led some pessimists to begin laying the blame for Africa’s problems at Africa’s feet. While blaming Africa goes too far, many experts and much of the Western public would agree that foreign aid money has achieved mixed results in Africa. America and Europe face the tough challenge of how to use aid money not as a band-aid, but as a serious investment in long-term development.

Meanwhile, according to the World Health Organization, humanity faces a global shortage of healthcare workers. The consequences of this shortage will be severe:

Fifty-seven countries, most of them in Africa and Asia, face a severe health workforce crisis. WHO estimates that at least 2 360 000 health service providers and 1 890 000 management support workers, or a total of 4 250 000 health workers, are needed to fill the gap. Without prompt action, the shortage will worsen.

Health workers are inequitably distributed throughout the world, with severe imbalances between developed and developing countries. This global workforce shortage is made even worse by imbalances within countries. In general, there is a lack of adequate staff in rural areas compared to cities.

Sub-Saharan Africa faces the greatest challenges. While it has 11 percent of the world’s population and 24 percent of the global burden of disease, it has only 3 percent of the world’s health workers.

There is a direct relationship between the ratio of health workers to population and survival of women during childbirth and children in early infancy. As the number of health workers declines, survival declines proportionately.

The WHO lists a number of strategies for solving the crisis. Tellingly, the first is “more direct investment in the training and support of health workers.”

A separate WHO report addresses the widespread phenomenon of healthcare workers from developing countries who migrate to developed nations in search of better economic opportunities and working conditions. This trend brings some benefits to the home countries, mainly in the form of income workers send back to family and friends from abroad. But in the long run, each doctor or nurse who leaves represents a financial loss as the investment a country has made in a professional’s education is lost to another country. Even more serious is the impact on the healthcare industry as a whole in developing countries:

When a country has a fragile health system, the loss of its workforce can bring the whole system close to collapse, with the consequences measured in lives lost.

The proposal does not necessarily aim to halt the migration of health workers. Rather, it aims to control and promote it, turning a loss into a gain by giving experienced professionals incentives to use their skills in their home countries.

The United States has not been untouched by the global shortage of nurses, doctors, technicians, and other specialists. By 2002, “inadequate nurse staffing has been a factor in 24 percent of the 1,609 cases involving patient death, injury or permanent loss of function reported since 1997″ and “90 percent of long-term care facilities don’t have enough nurses to provide even the most basic care.” According to numbers given by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, the current shortage may grow to 340,000 unfilled positions by 2020. Reports in the last few years suggest that Canada faces similar problems. The shortage is not as acute in Europe. But if low European birth rates continue, Europe will likely face a healthcare crisis of its own.

While the problems outlined here are grave, they also represent an opportunity. Each side has needs, and each side has assets. The proposal that follows attempts to show how African immigration into the West, if properly transformed and guided, could bring massive benefits to America, Europe, and Africa.

THE PROPOSAL

I propose that the European Union and the United States begin training young Africans to work on a temporary basis as healthcare workers in the EU and the US.

Such a program would entail recruiting promising young Africans from universities all across the continent, paying for two years of intensive training to become nurses, x-ray technicians, or one of any of a number of other specialties. Additional training would be given, if necessary, in a European language selected by the participant, thereby completing their preparation to work in a hospital or other healthcare facility in the developed world.

After a stay of at minimum 5 and at maximum 10 years, graduates of the program would be sent back to Africa with the intent that, once back in their home countries, they would contribute their skills and experience to the development of the healthcare sector there. Graduates could also act as mentors for future generations of African healthcare professionals. A strong alumni network and outreach effort would keep graduates connected with each other and with peers in Europe and America.

After fine-tuning the specifics of such a policy by experimenting with several pilot programs, a broad-based effort to recruit Africans for work in the healthcare sector could be put in place.

RECAP

The program would help solve the following problems:

1. An increasingly problematic shortage of nurses and healthcare technicians in Europe and America.

Highly trained healthcare workers from Africa could provide a much needed influx of skilled workers in a vital economic and social sector.

2. Economic and social repercussions as the baby boomer generation in America begins to approach retirement age and birthrates in Europe decline.

In societies where demographic trends threaten to skew the age balance of developed nations, opening the doors to a large number of skilled immigrants who will be able to help care for the elderly in these countries would help to maintain economic vigor and demographic balance.

3. The need for a more organized and productive framework for absorbing Africans who wish to immigrate to the Europe and the US. As an increasing number of Africans hope and attempt to leave Africa in search of better economic opportunities abroad, the consequences of illegal immigration have negative effects on race relations in developed nations and strain the capacities of governments and law enforcement units.

Providing a program that paves the path toward immigration in a constructive manner, and allows African immigrants to enter America and European nations at higher levels of income-earning potential and social status will help to reduce the burdens caused by illegal immigration.

4. Problems of under-development and public health in African nations threaten to become more, not less, severe in coming years and decades.

Creating a sizable pool of skilled workers who can send money home while abroad on temporary work programs, and then return home with vital professional skills that they can apply toward the development of their home countries, will help to attack the problems of under-development from two critical angles.

CONCLUSION

If people abroad are willing to do almost anything to work in America and Europe, why refuse them? Rather, let’s train them and put them to work where we need them most. And then let’s send them back, armed with the experience, the tools, and the money they need to address the root cause of immigration - poverty and low standards of living - and continue to build our global community in a spirit of cooperation and good will.

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!

The History

Following the May 1, 2004 adoption of the Accession Treaty, ten primarily Central and Eastern European nations joined the European Union and despite resistance from other EU members, Britain–along with Ireland and Sweden–decided to open its borders to all workers from eight of the new EU member states. Going against the pervailing anti-immigration rhetoric, Britain paved the way for a massive influx of legal immigrants, most notably from Poland. Since 2004, nearly 600,000 new immigrants have come to Britain from new EU member states, over half of which were from Poland. According to John Salt, professor of geography at University College London, this movement is

“almost certainly the largest-ever single wave of immigration [the British Isles] have ever experienced”.

The mass migration from east to west has been a test case for other EU nations. Following the success of Polish immigrants in Britain and Ireland (both nations with strong, growing economies), other member states, namely Finland, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, have followed suit and opened their doors to new immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe. However, the success of Polish immigrants in Britain’s workforce has not eased any of the native anxiety over foreign inhabitants nor has it lessened EU-wide anxieties over immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria, two new member sates admitted in January, 2007. The anti-immigration campaign is still a powerful force in UK politics, with politicians and organizations arguing against immigration on the basis of preserving the nation’s economic strength and cultural purity.

One such organization, MigrationwatchUK, does not oppose all immigration but rather advocates setting a limit for the number of immigrants allowed into Britain each year (ideally, according to them, a number equal to that of Britain’s emigrants) as well as the implementation of a series of criteria each immigrant must meet before settling in the country, including a minimum salary requirement. (Their argument, however, seems to exclude immigrants from within the EU, who are, presumably, part of the same “European” culture Migrationwatch hopes to preserve in Britain.)

Unexpected Success Story

Although migration from Poland to the UK far surpassed original estimates of five to thirteen thousand immigrants per year, there is something to be learned from the success of this story. In March, Time Magazine published an in-depth report on the subject. Titled “How the West Was Won,” the article enumerates some of the economic and cultural successes of Polish immigration to Ireland and Britain. For example, immigrants added to the GNP and projected GDPin both nations; they mesh with and contribute to the local culture; immigrants work unwanted jobs cleaning bathrooms, performing manual labor, etc.; they tend to be younger and healthier; they pay taxes at a higher (single-person) rate; and may even return home within a few years. In addition to expounding the positive results of this open-door policy, the article also provides a point of departure for comparing this instance of immigration to others–namely, it contrasts the benefits of open-door legal immigration to the threats and security issues of illegal immigration. In looking toward Britain, Ireland and the EU as a whole, America could gain better understanding of its own immigration situation if it were to examine these examples.

Andrew Purvis, author of the afore-mentioned article in Time points out that many of the new immigrants to Britain and Ireland are single and well-educated. Most, if not all, have completed their secondary schooling and many have college degrees. Also, as their single-status dictates, they pay taxes to society at a higher rate than they are able to draw from it. They are also barred from receiving welfare services because when Britain and Ireland decided to open their doors to migrant workers they

“restricted migrants’ access to welfare, thus pre-empting claims that folks were coming as ‘welfare tourists’ to leech off the system”.

In theory, this restriction sounds like an ideal solution, and statistics released by Britain’s Home Office last month suggest the restrictions have ben successful.

Similarly, though Poland has not attained levels of economic success on par with other European nations (i.e., it has not be allowed to adopt the common currency, the Euro), it is still the recipient of economic improvements heralded by its induction into the EU. Its economic growth has declined since it reached 5.3% in 2005, but at 3.4% annually, it still leads the U.S., at its lowest rate of growth in four years at 1.3%. Unemployment is still a dismal statistic in Poland, though according to the World Bank, between 2004 and 2005, the unemployment rate dropped from 19% to 16%, and the nation also continues to suffer the infamous “brain drain“. However, unlike illegal immigrants, legal immigrants have freedom of travel, and this ability to move back-and-forth between home and away often encourages legal immigrants to return to their native country after a year or two abroad. Already, signs of this trend may be appearing. One of the immigrants interviewed for Time, recently returned to Poland. Bozena Woza now teaches at the the Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science in Czestochowa, Poland, where her experiences teaching at King’s College London and University College London will have a positive impact on her future work educating Poland’s younger generations.

U.S. Could Learn from UK Example

Like the UK, the U.S. faces similar struggles and challenges when confronted with the issue of immigration. It is a flagship nation, a leader among leaders. Unlike the UK, however, the U.S. is not a welfare state and does not provide services such as housing and healthcare for those in need. (The U.S. relies primarily on the services of private philanthropic organizations that assume these burdens.) If there is a system in place, it is possible for the nation to restrict those with access to it. Healthcare in the U.S. is floundering, at best, struggling to stay afloat with rising costs, increased demands and an inability to make services affordable to the majority of its citizens. Add to those problems, the stress of undocumented aliens and the system starts to drown.

In the UK, some of those problems have been diverted not only because Polish and other Central and Eastern European immigrants are prevented access to the system, but also because the immigrants tend to be single (i.e., without families, without children, without dependents) and between the ages of 18 and 34 (i.e., younger, stronger, more employable, without the need for pension funds or old-age healthcare). Immigrants from Mexico into the U.S. (i.e., those immigrants who seem to attract the most criticism, especially from border-whores in the southwest) tend to include the able-bodied 18-34 year-olds as well as children and extended families. One notable instance in which a rush of immigrants to the U.S. caused considerable strain on healthcare systems was the reconstruction efforts in Post-Hurricane-Katrina New Orleans. Late last year, the city’s hospitals experienced a Katrina-born baby boom, with expectant-mothers-to-be flooding the hospitals with prenatal needs, unable to afford the services their pregnancies demanded. It is an unfortunate circumstance in which wives followed husbands to high-paying construction sites and subsequently changed the demographics of the region with a wave of newborns nine months (give or take a few) after their arrival. I say “unfortunate” both because the hospitals in the area were unequipped to deal with the influx of uninsured patients it faced and also because it appears as if these immigrant mothers took advantage of an American crisis to further their own personal interests. (We can argue whether this plotting actually occurred, but the coincidence seems statistically improbable.)

Immigration Strengthens the Nation

As Polish immigration in Britain has shown, for its skeptical EU counterparts as well as the rest of the Western World, immigration is good for the economy. Immigration is good for the economy even when the immigrants come from poorer, less developed nations. Immigration is good for the economy, even if migrant workers perform menial labor. Immigration is good for the economy even if immigrants possess only a rudimentary knowledge of the location language. Additionally, though harder to measure and more difficult to judge, immigration is also good for the local society and culture. The influx of new cultures and traditions, does not weaken the local customs, but rather strengthens those traditions through comparison and contrast. One does not learn about his individuality by living in a bubble, rather, he learns about his identity by interacting with others. Furthermore, cultural literacy–knowledge of, and an ability to interact with other cultures–is an important skill for success in today’s global marketplace. Therefore children who attend bi-/multi-lingual schools have an advantage over those who attend mono-lingual (or, English-only) schools. Individuals exposed to a variety of people from a variety of cultures have higher chances of succeeding in life.

However, these pro-immigration arguments do not necessarily apply to all types of immigration, but they do offer some insight into conquering a mounting problem. A nation’s border is only as strong as the immigrants desire to cross it. If America were to open her borders to all immigrant workers from from Mexico, it would initially witness a flood of new people, but their new legal and documented status as migrant workers would allow them to move throughout the country to places where they are needed in communities where they can find work. Because they are documented, they would be required to pay taxes on all their income and contributing to the system rather than drawing from it. Additionally, making the border easier to cross would lessen the desire to cross it. Those who cross will be more willing to return and those who do not cross will benefit from access to open markets and freer trade. An open border with Mexico might be a frightening thought, but it may be the only way to solve this widespread (and growing) problem, one which will become politically viable only after people begin to recognize the social and economic benefits of a hardworking migrant labor force.