Politicians naturally respond to the challenges posed by the easy flow of goods, people and ideas across frontiers by pretending they can resolve these challenges with isolated exercises of political will and legislation. The harsh anti-immigrant laws proposed by the U.S. House of Representatives defy not only common decency and humanity but the very way the global economy works today. The House legislation proves that change is too important to be left to politicians, as do France’s attempts to tinker with the social model that is in deep trouble.

These global connections need to be grasped and articulated to divide more equitably the prosperity that globalization brings for some and the burdens of unemployment or low wages that others experience.

from Jim Hoagland, Washington Post Op-Ed Columnist

Red Queen I read your draft before you published. I will not post until you do. I apologize if I am jumping the gun.

In your post Red Queen you state that: Since the begining our country has evolved by the inclusion of new waves of people. The Germans, Italians and Irish all started as immigrant groups who were feared and loathed upon their arrival, but were eventually included into society and enhanced our culture. We wouldn’t even have labor laws had it not been for Irish immigrants who brought the solutions they couldn’t use in Ireland here where they could be implemented.

This is true, but the nation stood a different condition than it does now. It still contained frontier, which to capitalists meant unexploited resources. Additionally, I have some problems seeing that wave of immigration as heroic. The Europeans came in and filled up space that previously belonged to American-Indians; had not there have been pressure exerted in the form of new resources and new jobs required, the rightful owners of this land could have been in a much better state than they are now. The Euro immigrants also stole livelihood from ex-slaves who certainly could have done the jobs Euros did. Indeed, not only did the incoming population prevent the employment of a class of people who, in part, created the prosperity the westrn world enjoys to this day, but they subjected them to onerous treatment in the form of violence, exclusion and mental anguish that continues through our time. So the diversity you speak of is all strawberries and cream as long as it is not black. Even then we see the U. S. as a waste spigot of European problems poured over another undeserving, but unfortunate population.

You also state: The deal with immigrants has been this- you come to our country, you work the crap jobs, and your children will have a better future. We get cheap labor and a source of tax revenue, they get education for their children and more freedom from persecution and abject (dollar a day) poverty.

The state of immigration is not quite that clear. On MacNiel-Lehrer last night (3/31) a think-tank person raised the fact that a few years ago U. S. doctors complained that too many foriegn doctors were threatening their wages. Consequently, they lobbied Congress and made the entry of these immigrants much more difficult. The same can be said for any high-end labor group. They have and will fight to keep their high wages, and not give a shit about low-end jobs. Hence, their wages are protected and they get the benefit pay low wages in the form of lower prices. If foriegn professionals were allowed the same free entry to our country, we would all pay lower prices in the forms of better infrastucture (lower enginnering costs) and health-care (lower doctor and research fees). Instead the entry comes in the form of low end jobs that brings the pay rates for any jobs close to the minimum wage down.

Also, continuing to allow the rate of immigration into our country still does not address the poor education and persecution people face in their country. And it certainly does not deal with pollution; any nation that persecutes its citizens certainly we do everything it can to skirt any environmental controls in the name of profit. Of course, toxins have no borders; though the local area will be devestated first, pollutants can and will spread into all areas of the globe. If that trend continues those local areas will become too volatile to hold any population and a controlled immigration will turn into a global emergency.

You also speak of carrying capacity and diversity. Yes, we have carrying capacity, but what we produce certainly can be exported to areas that need our goods. If other countries are forced to improve their economies, there will be enough people to afford our exports. Be aware that Mexico does everything to discourage immigrants from Central America, while encouraging emigration of its own citizens. What it does about its own own influx is its business, but when it does nothing to bolster its own carrying capacity at our expense, it becomes ours. Plus, we all know the little attention Mexico pays to the environment. It does so because our policy of exporting work to areas where attention to people’s health is an afterthought, it is pondered at all. So, yes, CONTROLLING immigration is also about protecting ourselves from the poor policies of other nations, a turn in the opposite direction of putting puppet dictators in power who obey Uncle Sam and devastate their people.

Notice that I emphasize control in the last paragraph. Controlling or limiting does not mean ending. Seeing immigration as you do only looks at it from one angle. The way I do sees it from many. It includes control, but also emphasizing creating enough well paying jobs for people already here–immigrants take craps jobs at lower rates than white or blacks are willing to accept; they would take them if they paid better. It also includes pressuring other nations to improve the situation for their own citizens. One of the reasons bin Laden fundamentalism is so popular is the lack of jobs created in oil-producing states. The fundamentalism is a safety-valve the elite encourage to take light off themselves. It would also address immigration on the high-end. As discussed before, if professionals had to worry about their jobs, they certainly would encourage better pay rates in other countries. In this manner, poorer nations would not suffer the brain-drain they do now. Even so, enough people would want to come her that we would not suffer the dearth of diversity you fear.

As you know, I accept all kinds. At the same time I must defend my African brothers and sisters who are the silent members of this debate. The unemployment rate among blacks still remains prohibitively high. Making them accept the jobs only immigrants will take at lower rates seems unfair. Immigrants still have a strong family structure that was destroyed as the result of slavery and Jim Crow laws. By giving blacks few options, we keep them in the treadmill of the justice system that oversees too many of them. Why should my tax money go to immigrants to pay for education they should have received in their own country? Why are not the diverse opinions of my brown brothers as valuable as brown people from somewhere else. Additionally, notice the neighborhoods that most immmigrants are forced to find housing. It is in black ones. This puts further pressure on a community that for much of its history was denied decent housing in favor of, you guessed it, immigrants.

You may opine that my thoughts have a racial component, but I think I have explained the full picture well enough to counter that argument.

As for the Washington Post quote at the top of this blog, Mr. Hoagland may have stated beeter than I have here. I am not for perniciously punishing illegals or completely restricting immigration. I am for seeing the immigration debate in the larger context of issues that affect the entire globe.

The Red Queen has challenged me to expound on my previous post…

Perhaps, tools was a poor word choice (though certainly the media we use here is a tool thingy). Resources may be a better word.

One resource is history. Another is common sense.

On so many issues we seem to be trying to solve today’s problem’s with yesterday’s advice. The “American Dream” is still a goal for so many, when we live in a society of single moms/dads, unmarried, but happy couples, divorced extended families and people who either chose to be single or end up that way. In this light it seems counter-productive to extend toward the aforementioned ‘Dream’, which based on the available evidence is unattainable to a major degree. But since our culture uses this foundation as a base we end up trying to build round houses off of square blueprints–it can be done, but it makes the job much harder than it has to be.

The same can said of our economy. So many tie the argument for continuing to exploit our resources to death is that it will hurt our economy. Are we too shortsighted to see that once these resources are gone the economy will suffer more? The same is said on the immigration issue. We want cheap food! And the cheap food comes at the expense of illegal immigrants who strain other parts of the culture. We see the cheap food, but don’t realize we pay for it somewhere else.

Keeping on this topic, since it helps me expand on my immigrant discussion, we need to trace the source of the illegals back to the source. People risk thier lives to come to our country because we have helped expolit their country to point where the incoming risk their lives. Would it not be better for all if we made the effort to improve their lot? This connection ties into the next logical topic: globalization. Corporations move jobs to places with cheap labor since labor movements (unions etc.,) have less power than companies. Thus, by ignoring their problems, we have created our own problem of not having enough well paying jobs here.

Now, trace the source of these expolitations. Western culture based on being at the right place at the right time were able and continue to use other areas to their (our) advantage. Leaders puposely used all the resources of other lands and more or less forced people in them to adhere to western market systems (see the decimation of Bengal cloth industry by the British). We are left with and continue the legacy. But the advantages we enjoy for a time must be paid for some time in the future. The circumstance is the same is for people as it is for the environment. Spend now, worry later.

This leads to nano-technolgy (and bio-engineering for that matter). Since western culture is only thinking about one side of the equation (progress, progress, progress) it ignores a basic tenet of life: what goes in, must come out. A recent article warns that nano-technology will produce waste with a half-life of hundreds of years. No one knows what the effect of nano-pollution will be, how it will affect organisms or how to get rid of it. Yet, the progress mantra pushes more and more investment in this direction.

So it comes down to one simple fact. We have become addicted to progress and by doing so we find ourselves on a treadmill to nowhere. The sooner we realize how we got here and where we are headed the sooner we can change our ways.

The history of progress leads back into history and information about the last Neptune-Pluto wave (1398-1892) in relation to this one (1893-2384). Are you ready for that story?…

Many stories, articles and events continue to convince me to believe we humans need a massive think-tank to rethink about where we are going. It is so silly to me that we have people arguing about the science of climate change, when a fifth-grader can figure our its happening. But instead of doing something about it we become paralyzed by politics and economics. In so many ways we possess the means to repair our messes, but we argue about the solutions, the problems fester and rot into irreperable quagmires. In so many ways life is better than it has ever been. Our conveniences number in the hundreds, from instant gratification to complete forms of information to access to some of the best health care in history. Yet, when it comes to addressing what we can see will be major roadblocks to our way of life, we cannot reach any sort of consensus. I think we need a way to use all the tools at our disposal to get better access to the political process, to stop the process of trying to solve new problems with old solutions.

We have the tools, now we need to develop our minds to use them!

I am thinking of writing an Op-Ed article for Washington Post, my latest American media outlet I can tolerate.

Some things to note about this. Their organization killed many Americans, but the US of A has not been able to exact any precise revenge. Al-Qaida still exists and killing Osama BL, if they find him, ironically would only fuel AQ getting bigger or at least more vigilant. They have cost the west $billions in lost productivity, property and the need to create more security. They may be costing us freedoms. I know, not directly their fault, but nonetheless, you could be eavesdropped upon as we speak. Oh, yeah, did I mention that USA started a war, in which it is just as confusingly embedded for who knows how long? This war is costing $billions that could be used here at home (can you say Katrina?). In my mind, AQ is winning, whatever that is.

Of course, the problem is that those looking for and excuse will attack the messenger, instead of seeing the message. If I do decide to publish this little ditty, I need to figure how to protect myself from, irony of ironies, the people who see themselves on the side of freedom.

Your thoughts?