Immigration, Lost in Translation
If you read all the way to the fifteenth paragraph of this news article covering President Obama's appearance with Mexico's President Calderon on Wednesday, you will find the following claim:
By some estimates, one-tenth of Mexico’s population resides in the United States without permission.
And then you might wonder, now that President Calderon is in the United States on a diplomatic visit, what part of that problem will he own? You can read the text of the remarks at the White House website, and you won't find much. Here are the relevant passages about the recent law passed in Arizona (my emphasis added):
We want to make this quite clear: We, both countries, want to have a safe border, a safe border for our people. We agreed upon the urgency to reinforce the actions to stop the flow of drugs, weapons, and cash. And for this we will work with full abidance to the legislations and jurisdictions of each country in a co-responsible way.
In reference to the migratory issue, I acknowledge the sensitivity and the commitment of President Obama to look for a comprehensive solution that will be respectful of the rights of the individual and will be adjusting itself in a realistic way to the needs of both our economies. We talked openly about this and other issues.
We identified that the economies of our countries are clearly complementing each other, and when we -- integrating them, they are a powerful tool to bring productivity and competitiveness up within the whole region. Greater competitiveness in North America means more jobs and better living conditions for the people of the United States and for the people of Mexico.
In Mexico, we are and will continue being respectful of the internal policies of the United States and its legitimate right to establish in accordance to its Constitution whatever laws it approves. But we will retain our firm rejection to criminalize migration so that people that work and provide things to this nation will be treated as criminals. And we oppose firmly the S.B. 1070 Arizona law given in fair principles that are partial and discriminatory.
I think that referring to up to one tenth of his country's population residing in a neighboring country without permission merely as "migration" is just bizarre. On this issue, I'm with John Hinderaker at Powerline:
Any government that controls its borders--like Mexico's, for example--necessarily "criminalizes" migration that is inconsistent with its laws. Many Mexicans seem to think that the United States is the one country on earth that has no right to set an immigration policy consistent with what it perceives to be its interests. It would be nice to have confidence that our President does not share that view.
I don't think President Calderon will help his cause much if he refuses to acknowledge the difference between legal and illegal immigration or if he refuses to acknowledge the events that precipitated the passing of the law in Arizona.
Not bizarre, it's reality
" think that referring to up to one tenth of his country's population residing in a neighboring country without permission merely as "migration" is just bizarre.'
Ten percent is about 11 million people. Borders are a meaningless political construct when you are starving and need work to feed your family.
Around half a million are guest workers under the H1B program, maybe more. They pick fruit and vegetables, do hard physical labor, etc. Low pay and no benefits.
The transfer payments they send back home are critical to the Mexican economy (run the numbers, if 10% of their population is working in US, that's a lot of money going back to the wives and kids), and those 11 million are likely supporting another 30 million with money sent back home, or about a third of the Mexican population. In turn this creates better political stability in Mexico, which is also in US best interests.
Do we toss them out and let their families starve?
Calderon is right, it is a regional issue. If only the solution were simple . . .
The arizona legislation doesn't address the problem
Mr. Samwick,
The migrant labor coming across the US-Mexican border is a good thing, not a bad one. These workers provide valuable products and services--we should be taxing them to help out our fiscally irresponsible government.
Anyway, the problem coming across the US-Mexican borders is the drug trade. But this is as much our fault (demand) as it is Mexico's (supply).
I have fond memories of the desert southwest from my childhood. My wife is Chinese and I've always wanted to take her backpacking in the Grand Canyon. Not now though. I think I might lose my shit if the government stopped us to check her papers while on vacation! The last time she was stopped by any government to check papers was in China. Yeah I know, the US isn't China and we would never treat people like the Nazis... but you shall know them by their acts.
Ignorance from the North
Minnesota Mom,
Wow, so much ignorance in one post... I am impressed. However, I am even more impressed by your lack of self awareness. Minnesota is notable for how well it is doing and how few illegals it has... See a connection? Try looking.
A few specific points.
1. Starving in Mexico? Is that meant to be funny or what. Mexico is the second most obese country in the world (after the U.S.). Diabetes is soaring. Note that 95% of Mexicans were employed before they came here. See "Unemployment Plays Small Role in Spurring Mexican Migration to U.S." (http://pewhispanic.org/newsroom/releases/release.php?ReleaseID=37)
2. H1B is for skilled workers. Type it into Google and try to learn something (for a change). H2C is for unskilled workers.
3. The vast majority of workers in agriculture (and everywhere else) are legal. Without illegals wages will go up and working conditions improve. The horror. We can't have that...
4. Starve in Mexico? Mexico (and the United States) are in dire need of a diet. See "Obesity in Mexico" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_Mexico). Note that the poor are more likely to be obese in Mexico that the middle class or the wealthy (just like the U.S.). In other words, they have more than enough money to overeat.
I'll try again
Tried to respond to your post but it never got posted.
Sorry about the H2C mistake. My major point was that some of these people are here legally, doing work that Americans typically won't do. I happen to know people on H1B, so that is what auto-flowed from my fingers.
About obesity and diabetes (which is a problem among native peoples in the US as well (and they have a high unemployment rate) -- they were moved to a carbo rich diet when their source of protein-rich diet was eliminated by the whites. So yes, they are in dire need of a better diet, one more appropriate to their genetic dispositions. Instead they are forced to eat what is cheap -- fried bread and high carb diet that puts on fat (due to their insulin resistant condition). Google it. I'm part native-american and I know this problem VERY well. It has nothing to do with getting enough to eat, it's about WHAT you eat, and eating cheap is (literally) a killer for us.
My question for you -- are there other indicators of wealth (besides obesity) that you see in this population? Do they have adequate access to healthcare and education? Might they have aspirations for their children (better jobs, education, ability to provide a better diet that won't lead to premature death)?
Those are things I want for my kids, but I'm lucky enough to live in the US so they are attainable.
Work Americans won't do
There is no work Americans won't do.
It's only a question of money. For enough money Americans will do horribly hard noisy work covered in diesel from drilling mud and get burnt to death on the Deap Water Horizon.
It's time for the elites in America to pay the American worker what they are worth instead of importing people more desperate than ourselves.
Those who say there is work we won't do only seek to subjuate us and our children to lives of poverty.
What the market will bear
The "elites" could pay more for picking crops, but then the consumer would also pay A LOT more at the grocery store.
Which do you want? Cheap vegetables and meat or highly paid American ag workers (with full healthcare and retirement benefits)?
You can't have it both ways.
Yipes
We do have illegals and migrant workers in Minnesota . . . and lots of new immigrants (About 100,000 Hmong in St. Paul, nearly as many Somalians). Fifty foreign languages are spoken in our St. Paul public schools. So, yeah, we have to assimilate lots of foreigners.
Lack of self-awareness? I don't get that. I know who I am. Sorry about the H1B error, as I was typing from memory and forgot the difference between C and B, but the fact is there are guest workers here from Mexico, which was the major point.
As far as obesity and diabetes go, they are not correlated to wealth in the Mexican or Native American communities (it is very common for people with Native ancestory to have this problem, and that includes Mexicans, as they are descendants of Natives). It has more to do with diet (they eat what's cheap, and that is a diet high in carbs, Natives were moved to this diet as their primary sources of food were killed off), and genetic issues -- for centuries their diets were high in protein and their metabolisms evolved to thrive on the protein diet -- animal meat). So in a very real sense they ARE starving -- starving for good food that would maintain better health for them -- they can't afford such food, and it isn't available in their environment.
Obesity? Yes, but is that your primary criteria for quality of life? How about access to healthcare and education?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/frybread.html
http://www.harisingh.com/newsNative4.htm
http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=3645
Food Prices
We can have it both ways, and historically... high food prices have been beneficial to the working-class at the expense of the upper-classes. Wages and agricultural goods must rise in step or all other consumption must fall. This puts the upper-classes in a 'no-win' situation that forces them to give-up some of their advantages. That is why immigration is critical in keeping the labor markets in a constant state of oversupply. Low staple good costs 'allow' low labor costs. High staple good costs without high wages will drive the up the cost of public assistance programs and so, in a society that provides food to all of its citizens, staple good costs play a very significant role in wealth distribution.
The use of undocumented workers as farm labor has a far-reaching influence on labor values. To understand this one must first understand that large farms are in a weak position regarding collective bargaining due to the fact that most crops must be harvested and processed in a specific time-frame. Undocumented workers therefore have a similar role to what slaves once did due to these jobs being both undesirable and seasonal and therefore those citizens willing to do these jobs are reluctant to do them for low wages. And, when farm labor values rise so do other labor values across the bottom of the job market because citizen-workers begin to have choices if labor markets are not in a state of oversupply. When these conditions occur, that is when unions gain strength.
The last period when US workers had these choices was the same period that conscription became necessary (Viet Nam). However, high wages and opportunities for the working-class caused military recruitment shortfalls that resulted in the most severe civil unrest in modern times. And avoiding a repeat of that is the main reason for allowing undocumented workers to stay in the US at a time of high unemployment... 'not' to keep food prices down for those who would burdened by the cost of food.
You point to your post about
You point to your post about a single instance of a death as justification. I think a commenter in an earlier post already pointed out that crime has been *declining* in AZ and elsewhere since the 1990s. So what exactly is your cost/benefit reasoning here? How much should we spend to secure the borders and enforce these laws? How many crimes or deaths would be averted? What if we could save a larger number of N people by spending diverting it to health care instead? What's the difference? The way everyone talks about AZ on the news and your blog, you'd think it was like Mad Max out there. But all the data I've sought (e.g. see the Bureau of Justice Statistics site), don't bear this out.