[AAACE-NLA] A primer on immigration

Fri May 11 13:58:17 EDT 2007

  I am posting this message sort of as a primer on immigration and in response to several messages. 

 As I said before, immigration is a natural behavior of all living beings form the most basic unicellular organisms, to the most advanced. Living beings are always moving to places where the quality of life is better and where there are better economic opportunities. People do not just immigrate to the United States. Poor Guatemalans go to Mexico, Pakistanis go to India, Northern Africans go to Europe, Peruvians, Bolivians and Paraguayans go to Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. Ecuadorans, go to Peru and Colombia, Colombians go to Venezuela, Mexicans come to the US, Haitians go to the Dominican Republic etc, etc. 

 Usually, poor immigrants do jobs that others do not want to do and live in communities w/o problems. In general, statistically, immigrants contribute much more to the communities than they take away, and this is the reason that immigration is not only tolerated, but encouraged. However, poor immigrants are the easiest targets of attacks when there is discontent and problems in a community and they make great scapegoats. They lack political power and economic resources so, they are easy targets for politicians to place blame when there is discontent with economic, political decisions. 

 This happens all over the world, and not just in the US, and it has been happening since the olden times. It is not something new. Biblically, we can trace it to Abraham. At the same time immigration as a subject tends to resurface in the minds of the public every 8 to 10 years or so. 

 The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, who regularly and systematically conducts research on the economic impact of immigration in the United States reports that the economic impact is overwhelmingly positive and the economy would suffer greatly w/o the contribution of illegal immigrants. In fact, it is educated legal immigrants that cause most of the labor displacement, and not the poor illegal immigrants. Politicians know this and this is the reason the don't penalize the corporations that hire undocumented labor. In fact, many of these corporations are the biggest contributors to conservative politicians who love to grandstand about the evils of illegal immigration. However, they will never support penalties and raids of the corporations who pay for their campaigns. 

 Think tanks on immigration into the United states always find that immigration has an overwhelmingly positive impact even though the media demmonizes immigrants every 8 to 10 years or so. Of course, some of you may not believe me and think that I am pulling this out of a hat, so here is what you can do: go to your web-browser and type: "economic impact of immigration into the United states" I am sure that you will find lots of support from what I am saying. Now, please read the serious studies. I cite the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas because it is not some liberal, Mexican loving think tank, but it is a bastion of good old US capitalism, and it is considered by experts on the economy as a serious entity that does serious, politically unbiased research. 

 Some people will ask: "why doesn't the Mexican government  do something for its citizens instead of letting them come to the US and do all the evil things that they do here?"
 Well, the Mexican government as well as a number of governments in Latin America are puppets of US corporate capitalism, the world bank and the International Monetary fund. These governments will not do anything to oppose the system that feeds them. A Majority of Mexicans politicians and other Latin American politicians were trained in the the US in the University of Chicago and Harvard and are known as the Chicago Boys,and implement economic policies that benefit large corporations. Coincidentally the Chicago Boys also lead the world bank and IMF. 

 The above may sound sort of abstract, so let me illustrate how this works:

 Imagine a community somewhere in Mexico. It has farmers growing corn, raising chickens and pigs, a few cows, beans, etc. The community also has a few small stores that supply the community with goods. Many of the goods are procured form the local economy and others from other communities in Mexico. As this is going on, along comes Walmart and moves to the community or nearby. Also, Sam's and Costco and Target come along into these communities. These multinationals can move with ease into Mexico because of the NAFTA (a Chicago Boys idea). With Walmart nearby, people don't need to go to the local grocery store to procure items. Walmart is cheaper. So, the grocery store purchasing items from the local farmers. Why is Walmart cheaper? They buy in bulk from huge corporations such as Procter and Gambler, Swift, Peyton, United Fruit, Sasetru, Dole, Philip Morris, etc. These corporations receive huge subsidies from the US government, pay virtually no taxes in the US, and employ undocumented immigrants in the US for peanuts. They also own land throughout Latin America and the world and employ little children and pay slave wages. So, Walmart buys for peanuts and runs the local economy out of business.

 What do people do? Some go to work for Walmart. Other immigrate to other communities in Mexico. Well guess what. The biggest employers of displaced Mexicans are international factories along the US Mexico border, particularly in ciudad Juarez, Chih. That is where they make the parts for the cars that people drive in the US. Before NAFTA garment manufacturing in the US was mostly done in El Paso, Texas, and the garment industry was another huge employer of displaced Mexicans. So, northern Mexico, along the US Mexico border has become industrialized and hyperurbanized by corporations from the US and the rest of the industrialized world and displaced workers from all over Mexico. 

 Hyperurbainzed, industrialized cities are overwhelmingly poor. So, many of the Mexicans come across the river to work in the US. They come because they are needed and welcome by the corporations that recruit and hire them, by families that need daycare and maids, by the construction industry, and by everyone else. People all over the US recruit, welcome and hire undocumented workers to do all sorts of jobs. But the worst sinners are the biggest and richest corporations who also get government subsidies, don't pay taxes, and support the hypocritical politicians that grandstand against immigrants.

 But wait, the above was all economic mumbo jumbo. How about securing our borders from terrorists? Well, originally that is how the latest antimmigrant rant started. People were saying that our borders where unsafe and that middle eastern terrorists where coming in through Mexico. Well guess what. The 11 terrorists associated with 9-11 where all Saudi Arabians. They were very well funded by OPEC monies and they all came with visas, passports and all their documents in order. They didn't need to come into the US hiding, because they have the documentation necessary to come in legally. In fact, many middle easterners who live in the US and are discontent with US policy did not get here illegally. They came in with legal documents. Many are highly educated and have lots of money and they don't need to walk through the river and cross the Mohave avoiding scorpions and rattle snakes and die of thirst. Instead, the fly American Airlines first class. The Irony about all this is that Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations are very happy that the US pretty much destroyed Iraq's economic infrastructure. See, Iraq represented major competition to the Saudis and they were going to sell oil cheaply to Europe, China, etc. With the US invasion, the Iraqi oil fields are now controlled by the US and we keep buying oil from our friends the Saudis, who, by the way, are our allies and yet, keep their citizens in much worse conditions that Saddam Hussein ever did. But that is a very different discussion

 Andres

  Please take a look at my artwork: www.geocities.com/andresmuro/art.html 

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Michael.Salyer at dce.virginia.gov
 To: aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org
 Sent: Thu, 10 May 2007 7:38 AM
 Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] Moral choices and immigration

   Ms Sapp takes this opportunity to tell us that she has little regard for the rule of law which is the cornerstone of our society. The condition of being illegal could certainly apply to humans. Actions can be illegal and while she chooses to wax over that issue time and again in her diatribe it is clear that she doesn’t care about our laws or our limited resources, instead she falls on the side those who she supports protest in the streets and demand recognition and privileges that by law that they do not deserve. It doesn’t matter to them that they broke our laws by coming here, set a deplorable example for their children, and then agreed in most cases to work for wages less than those garnered by their legal counterparts, depriving American citizens of jobs, taking up precious medical services, sending their wages out of the country and the list goes on and on. None of this is news, but the left somehow wants Americans to ignore all that. Then there is the crime element.   In just about every news report that sites crimes committed by illegal immigrants, they no longer mention the fact that they are here illegally or that they are illegal, choosing instead to label them undocumented workers, thinking that somehow that makes it all OK; marginalizing their original crime so that it doesn’t compound their current crime. In part because they fear that the citizenry will tire of these senseless acts that could have been prevented if only those persons had not broken the law and entered this country illegally. Its not about immigrant versus citizen crimes since there seems to be no lack of immigrant on immigrant crimes, but rather NONE of these crimes would have been committed if they were not here. The recent deaths of 2 Virginia Beach teenagers by a drunken driver who happened to be here illegally are a perfect example of just that. All the arguments about a failed legal system that allowed this cretin to escape jail and drive a second or third time after being arrested for that crime before are meaningless, since the fact remains that these young vibrant women would be in their homes with their parents and loved ones if this illegal alien were in his country of origin as he should have been. Not in jail, not in prison for drunk driving (which would and has costs the taxpayers thousands of dollars) but in his home country driving on their roads, drunk. The list of crazy crimes committed by these people goes on and on. The argument that our own citizens commit the same crimes is a red herring, of course they do, but they are citizens subject to our laws, who understand them and accept them, if they break them then we deal with them. Why add to that list of criminals, offenders that we don’t have to have.   I agree, slap the companies that hire these people, if they didn’t things would cost more and our laws on immigration would change to allow more LEGAL immigration to accommodate the need, but in the meantime, send the lawbreakers back to their country of origin, their children with them and if they want to come back, make some accommodation for granting citizenship to their children when they get their legal immigration status if they can document that the child was born here. In my opinion it’s the only thing to do that will keep intact our laws which we should hold as sacred. Change them if you want, but don’t allow those that chose to break them to do so at no penalty. It will lead to our ruination in the end.     This debate will rage for years and yes the great Decider has spoken, but the great thing about that is that we get to decide who the Decider will be and that will change rapidly after the liberals take office and we see just how they will treat terrorism, immigration and education.         Mike Salyer     From: aaace-nla-bounces at lists.literacytent.org [mailto:aaace-nla-bounces at lists.literacytent.org] On Behalf Of Janice Sapp
 Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:16 PM
 To: National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by AAACE
 Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] Moral choices and immigration      Oxford English Dictionary   Illegality: the quality or condition of being illegal   Illegal: not legal or lawful, contrary to or forbidden by law; the word 'illegal' was first used in 1626    Although the current dictionaries define people as "illegal", the original definition did not conceive of the idea that a human being could be illegal although a person could be born on the wrong side of the blanket or outside of the bonds of marriage and thus be a 'bastard'. This condition, like that of an 'illegal alien' (no, not a martian) could lead people (who might otherwise be nice) to mistreat those who are so given such names.   I am convinced that such name-calling can get out of hand and be considered a hate crime or at the least slander. Since I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the legality of what I just stated, however.   I do know that since my ancesters were called WOPs because they came from Italy without papers, and I was called a WOP and other names inconsistant with who I am although both of my parents are both first generation Italian Americans, I did not like being marginalized because of my name. And still don't.   Although born in the USA, my parents traveled abroad where I learned Italian before I spoke English. I learned English around the age of 5. I am proud to be an American citizen.    I do not care where someone else comes from, especially when he/she are trying to escape from hunger and the effects of poverty, which many Americans don't ever see, to make a better life. Undocumented workers are not lazy; they do not make much money per hour. Yet they, like many immigrants before them, they work hard and harder and make a living, not complaining. I have taught a number all of whom have become citizens, on the first try.    Yet this administration has lied and taken their lives, their work, and what they are working for, for granted. Instead of placing the blame where it ought to be and punishing the employers, who pass the benefits of low pay and no benefits on to you and me, by the way, building ridiculous walls, self righteously prosecuting people 'protecting' its borders, while profiting from the people's work who pour across it.    Since the Great Decider has already decided, let's wait until America has a new leader, perhaps a new vision and let's get on with a new plan for worthy people who are looking for new opportunities.   My fathers once looked to new lands to find new opportunities for work. What did yours do?   Janice Mancinelli Sapp, MA Master Teacher,  English, ESOL Bookbinder Cell: 828-279-2442
 joyconte at yahoo.com     ----- Original Message ----
 From: Kearney Lykins <kearney_lykins at yahoo.com>
 To: aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org
 Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2007 10:36:46 AM
 Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] Moral choices and immigration   David,

 I think your example of a northward-trekking farmer more closely resembles the actual circumstances of most illegal immigrants than your other two examples did.

 You asked, "Doesn't this example also describe a choice to break the law which is
 morally defensible?"

 I say "no" because it's not the only available choice. 

 So he's a farmer (which by the way is a label) in a country with poor farmland. Apparently he's always been a farmer, his father was a farmer, farming runs in his family. Farming is how he feeds his family. But recent drought or economic conditions or prohibitive government policies have made that life choice very difficult. So his moral bearings obligate him to find a better way to provide for himself and his family. Now if he was a crack dealer living in Kansas, where the prospects had recently become poor for selling crack, and his father had been a crack dealer, and crack dealing runs in his family, would he be morally justified to enter Mexico to find a better market for his products? His children are hungry. Would Mexico be justified in questioning his economic decisions? If he found Mexico inhospitable to his enterprise, are there moral grounds on which his demands to set up shop in say, Ecuador be honored? Or would we expect him to learn a new skill, obey the law, and find another way to meet his obligations in Kansas or elsewhere?

 The truth is, there is more than one moral dilemma here, and far more available choices than your example suggests. Why is farming his only outlet for work in his native country? The farmer lives in Central America. Why must he travel north? What, the Venezuelan worker's paradise isn't available? Argentina is fresh out of jobs? Surely there must be "jobs that Colombians just won't do" that this man will. And I find it ironic that while we converse across the Literacytent that we would be morally comfortable with this Spanish speaker making his job quest even more difficult by putting him in an English-speaking country. Where's the morality in that? Isn't he saddled with enough burdens already? 

 But even among all his options, if he does insist on going north why does the USA have to signal the end of the road? Why not push onward to Canada, land of friendly multiculturalism and fantastically free health care? And whatever happened to east and west? 

 The American government has a moral responsibility to defend its borders, and a moral right to do the same, for the sake of its citizens. It also has a moral responsibility to uphold the law. What of the millions of immigrants who do follow the law, the ones who have waited for years to participate in the American economic dream and who have dutifully prepared the forms, paid the fees, learned the language and passed the citizenship exam? Allowing some people to wander across the border willy-nilly says to the law-abiders, "screw you, suckers." Nothing is more amoral and ultimately anarchic than a society that capriciously enforces its laws.

 Kearney            -------------------------------------------------------------------   

 Today's Topics:

 2. Moral choices: another example (DJRosen at TheWorld.com)

 Message: 2
 Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 18:06:07 -0400 (EDT)
 From: DJRosen at TheWorld.com
 Subject: [AAACE-NLA] Moral choices: another example
 To: aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org
 Message-ID: <1495.64.134.183.50.1178489167.squirrel at www.TheWorld.com>
 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1

 Hello Kearney,

 Another example:

 A young farmer who lives in an area with poor farmland in very poor
 country in Central America decides that it is immoral to watch his family
 members die of malnutrition, hunger, and pesticide poisoning. He borrows
 money, leaves home, and crosses the border looking for a way to earn money
 over a short period of time to send back home. He is not planning to go
 to the United States, but he soon finds that he cannot stay in Mexico,
 that he will be arrested there or in any country except the one he was
 born in because he has no papers. He decides to push on northwards, taking
 his chances. He does this at great personal risk, for moral reasons, to
 meet basic human needs of his family. He knows that what he is doing is
 not legal, but decides that the moral principle outweighs the legal and
 other risks. I believe that this example is fairly common among
 immigrants to the United States. I also think that if the Bush
 administratrion prevailed on Congress, and there were a guest worker
 program, that he might be able to get the papers to work legally. (I am
 not advocating that policy, just pointing out that what is illegal today
 could be legal in the next few months or years.)

 Doesn't this example also describe a choice to break the law which is
 morally defensible?

 David J. Rosen
 djrosen at comcastt.net

 Kearney Lykins wrote:

 > David,
 >
 > The two examples you give illustrate the tough choices some people
 decide to make. Both are examples in which would-be-immigrants seek
 entry on grounds of political asylum. They are not however
 representative of the moral choices being made by the millions of
 illiterate and un-immunized people who have willfully entered the US
 illegally. I am not saying that were I in the shoes of your protagonists
 I wouldn't attempt to do the same thing as they. But I am saying that
 the circumstances of the vast majority of the current 12 million or so
 illegal aliens are far different than your two examples.
 >
 > Kearney

              Get your own web address.
 Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.   _______________________________________________
 AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org
 http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla
 LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
 http://literacytent.org            TV dinner still cooling?
 Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.     _______________________________________________
AAACE-NLA mailing list: AAACE-NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/aaace-nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org

________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/aaace-nla/attachments/20070511/77285d24/attachment-0001.html