Will We Lead or Will We Hide – Can the U.S. Seize the Historic Opportunity to Exercise its International Leadership in Addressing Immigration from Mexico?

     I was not planning on doing another post on immigration policy quite so soon – after all this blog is about international business not politics.   But as I pointed out in an earlier post, immigration is a critical issue for companies engaged in global business.   And as I also said in that earlier post, it may well be up to business to “bring a little rationality and sanity to the table before someone starts to wall us off from the rest of the world.”

     The immediate thing that caused me to put aside a post on the paradoxes of the recent spike in international M&A activity that is almost ready for publication and write this post instead was an article in one of Denver’s newspapers this morning entitled “All in All, It's Thrust Another Brick in the Wall”.   Aside from the fact that the headline defiled the classic work by Pink Floyd, the substance of the article got my dander up for the reasons I will explain.   The article profiled the efforts of a Coloradan by the name of Tom Narum, a self described “average guy”, to raise private funds to construct a massive wall along our border with Mexico. Apparently Mr. Narum is not satisfied with the pace at which the government is isolating us from our international neighbors by focusing primarily on unilateral enforcement to solve what is a complex multi-lateral problem.

   

This follows on the heels of an exchange earlier in the week highlighted in a post on the Latin Americanist blog in which the Bush administration chided putative Mexican president-elect Filipe Calderon for denouncing plans by the US government to erect a wall along the U.S. – Mexico border.  More specifically as reported by Reuters, Mr. Calderon stated that “One kilometer of road in Zacatecas or Michoacan is worth more than 10 kilometers of wall in Texas or Arizona to stop immigration.”   Personally I think that this is an extremely articulate manner in which the Harvard educated / pro-U.S. president-elect pointed out the critical connection between economic development in Mexico and a sustainable solution to the immigration imbalance.

     Nonetheless, in an all too predictable response, Mr. Calderon’s insightful and timely remarks were brushed aside by the Bush administration in a glib and backhanded response from White House spokesman Tony Snow.   Mr. Snow told reporters “Last time I checked, Calderon did not have any official authority over the activities of the United States government.”   Somehow a sarcastic dismissal of the soon-to-be president of a key ally does not strike me as effective leadership.

     When Mexico joined with the U.S. and Canada to form NAFTA 12 years ago, it made a strong and compelling statement that it did not want to be a struggling developing country saddled by the politics of corruption that characterized many of its neighbors to the south, but instead wanted to be a fully developed capitalism-based democracy along with its North American neighbors.   Since heading down this road, Mexico has made tremendous strides recovering from the near financial collapse accompanying “The Devaluation”, taming its runaway inflation, normalizing interest rates, opening up industries to foreign investment, and lifting an ever increasing number of its population from poverty.  As suggested elsewhere in this blog, the increasing vibrancy of its growing middle class is reflected in the evolution of its political landscape, moving from the single-party stranglehold of the PRI to the passionately contested multi-party elections of last week.

     Since the advent of NAFTA, Mexico’s economy has grown from $375 billion in 1994 to $693 billion in 2005 (actually passing $ 1 trillion for the first time on a purchasing power parity basis as calculated in the CIA World Factbook).  With exports accounting for nearly 30% of its GDP, and over 85% of that trade dependent on the U.S., Mexico’s economy is inextricably linked to ours.  And of course they have been a steadfast political ally as well – and one which I think is strategically important to the United States’s standing in the remainder of Latin America.

     So perhaps the overriding question in the immigration debate is “how do neighbors and allies help each other when confronted with complex problems with mutual consequences?”  Unfortunately from the tenor of the immigration debate to this point, the answer from our side of the border would appear to be “not so well.”

    

It seems to me that the United States is being presented through the immigration issue an historic opportunity to exercise its leadership role in addressing and solving problems of international scope.   Real leadership would involve working with Mexico to address the economic challenges in our neighboring country that underlie the immigration imbalance between the two countries.  Indeed, any attempted solution which does not begin to address these systemic problems will be a short term and near-sighted solution. 

     If we take the visionary high road, the U.S. could cement our position as a country to be admired and celebrated throughout the western hemisphere.   If instead we forgo this opportunity by shirking our global responsibility, focused only on criminalizing, deporting and walling out our neighbors in the hopes that their problems will simply go away, we may irreparably damage our relationship with the most strategic ally we have in working with the predominantly Spanish speaking world that stretches over half the globe to our south.

     I struggle to understand how so many people in the most powerful and successful nation on earth can be so fearful of people from our friendly neighbor to the south that they feel compelled to build a wall to keep them out.   If we are to resolve the immigration problem, we need to lead, not hide behind the walls of the citadel.

 

Comments

[China Law Blog]

Great post. I have really been enjoying your Mexico and immigration posts so I for one have no problem with another one.

Snow's quote really gets my dander up also. There is no excuse for our government being dismissive of an ALLY's President or possible President. I can think of only two reasons for Snow to have made that comment. He is either an idiot or he is pandering. Either way, it is bad for U.S. diplomacy, which in turn is bad for business. This has nothing to do with policy, but it has everything to do with tact and for some reason we are having trouble mustering that lately.

[Craig Maginness]

Dan:

Thanks for the comment. I think it is particularly meaningful in terms of the need for business to take the lead in getting the immigration debate back on the high road that someone such as yourself who is professionally more focused on China nonetheless has an interest in and passion for this issue as well.

I certainly don't plan on this blog mutating into an immigration policy forum, but I'm sure it will continue to be a subject of importance.

Craig

[Alex]

I don't agree with your Article..

[Craig Maginness]

Alex:

I'm not clear what it is that you don't agree with. That the immigration imbalance is caused at its root by the economic disparity between the two countries? That Mexico is an ally of the U.S. with strategic importance to the U.S. in Latin America? That an immigration policy that fails to take advantage of our strategic relationship with Mexico to address the root cause of the problem is not likely to provide a lasting solution to the problem? Or perhpas you don't agree that a glib and sarcastic dismissal of the serious policy remarks of the president-elect of one of our allies is not good leadership? Frankly I think most of the points made in the post are beyond serious dispute, but if you'd like to expand your comment, perhaps it would add to a worthwhile discussion of this critical issue.

Craig

[Tom Narum]

Craig,

Sorry you did not read the article or content on the website with an understanding of what it is all about. I like to break it down into simple terms. Do you have a fence around your yard? Do you have a doors and windows on your house? Do you have a garage with a garage door that is most likely automatic? Do you have locks on those doors and windows? My guess is the answer is yes to all of those. Why? Because you like your privacy. Pyschologically you like to define what is yours. Lastly and most importantly you want to have security, determine who can come into your home and peace of mind that you have kept our some would be criminals by having such.
Craig, unlike you, I have no irons in the fire on this. I work in financial services and got into a debate with someone and realized neither of us knew enough to be able to offer an educated opinion. So I did what most research analysts like me do, I went out bought about 15 books written on the subject, read hundreds of reports and even more articles/opinions. Then finally went to get the economic impact of unfettered borders.

You on the other hand have a significant number of irons in the fire: "Craig Maginness has been a lawyer and business executive engaged in international sales and marketing and operations for over 25 years." You assumed something so you know what that does to you. I will spell it out though of what the site is looking to do that the US. Congress has and is continuing to fail us as Citizens. Then I suggest you read the original US Constitution. Even if you get no further then the preamble, you should get my point. But The construction and Why of a wall as recently sent out to some others:

"Wall Construction

· 25 feet tall above ground

· 15 feet into the ground

· 18 inches thick with 3 rows of re-bar reinforcement (40 feet of the wall is 18 inches thick, 5 feet at the bottom of the wall is actually 8 feet thick to comply and slightly exceed requirements for footing on a wall of this size). We are thinking that tilt construction will be the least expensive way to do this.

· Guard stations that would be manned by the US Border Patrol every 5 – 10 miles

· A road that would have been built to do the construction on the wall anyway would be set up for easy response by the agents behind our wall to attempted breeches.

· Additionally piping will run through the wall to allow wiring for lights, cameras, motion detectors, seismic detectors, bull horns, etc.

Cost of this version of the wall was estimated at about $3.5 to $6.5 million a mile depending on who we asked. We took the middle and are saying $5 million a mile for a project that is almost $10 billion. Unlike the Minuteman’s version of a fence, the Concrete wall can not be cut, easily climbed, easily dug under or driven through. Our vision of the barrier is about 4 times as costly as the Minuteman Fence, but at least 10 times as effective with fewer repair and maintenance costs. If you were to ask the Israelis, they would tell and are telling you, that they should have gone forward with their full blown wall from the get go (and we have good neighbors for the most part in Mexico & Canada).

When you look at an 8 to 12 foot fence vs. a 25 foot high wall, which one do you think carries the greatest psychological deterrent which will cause most to not even try? My big fear with the Minuteman Fence project is that their fence has already been rendered useless at least once due to someone cutting it down and it will increase costs, maintenance and eventually they must turn it over to the government that will then have it subject to budget cuts, policical tides and understaffing.

Benefits of a wall

· Psychological barrier that will stop a significant number of attempts allowing the US to keep down the personnel cost involved with the US Border Patrol

· Real barrier that poses significant challenges to would be illegal crossers.

· Stop most if not all of 2.6 million successful crossings into the US.

· Stop most of the $50 billion in drugs run by land across our southern border.

· Stop potential terrorists from sneaking through our porous southern border.

· Stop most if not all of the inhumane deaths in the desert by thirst for illegal aliens (460 died in 2005 alone).

· Slow would be crossers and provide ample time for Agents to respond to an attempted crossing (Motion Detectors and monitored cameras alert the Border Patrol long before they even try and scale the wall).

· Prevent errant bullets from striking US Citizens and Border Patrol Agents (unlike a fence).

· Bring law and order back to the Chaos that is our border.

The nice thing is that this is looking to force everything to a legal entry into our great nation. It is not trying to do anything other then that. Why could anyone argue with the law of making people enter our country legally and forcing it via the Wall? After we finish the fixing of the artery of the Southern Border, we will have to work on the scratch that is the Northern Border."

You see, if anything this should help, not hinder your business. And you have no legs to stand on for these arguements. If you did, you would be advocating allowing all these illegal actions. All our organization is looking to do if force any one and everything to pass through legal ports of entry to the US.

Think about it and feel free to respond. But realize that it is more likely to happen then not. Maybe not by my site, or the minuteman fence, but by pressure on the US Congress that continues to grow.

Oh and since you are so verses on the global community, then you know Mexico is the 5th largest economy. With that in mind, I can not imagine why they can not get their act together with regard to providing a better living to their citizens (you see I should not have to pay for that). A wall goes up, illegal immigration goes down by 90% and the Mexican government will be forced to address their growing neglect of their own citizens and trying to pass the buck to the US.

We are not in pre-FDR period where you made it on your own as an imigrant. You only help was family, friends, church...Not the tax dollars of other US citizens. I am also not here to subsidize the continued high profitability of small and large companies on my tax dollars. I am not here to subsidize the destruction of our low income citizens by creating an artificially induced supply of cheap labor and 2nd class citizen. Shame on anyone who thinks Mexicans or any other immigrant should be coming here to work for peanuts and do crap jobs that supposedly "Americans will not." I also do not think Americans will not do the job, I just think they want a reasonable pay.

Best Regards,

Tom Narum
Executive Director

[Craig Maginness]

Tom:

Thanks for the comment expanding on your point of view. As anyone reading my posts knows, I think its important to air all sides if one is to reach a reasoned conclusion on a difficult issue. And I am, of course, glad to see that you've added Going Global to the list of sources you've consulted on this issue.

I couldn't agree with you more that immigration is a problem which needs to be solved with some urgency, but I couldn't agree less with your proposed solution.

I appreciate that you have done some research and read some books on the issue. My 25 years of experience dealing with international issues -- which includes working in the immigrant dependent commercial construction industry, running manufacturing operations in Mexico, having the opportunity to sit down and discuss economic and immigration policy with business and government leaders on both sides of the border, and listening first hand to the insights of some of the foremost experts on the legal, economic and human dimensions of immigration -- convinces me that the idea of building a wall along our border with Mexico is wrong on so many levels.

First, it does nothing to address the root cause of the immigration imbalance between the two countries. It is not unique to the U.S. / Mexico border that one sided migration occurs when two countries with greatly disparate economic opportunities share a crossable border -- it happens every day in many parts of the world. What is unique perhaps to our situation is that the U.S. has the business expertise and financial where-with-all to help our neighbor remedy the disparities -- and a strategic interest in doing so. Why would we not want to take advantage of the opportunity to work together with our ally to effect a lasting solution to the problem.

Second, the wall does nothing to fix what is truly broken with our current immigration system, which is that it doesn't permit legal immigration in many situations where it is legitimately called for. This is where your analogy to a fence around one's yard breaks down (if it made sense at all). My front walk is open to the street and anyone can come ring my doorbell. If upon answering the door, I decide that the person at the door is a decent sort, I have the capcity to invite them in for a longer stay. I even have the capacity to hire them to do some roofing work or landscaping if that was the purpose of their visit. The same cannot be said under our immigration system. Perhaps somewhere in the 15 books you read you learned something about the hierarchy of temoprary work visas issued by the U.S. The principal categories cover people with scientific or technical specialization, college professors, other people with advanced degrees, and representatives of foreign investors (i.e. executives of foreign firms who are here to manage their American operations). Most of the remaining visas are allotted to immediate family members of U.S. citizens or permanant residents. There simply is not a category of visas for people who want to be gainfully employed as roofers or landscapers or hotel maids or nannies. Whatever you think Americans are willing to do, I can tell you from real world experience, its hard to find enough workers willing to mop down hot asphalt on a roof in the middle of summer -- even for $20 or $25 per hour.

Ultimately, I think that building a wall is simply wrong as a matter of moral obligation to help our less fortunate neighbors. Color me soft on this one, but I think its a shame that the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth can't do more to help its neighbor to the south where 30% of the population still live in relatively abject poverty. This is not to say that it is not primarily Mexico's responsibility -- and as I pointed out in the post, Mexico has made great strides in this area. But does that mean we shouldn't offer as much help as we can.

My experience in life generally tells me that when people start building walls when they should be building bridges, it just engenders more hate and conflict -- and there's plenty of that going around in the world already. If readers would like a sample of some of the vitriol that comes from backers of the wall, I recommend that they read the comments of supporters on your organization's website at www.citizensforasecureborder.org/comments.aspx.

Finally, you state that my motivations here are suspect because I'm engaged in international business, whereas your motivations are beyond reproach because you're a financial analyst. As I see it, my motivation is to find a sustainable solution that addresses the root cause of a complex multi-national problem -- and while we're at it, opportunities for business would improve on both sides of the border and the U.S. would cement its place as the preeminent leader in the western hemisphere, neither of which would I consider to be bad things. As best I can tell from your comments here and your organization's website, your motivation is to keep your tax bill as low as possible and to protect your personal property -- or to put it differently, to make sure that people in the rest of the world are clear that when it comes to the U.S., what's mine is mine and what's not yours is your problem. When all is said and done, if we need to justify the motivations for our life's work when the day comes to meet our maker, I'll take my chances with my own.

[Tom Narum]

Craig,
You are going to make me work aren’t you. I can email this to you if it does not show up good in the post. Some of this is going to sound like a challenge to you. Well it is sort of. I am going to push you to take off any blinders you may have on. I am even going to ask you to step out of your comfort zone and look at this from many sides as I did.
CM - “I couldn't agree with you more that immigration is a problem which needs to be solved with some urgency, but I couldn't agree less with your proposed solution.”
CM - “I appreciate that you have done some research and read some books on the issue. My 25 years of experience dealing with international issues -- which includes working in the immigrant dependent commercial construction industry, running manufacturing operations in Mexico, having the opportunity to sit down and discuss economic and immigration policy with business and government leaders on both sides of the border, and listening first hand to the insights of some of the foremost experts on the legal, economic and human dimensions of immigration -- convinces me that the idea of building a wall along our border with Mexico is wrong on so many levels.”
TN – I hate to ask this because of your 25 years of experience, but what HAVE you learned? That Mexico is corrupt to the bone as are many other Latino countries, specifically their governments, not necessarily the general population? That you greased the palms of many wealthy officials to conduct business there? That corruption was only as far away as the next street? That they not only want to, but need to push their poor, which many wealthy families in Mexico (usually with Spanish heritage) think of as a lower caste, to America so they can continue their pampered lives? If it was not as I say, as the 5th Largest and wealthiest economy out there, you would think that they would easily be able to keep their citizens around. Build the same social programs and educational systems as the U.S. It is just going to take them some time and house cleaning in their government. It does not happen overnight and no one should expect it to happen that way. It also can not be an acceptable excuse to ship of their poor and hungry and hope another country will take care of it. Where is their pride?

CM - “First, it does nothing to address the root cause of the immigration imbalance between the two countries.”
TN - A wall will close of the border and will reduce the ILLEGAL immigration and crime in that area by 90%. Talk to San Diego about that if you would like. They can talk to you about Operation GateKeeper and their 23 mile success. The problem is it did not make it to the Gulf of Mexico so illegals can just go around it through other uncovered areas. And since Mexico has no problem with the flood of U.S. Citizens coming down illegally since there are hardly any, both sides are fully addressed by the wall. Had San Diego built the wall I suggest, it would be an even higher percentage of success.
CM - “It is not unique to the U.S. / Mexico border that one sided migration occurs when two countries with greatly disparate economic opportunities share a crossable border -- it happens every day in many parts of the world.”
TN - That is true and in many other parts of the world the result is much worse…Raping the women, beheading the men, immediate and long term incarceration, and on and on and on. The existing punishment for illegal alien’s in Mexico on the books (and off) is significantly harsher then compared with some of the harshest measures proposed by some of our U.S. Congressmen to illegal immigration in the US. Since you are in law, and so familiar with your 25 years of experience with it, please, post Mexico’s rules on Legal and Illegal Immigration. Also post what is not in the books and what they are doing to those Latinos coming from other more Southern Nations then Mexico…
CM - “What is unique perhaps to our situation is that the U.S. has the business expertise and financial where-with-all to help our neighbor remedy the disparities -- and a strategic interest in doing so. Why would we not want to take advantage of the opportunity to work together with our ally to effect a lasting solution to the problem.”
TN - Build the wall to prevent ILLEGAL Immigration and fix our broken LEGAL immigration process. Have a policy in the US that says “Leave no US Citizen Unemployed” just like the educational attitude of “Leave no Child Behind.” Then show Mexico how to cut out their corruption, create a tax system that allows for social welfare and other nice US programs to help the low income individuals. But who says it has to be allowing the 12 to 20 million already here plus an additional 750,000 to 1.5 million per year going forward to come in on the U.S. Citizen Dime??
Reminder to you here, our Government is here to execute the constitution which is for the benefit of it’s citizens and their posterity, not the benefit of other nations. Do you recognize this? “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…”
I am sorry but I looked at the rest of the U.S. Constitution and did not see any requirements that the U.S. Government was to fix the problems of all of the other nations of the World. As a matter of fact, they exceed their constitution authority by using my tax dollars as such. I can see times to use it, but not to allow and justify illegal immigration.
CM - “Second, the wall does nothing to fix what is truly broken with our current immigration system, which is that it doesn't permit legal immigration in many situations where it is legitimately called for. This is where your analogy to a fence around one's yard breaks down (if it made sense at all). My front walk is open to the street and anyone can come ring my doorbell. If upon answering the door, I decide that the person at the door is a decent sort, I have the capcity to invite them in for a longer stay. I even have the capacity to hire them to do some roofing work or landscaping if that was the purpose of their visit. The same cannot be said under our immigration system.”
TN - The wall does everything to address this problem. You see right now the U.S. has no door, no lock, and no much of a fence. The U.S. can not “Answer the door” or “Decide that the person is a decent sort” to be invited in because they just came in without permission. You see you had no door bell to ring and for that matter, no door to stop them even if you wanted…And lets take on the roofer scenario that you could “hire” is kind of like having a hot woman come in and because she looks better then your wife, you take her instead. That is what you are doing to the American Laborer, the cheaper one that is not hear legally, who has not followed our law or been guaranteed the rights afforded a US citizen looks better to you. You want to allow artificially inflated supply, thus decreased demand for labor. Now looking at labor as a commodity…what happens to a commodity when there is an over abundance of it? It gets real cheap. That is what has happened with your desire to “hire” that person you thought you choose to let in when in fact they just came in whether you wanted them to or not.
CM - “Perhaps somewhere in the 15 books you read you learned something about the hierarchy of temoprary work visas issued by the U.S. The principal categories cover people with scientific or technical specialization, college professors, other people with advanced degrees, and representatives of foreign investors (i.e. executives of foreign firms who are here to manage their American operations). Most of the remaining visas are allotted to immediate family members of U.S. citizens or permanant residents. There simply is not a category of visas for people who want to be gainfully employed as roofers or landscapers or hotel maids or nannies. Whatever you think Americans are willing to do, I can tell you from real world experience, its hard to find enough workers willing to mop down hot asphalt on a roof in the middle of summer -- even for $20 or $25 per hour.”
TN - Another point of disagreement. Did you look at the educational level of those coming in on visas sponsored by immediate family members of U.S. Citizens or permanent residents? Or even better, how about the number coming in through these last two groups you mentioned. Or did you forget that this is most of the visas issued. AND most of those are coming to America to take low income jobs in that group. So your roofers, landscapers, hotel maids or nannies, of which you don’t want to pay what they are worth, are still coming to America. Next…
CM - “Ultimately, I think that building a wall is simply wrong as a matter of moral obligation to help our less fortunate neighbors. Color me soft on this one, but I think its a shame that the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth can't do more to help its neighbor to the south where 30% of the population still live in relatively abject poverty.”
TN - I am sorry, but as the 5th largest and wealthiest economy, I would argue they have plenty of their own money to correct that problem. If you think programs like those in the U.S. are the way to go, advise them on it and have them do it. I would argue it is a moral obligation to help the poor and needy of this country first and foremost. The shame is not what we do, but what Mexico does not do.
CM - This is not to say that it is not primarily Mexico's responsibility -- and as I pointed out in the post, Mexico has made great strides in this area. But does that mean we shouldn't offer as much help as we can.
TN - It is fully Mexico’s responsibility, not primarily... They get plenty of help from the U.S. financially from our good old US Congress (I am not going to go dig out the appropriations of Congress to Mexico and other Nations) and trade/tourism dollars. They get plenty of educational and economic guidance from Washington D.C. and other business’ looking to take advantage of their cheap labor. The problem is no matter how much you help, you and the U.S. government always give the money to the wealthy and the Mexican government. It will never make it to the intended recipients that way…well unless you wanted the poverty stricken to continue to live as such.
CM - My experience in life generally tells me that when people start building walls when they should be building bridges, it just engenders more hate and conflict -- and there's plenty of that going around in the world already.
TN - I think that all the legal bridges you want to build are fine with me and most Americans. But be aware that most Americans would also agree that it be Legally traversed and go through a barrier as I have suggested or something similar.
CM - If readers would like a sample of some of the vitriol that comes from backers of the wall, I recommend that they read the comments of supporters on your organization's website at www.citizensforasecureborder.org/comments.aspx.
TN - Agreed. Please go out and read all the links to all the educational studies, add your own comments by all means, take the poll, and come back everyday and look at the new stories coming out on the subject. I do not screen anything to be pro or con. I want the full picture. I did have a recent post from a PRO-Illegal Immigrant blogger that acted like they were the KKK and we posted a reply that stated that was not our stance, opinion and in no way reflected the purpose of www.citizensforasecureborder.org. It is amazing that it took a pro-illegal immigration person to post their sarcastic hate statement on our site. I would have thought some radical racist, of which we are not, would have eventually done it.

CM - As I see it, my motivation is to find a sustainable solution that addresses the root cause of a complex multi-national problem -- and while we're at it, opportunities for business would improve on both sides of the border and the U.S. would cement its place as the preeminent leader in the western hemisphere, neither of which would I consider to be bad things. As best I can tell from your comments here and your organization's website, your motivation is to keep your tax bill as low as possible and to protect your personal property –
TN - Lets see, I want to KEEP my hard earned money as much as possible, to not have it go to wasteful spending by the government and I want to protect my personal property…Yes that sound about right on the money. But please add protect friends, family and other citizens less fortunate that are looked upon as a voting power in the poor and lower wage camps. I want to keep the American melting pot going and not allow it to be tipped over by any one group. This is, what has made our American Culture so great in the first place. Also add that I want this to be such that it can be passed on to our posterity (future generations).
CM - or to put it differently, to make sure that people in the rest of the world are clear that when it comes to the U.S., what's mine is mine and what's not yours is your problem.
TN - Well yes to some degree that would be correct. What is mine is mine. Or do you suggest that Americans, for the most part, the hardest working class the world has ever seen, should just give it away? I think you just increased the percent of people who agree with me by at least 20% if that is what you mean. And their problems are their problems is an accurate statement. There are churches and charities for helping those. I even suggest that other countries feel free to ask the U.S. for help. We are a very charitable group and will most likely come to your country to aid you. Although I don’t think we should be expected to take all their poverty so as to diminish this country further.
CM – “When all is said and done, if we need to justify the motivations for our life's work when the day comes to meet our maker, I'll take my chances with my own.”
TN - No one would ask you to do otherwise. For the have-nots, which was me growing up (compared to 8% of the other American families), God says he help those who help themselves. I can not just be the U.S., it has to be a desire of the citizens and politicians of which over country is not doing as well as the U.S. to step up and help themselves. Once they have identified this highly important attitude, then we can help. I like the old saying of you can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink. Makes me think of the corruption in almost all governments and the situations going on over in the Middle East…
TN - Now getting toward the end of this diatribe, you forgot to cover some of my points. What say you on:
$50 billion in illegal drugs crossing the border?
Almost 500 Illegal Aliens dying in the desert of the US because they could so easily and illegally cross in such dangerous terrain?
Lawlessness and Chaos on our US Borders?
AND FINALLY, terrorist that are now slipping easily into this country via our southern border by blending in with the Latinos and taking on fake IDs that use Latino names to avoid capture if caught? Now that sounds a little weird, but with the Catch & Release program, it is accurate.

TN - Last note from me, I go to bed every night and sleep wonderfully because I know that I am actually trying to make a difference in one issue that is adding to the destruction of the United States and the American Way of Life, ILLEGAL immigration. And I truly believe it will make a better life for Americans, which is my foremost concern right behind my family, friends.

I wish ALL prosperity, but not at the cost of the American way or our posterity.

Tom Narum
Executive Director
CitizensForASecureBorder.org

[Tom Narum]

Craig,

I did forget to post this as well...

And for those illegals coming in, what truly is the cost? I can tell you that over 97% will fall into the "net takers" vs. "net givers" to our tax system. That is based on historical data and might actually be low in our new environment that has experienced the largest growth rate in illegal immigration, let alone legal immigration in our nation's history. Have you looked at statistics for 2nd, 3rd and 4th generations of Hispanic (I only bring up hispanics here because that group is impacted the most and been researched the most)children to low income and no highschool education and their path within our society?

That mind set can no longer be afforded to reign in this country. It has led to our government having spent to the point that they have "increased our Unfunded liabilities and unfunded commitments from $20 Trillion to $46 trillion in only 5 years…Going up every second of over minute of every day. What are against us: Deficits at or near record rates, Demographics are working against us, Interest costs are compounding against us because were a debtor and not an investor." Said David Walker Comptroller General from the GAO (for those of you who don't know what that is it is the Government Accountability Office that is responsible for overseeing what, where when and how our government is spending the tax dollars)

We have to get our house in order before we can take on any more wanted (as Pro illegal immigration folks would say) or unwanted guests (as Anti illegal immigration folks would say)...

Tn

[Craig Maginness]

Tom:

Wow -- where to begin? I'll try and keep my responsive comments concise.

1. You need to get out and travel -- spend some more time in other countries. Your stereotyped misperecptions of Mexico and Mexicans are embarrassing. Please don't ever make assumptions about what I know or think based on your own jingoistic world view.

2. When you analyze the constitution you need to read past the preamble and study the entire document. It provides that the government can enter into alliances and conduct a foreign policy. It neither requires nor prohibits foreign aid or economic development assistance. I think most intelligent people would agree that these are important aspects of a serious, comprehensive and effective foreign policy, particularly when directed at strategically allied nations.

3. I actually share your concern with the size of the continuing federal budget deficits and the mounting debt burden. But if your point is to blame the deficit on the cost of illegal immigration, your argument is patently absurd and intellecually dishonest. On the other hand, if your argument is that the U.S. is not in fact among the wealthiest nations on earth, but rather is a poor debt-laden bankrupt country that can't afford foreign aid -- well that certainly stands the existing paradigm of the U.S.'s role in the world on its head. You and I both know that balancing budgets is a matter of setting priorities, and we both agree that addressing immigration is a priority. The difference as I see it is that you would like to see money spent addressing symptoms by militarizing a peaceful border and expanding the criminal justice system and I would like to spend the money on a constructive sustainable solution to the cause of the problem.

4. While I believe that the U.S. does have the financial where-with-all to provide economic assistance to its allies, you and I also agree that a better solution yet is one which relies primarily on private sector dollars. When I talk about the U.S. and Mexico working together to foster economic development, I envision jointly enacted policies that would enable and encourage investment by U.S. companies in Mexico.

5. You seem obsessed with your idea that Mexico is the "5th largest and wealthiest economy" in the world. Unfortunately like many of your "facts", this one is both irrelevant and wrong. Ranked by GDP, which is the measure that all credible economists that I know use to measure the size of a country's economy, Mexico ranks 13th behind (in order) the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, Spain, South Korea, Brazil and India. This is true whether one uses a current exchange rate basis or a purchasing power parity basis.

If one ranks countries based on GDP Per Capita, which is a measure of the wealth of a country as opposed to its size, Mexico drops to 85th, as many smaller developed countries such as Norway and Switzerland pass it by, as well as several other Latin American countries including Argentina and Costa Rica.

Ultimately, however, what is relevant here is not the absolute size of the economies, but the relative size differences. The fact that the world's largest economy (the U.S.) is over 17 times larger than the 13th largest (Mexico) speaks volumes about the global disparity between the "haves" and "have-nots".

6. So that brings us to the final point which is whether we have any obligation or interest in taking action to remedy some of these disparities -- at least when it is in our strategic interest to do so. You have made your position abundantly clear that you believe it's not our problem or concern, and absolutely not if it might involve a nickle out of your pocket. This is probably the fundamental point on which we disagree the most. I don't agree with you that abject poverty is exclusively the problem of the nation in which the impoverished people live. Abject poverty is a human tragedy and a global problem -- and if the United States is a world leader (which I think it is), we should be leading the effort to find sustainable solutions to this global problem -- whether its in Appalachia or downtown Detroit or Mexico or Africa.

Unfortunately the one point on which I fear you may be right (although I sincerely hope you are not) is the point made in your first comment that regardless of what I think, the clamor of the xenophobes among us will be sufficient to ensure that we do actually build a wall between us and our neighboring countries. If this does come to pass, I think it will be a sad day indeed for the United States as it will be the day that we will have declared to the rest of the world that we are a fearful and miserly country. I like to believe that the American spirit and the American dream is larger than that. You apparently don't think so.

[Tom Narum]

I am disappointed in you that you brought up Xenophobe, of which I am most definitely not. Dick Lamm said it best "I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate."

As a matter of fact, let me post that whole speach below if you don't mind. And then tonight, I will come back a answer all your points.

This was not last week but here is something that a more elequent speaker and writer spoke up on:

"We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal - was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to des troy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"

Here is how they do it," Lamm said:

"First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country." History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: "The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy." Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.".

Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black an d Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third, "We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: "The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together." Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high. school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All G reece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" -- From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus'. Instead of the 'Unum,' we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said,. "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system a nd national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in. America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength.".

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream."

Tom Narum
Executive Director
And Proud we are a rich country

[Tom Narum]

I also stand corrected on the Economy. I definitely do not look to provide false info and you are correct on the size of their economy. Depending on which source you go to Mexico is the 12th or 13th Largest Economy, and GDP per capita puts them out of the top 20 list at about $10,000 per capita (I wonder if that takes into consideration that over 15 million Mexican Citizens live in the US? when you add estimated illegal to the legal population)...But their cost of living index is even lower. I must have picked up the "5th Largest/wealthiest" when I was working on California and how their state used to rank...
Thank you for catching that.

Tom Narum
Executive Director
CitizensForASecureBorder.org

[Craig Maginness]

Tom:

I published your above comment despite its length because I admit I find Dick Lamm to be a fascinating character. Our former governor's views of course are not without serious controversy. You will remember his 1984 speech on the elderly's "duty to die", arguing that it was a waste of health care dollars to provide organ transplants or other life saving procedures for people over the age of 65 and suggesting that a fair way to bring health care costs under control would be to increase the use of euthanasia on the elderly. Kind of a frightening world view in many respects.

For an excellent article on Dick's grim view of the world, including his view on immigration, I recommend the article by Stuart Anderson of the Cato Institute entitled "The World According to Dick Lamm" which can be found at http://www.cato.org/dailys/7-28-96.html.

As for the use of the word xenophobe, which is defined in Websters as "one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin", I continue to think it is a fair characterization of the majority of people who I hear clamoring for a wall to be built, which is who I applied the word to in my earlier comment. I immagine that Dick Lamm is sensitive to the use of the word because, given his many views on keeping foreigners out and avoiding inclusion of any part of their language or culture in our own, he has been called a xenophobe on more than one occasion. And given that I think someone is defined not by what they say they are but by what they in fact say, I tend to think that the salutation might be justified in his case as well.

All that being said, thanks for bringing Dick Lamm's views on the subject to the table.

Craig

[charvey]

Craig,

Great point - the US should engage its neighbors and not build walls to keep out people looking for a better life.

However, many voices in the debate assume that economic growth in Mexico and its Southern neighbors will reduce the number of immigrants flowing to the US. I belive this assumption is flawed.

There is growing evidence that economic growth in Central America may in fact increase emigration to the US. The reason is that as economies develop, the labor force acquires more advanced skills that are worth much more in the US than in their home countries. People always want a better life, and the US will continue to be a magnet for people on all rungs of the economic ladder.

The real solution to the immigration "problem" is to widen the legal immigration pipeline so it is in line with the labor markets in the US. These people want to work and contribute to our society -- in short, they are following the American dream. I welcome them all as future citizens of the United States.

[Craig Maginness]

Thanks for the comment. Your point about the advancement of skill levels going hand in hand with development is a good one. And I agree completely that there is an immediate need to reform the current system to provide for a visa category which would match the supply and demand for labor in employment sectors for which no visas are currently available.

One policy suggestion I have made is instead of criminalizing employers who need to hire immigrant workers, accredit them so that qualified employers can issue the necessary work papers and get these people in the system so that taxes can be witheld and so that they are no longer invisible.