History will be a harsh judge of how U.S. has treated Mexican immigrants

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/621391,CST-NWS-stein26.article

Killing the DREAM

October 26, 2007
BY NEIL STEINBERG Sun-Times Columnist

Opening shot

Haters always have their reasons, always always always. Good, solid, reasonable reasons, at least in their own minds. If you tapped any Southern slave owner on the shoulder, he could unspool a litany of exactly why blacks should remain forever slaves -- because they're inferior, because they can't learn, because God Almighty intends them to be slaves -- reasons that nauseate us today but made perfect sense to them, then.

Give our modern world credit. The "illegal" canard brandished by those who want a permanent underclass of Hispanic serfs -- shorn of rights except the right to work hard at crap jobs until deported -- is a stroke of genius. You can be the most rule-averse, speeding, tax-cheating, shoplifting American miscreant and suddenly you're Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes if it means keepin' down them Mexicans.

Forget that we invite them in with our open borders. Forget that some have been here for decades. Forget that our mechanism for citizenship is broken. Their papers are not in order, so they must be made to suffer and their children made to suffer, as evidenced by the Senate's craven rejection of Dick Durbin's DREAM Act, the one shred of immigration reform that should have been completely unopposed, a modest plan to let teens brought here as children qualify for college assistance or join the army and harbor hopes of becoming citizens of the country where they have spent most of their lives.

These are days of shame. Someday, in the country we are assuredly becoming, we're going to look back and ask why we responded this way, who we thought we were fooling with our fig leaf of illegality and how we could have believed it hid our failure to act as decent Americans and compassionate human beings.

Women have let the situation fester until it is now almost at
a boil. For whatever reason, Washington will never take action
on anything until it is Crisis Mode.

People have been complaining for the past ten to fifteen years.
Congress has this amazing way of totally ignoring ordinary
Americans especially middleclass white working people. They
appear to assume, Oh--these Americans will put up with, tolerate
this. They never seem to understand that even the person with
the best "spirit" reaches a breaking point.

I am not defending anyone or any group. I am saying there
are ways of handling things or situations to prevent any one
group feeling they are always getting the shaft or being put
upon.

Sometimes arranging the order in which legisltaion is even
discussed can do more to prevent misunderstanding and misperception.

To continuously bring up legislation which appears to favor
"illegal immigrants" when Joe and Jane Sixpack are breaking
their backs "trying to make it" in this "free trade world"
creates more harm than the good it might bring. Alienting
people solves no problems and pushes them to the other party.

Are there some bigots, Of course. But the majority of Americans
are not bigots. They want fairness for all.

by referring to people who want to protect U.S. jobs as "haters."

What other countries have open borders where you can come in and enroll your children in school?

A good third of my family are descendants from Mexico and Venezuela, although I'm not, but according to this SHIT, I hate them. I volunteer to tutor children who lag behind in reading, but according to this SHIT, I hate them, too. (Two of the three are hispanic.)

I'm sick of the open border advocates framing this as hate.

What other countries have open borders where you can come in and enroll your children in school?

Thanks.

So sorry. Might want to try again with someone with less experience or with fewer facts in hand.

since you have all the facts. So now is asking someone a question considered baiting? I guess there is only a one-way conversation with you.

27 Countries???

Furthermore,

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Keynes stated that mobility of labour was a critical factor in any successful economy.

Just a point.

Peace

Some countries in Europe do not qualify because of their poor economies.

And England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are all part of the United Kingdom I believe.

however you asked which countries had open borders, I was just answering your question :)

Whilst England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, are part of the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom is not a country, merely a union of the 4 aforementioned countries.

Peace

These unions have a framework in place similarly comparable to the United States. You have to belong to be able to travel freely between the states or countries. Even some current EU members need a passport to travel between countries.

I'm sure you are well aware that the EU's borders are just as challenged as the US's border.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5369986.stm

edit for grammar

These are individual nation states that allow total freedom of movement. It differs to the USA in the fact that the USA is not comprised of 50 individual countries, therefore the US/Euro comparison is hardly valid.

I am all to well aware of the problems faced by European nations, being from England and having traveled extensively throughout Europe, however, I am likewise aware of the huge benefits the EU has brought, as exemplified by the strength of the Euro as compared to that of the dollar.

This was your question "What other countries have open borders where you can come in and enroll your children in school?". I answered your question, the fact that the answer makes your original question look somewhat silly and ill-researched is not my problem


Peace

But you were at least able to help answer it. I appreciated the conversation with you even though you apparently thought it was silly.

Anyway, cheers.

A bunch of nation states "united" to forrm a larger union. They even share a currency. We DO NOT share a currency with Mexico.

kids in school? Are undocumented (aka illegal) immigrants holding jobs in EU countries??

I VERY highly doubt this.

However that was not the question was it? If the question read, "name me any countries, apart from the 27 European countries that already have open borders, that have open borders", then your response would be valid.

However, the question read "name any countries that have open borders".

Try and keep up eh?

Peace

And has always had a fairly liberal immigration policy, until recently. (With a few shameful excpetions, like the years of the Chinese Exclusion Act).

The EU has plenty of immigration now. And it just may take over as the number one economy, as common sense seems to reign there to a greater degree.

Our country always took in many immigrants and its laws have built in forgiveness for breaking them. We generally grant an amnesty every few years, essentially saying, oh, what the hell, just stay if you want to. I always liked that about us. And that generosity was generally rewarded.

If we're going to turn into fascists about it, I predict we won't like the result. Our economy will start shrinking. We'll get more and more controlled, since controlling immigration requires a police state. For what? Immigrants don't hurt us. The job market is not a zero sum game; any immigrant's presence will generate jobs as well as our employment does.

There's simply no reason to consider it any type of "crisis." It's been the same for decades. Now, it's suddenly a "crisis?" Not believable.

has survived and probably will survive .

Divisivness only hurts any cause in the long run. My point
is we need to look at a situation from all angles--then
search for a solution.

The KKK was nearly dead before someone came up with the inspired idea of targeting Latin American immigrants -- who come here because our government keeps screwing up their attempts at democracy.

Most Americans have the luxury of bitching about illegal immigration and not bitching about illegally screwing up Latin America with our tax dollars. Remember, we PAID for Pinochet, for the fake Contra War, for the oppression of El Salvador, for the massacre of women and children in Guatemala, for turning Honduras into a landing strip. And the beat goes on, to this day, with BushCo subverting elections in Mexico (hint: they stole it from the Progressive) and the demonizing of Chavez.

If most Americans aren't KKK, they sure have a knack for looking the other way respectably when their government preys on Latin America. It's the equivalent of looking the other way when your next door neighbor burns crosses on manicured lawns.

"Most Americans have the luxury of bitching about illegal immigration and not bitching about illegally screwing up Latin America with our tax dollars. Remember, we PAID for Pinochet, for the fake Contra War, for the oppression of El Salvador, for the massacre of women and children in Guatemala, for turning Honduras into a landing strip. And the beat goes on, to this day, with BushCo subverting elections in Mexico (hint: they stole it from the Progressive) and the demonizing of Chavez."

The majority of immigrants are from Mexico. And Bush didn't need to help anyone steal the election in Mexico. Tampering with elections is the norm there.

before you embarrass yourself further. And now, welcome to my ignore list.

ha It's been corrupt - just like Louisiana, which is where I was born and is probably the most corrupt state in the union.

Just because Bush is evil doesn't mean we can ignore history prior to Bush.

we had more open borders than just about any "other" first world country, and that the corporatists destroyed our country with cheap labor.

THAT is what history will remember - the cheap labor that flowed over the border.

I'll get it locked.

peace

The way I look at it if this article can change just one mind it was worth posting.

Baby steps.

Don

:loveya:

for speaking a truth that people don't want to hear

How the US has treated Mexican immigrants will be just one more item in a long list of things that history will judge us harshly for.

Other items on that list include:

How the US treats people at Guantanamo

How the US treats people in Iraq.

How the US treats poor children who need health care.

How the US treats poor people in New Orleans.

How the US treats gay people.

How the US treats the non-white, the non-straight, the non-male, and the non-christian.

It seems strange that "history" is going to judge us harshly when so many immigrants are trying desperately to get IN. I'd be more inclined to think that history might judge Mexico harshly.

U.S. urged to apologize for 1930s deportations









We have collective amnesia in this country.

as well as those who want to use illegal immigration as a wedge issue to forward their plans for a North American Union, continue to have their way.

The columnist is right to condemn open borders and the exploitation of cheap labor, but he does not identify who is pushing for these conditions except to refer to the unidentified "haters".


Steinberg says:
Give our modern world credit. The "illegal" canard brandished by those who want a permanent underclass of Hispanic serfs -- shorn of rights except the right to work hard at crap jobs until deported -- is a stroke of genius. You can be the most rule-averse, speeding, tax-cheating, shoplifting American miscreant and suddenly you're Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes if it means keepin' down them Mexicans.

But who is it that wants illegal aliens here to work at crap jobs? Who benefits from such a situation? Certainly not working people who have to compete with this illegal workforce, and certainly not people who oppose open borders and who want immigration laws enforced. The author correctly points out that the lack of enforcement is creating the situation he laments, but he can't bring himself to argue for enforcement.


Steinberg says:
Forget that we invite them in with our open borders. Forget that some have been here for decades. Forget that our mechanism for citizenship is broken. Their papers are not in order, so they must be made to suffer and their children made to suffer, as evidenced by the Senate's craven rejection of Dick Durbin's DREAM Act, the one shred of immigration reform that should have been completely unopposed, a modest plan to let teens brought here as children qualify for college assistance or join the army and harbor hopes of becoming citizens of the country where they have spent most of their lives.

But who invites them? Answer: Bush and Vincente Fox and others who wish to create a North American Union, as well as more run of the mill exploiters who simply want someone to work harder for less money without complaint lest they be deported or replaced by someone else who will work for less. Add those who advocate for lax enforcement of our immigration laws for "compassionate" reasons to the list.

Perhaps he tips his ahand a bit when he says "the mechanism for citizenship is broken". That is how the Open Borders crowd sees it. But for those who think the current rate of immigration (just under a million/year) is about right, the statement makes little sense.


Steinberg says:
These are days of shame. Someday, in the country we are assuredly becoming, we're going to look back and ask why we responded this way, who we thought we were fooling with our fig leaf of illegality and how we could have believed it hid our failure to act as decent Americans and compassionate human beings.


Does Steinberg mean to say that the "compassionate" thing is to open the borders and let everyone who enters become a legal resident or citizen?

Or does he think the compassionate thing would be to end the exploitation by severely punishing the exploiters -those companies who hire illegal aliens- while securing our borders, protecting our own workers, and continuing our current immigration policy of allowing close to 1 million new immigrants each year. If that is what he thinks, he makes no mention of it here.

The modest plan he supports does not address the actual issues, rather it sidesteps the larger issue with feel good compassion for some, but not for others whose needs are just a great. It is just that sort of feel good compassion that gave us the failed amnesty of the late 1980s, and created the situation that the Dream Act is now supposed to address.


I hope he follows up this article with something less vague. I know that he is ashamed of fellow citizens who hate and exploit, as every fair-minded person ought to be, but it seems that a professional journalist could manage to convey a bit more than that.

They'll write glowing analysis of how America's welcoming of Mexican citizens led to a new era of global harmony and free commerce. There will be no mention of exploitation, flouting of labor laws or standards, or the misanthropic race to the bottom that all workers are forced into. Just more of the "cheap shit is good", pro-capitalism pablum brought to you by Walmart.

Illegal is illegal. Period.

Welcome to DU.

Don

it will judge Mexico even more harshly for the way it treated its own citizens.

http://www.historyguy.com/Mexican-American_War.html

The History Guy Website

The U.S.-Mexican War—(1846-1848):

The Mexican-American War was the first major conflict driven by the idea of "Manifest Destiny"; the belief that America had a God-given right, or destiny, to expand the country's borders from 'sea to shining sea'. This belief would eventually cause a great deal of suffering for many Mexicans, Native Americans and United States citizens. Following the earlier Texas War of Independence from Mexico, tensions between the two largest independent nations on the North American continent grew as Texas eventually became a U.S. state. Disputes over the border lines sparked military confrontation, helped by the fact that President Polk eagerly sought a war in order to seize large tracts of land from Mexico.

CAUSES OF CONFLICT:

The war between the United States and Mexico had two basic causes. First, the desire of the U.S. to expand across the North American continent to the Pacific Ocean caused conflict with all of its neighbors; from the British in Canada and Oregon to the Mexicans in the southwest and, of course, with the Native Americans. Ever since President Jefferson's acquisition of the Louisiana Territory in 1803, Americans migrated westward in ever increasing numbers, often into lands not belonging to the United States. By the time President Polk came to office in 1845, an idea called "Manifest Destiny" had taken root among the American people, and the new occupant of the White House was a firm believer in the idea of expansion. The belief that the U.S. basically had a God-given right to occupy and "civilize" the whole continent gained favor as more and more Americans settled the western lands. The fact that most of those areas already had people living upon them was usually ignored, with the attitude that democratic English-speaking America, with its high ideals and Protestant Christian ethics, would do a better job of running things than the Native Americans or Spanish-speaking Catholic Mexicans. Manifest Destiny did not necessarily call for violent expansion. In both 1835 and 1845, the United States offered to purchase California from Mexico, for $5 million and $25 million, respectively. The Mexican government refused the opportunity to sell half of its country to Mexico's most dangerous neighbor.

CONSEQUENCES OF CONFLICT:

1. The United States acquired the northern half of Mexico. This area later became the U.S. states of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.

of Europe's illegal immigration to "America".