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.