Mexican and Immigration

It seems again that our political system is throwing another red herring at us and trying to dupe our vote out of us. As with a woman's right to her private relationship with her doctor and with a person's right to choose the details of his/her personal, most private intimate relationship, immigration appears to be another such example of our government splashing irrelevant arguments at us in order to appeal to some hormonal response that guides our vote, rather than a reasoned response that is intrinsically based on the principals of our american government.

The Pew Hispanic Center recently published a study that shows that net immigration (between US and Mexico) has dropped to net zero or below. Now, whether that is due to the recent changes in US immigration policies is irrelevant: it can be argued that their success led to the net zero flow, just as it can be argued that the changes are really a waste of money and resources because there just aren't the numbers anymore. So, any current politician or political candidate spouting an affirmative position in relation to immigration policy changes is just blowing smoke up our asses.
And, wasting our resources and money...

I heard that California spent millions on a program to facilitate the employment of US citizens in harvesting and farming work to only have about 10 persons apply and about three even try the work. Uhhmm, money well spent? I think not. So there it is, the truth: the truth is that we just don't want to do the work that immigrants are willing to perform and we are so miserable about it when we do show up for the job that we lose the job or quit. 

The California experiment is supported by my middle class neighbors' experiences, as I suspect is also most of our experiences. My neighbor's nephew was the laziest fuck of a lawn maintenance guy--my neighbor even had to buy his equipment for him and pay the HOA fines because of his poor work. His Hispanic replacement, on the other hand, was on time, provided his own equipment, and met the HOA's standards. The non-immigrant US citizen guy hired by another neighbor to do drywall work called her a "cunt" when she told him to follow her directions while on her property (she told him at the beginning of his day use the ladders and scaffolding and not to reach. Within an hour, she caught him standing on the 120 year old fireplace mantle and reaching above the fireplace). The Hispanic crew left her a perfectly mudded house in just two days and didn't use one single expletive. Non-mexican US citizens simply don't want to do the work, and, quite frankly, we don't want you to do it either. This is ample demonstration that our recent attitudes towards immigration have led to exceptionally stupid policy decisions and expenditures that really only end up making us look like total asses.

If a politician had any real concerns about this immigration flow and its impact on our culture and country, there are at least two OTHER issues that he/she should be discussing.

The first issue is that a significant percentage (20%) of the flow from US to Mexico that helped get us to net zero are actually US citizens--children born in the US. Children--persons that are a US citizen in exactly the same way that makes me, and likely each politician, a US citizen. Can there be found any other emigration of US citizens in such a large number that we, as a country, as a nation, have approved of? I challenge any politician to find that example.

Further compounding the ethical challenges with this particular issue is that our own government is hiding from us--its constituency and funders, the actual numbers of US citizens that it forcibly and constructively deports to Mexico each year. The US Dept. of Homeland Security may provide some numbers on its acitivies, but it fails to provide numbers on how many US citizen-children that it has forced to relocate from the US to Mexico. Why hide that from us? And why do we tolerate this kind of lack of transparency in our own government?

The second issue that politicians keen on immigration issues should be discussing is how to effect and achieve the maximum beneficial characteristics of a society that is diverse and includes immigrants. How many times have we heard a politician define the "problem" of Mexico-to-US immigration as being one of immigrants failing our society some how. This seems very much like picking on the people who can't defend them selves--and who don't vote. And, more importantly, it seems to be an overly narrow view, since many immigrants provide necessary services that go unprovided without them. Their performance of domestic, farming, construction, and gardening services are just a few examples of their obvious and helpful contribution. Has anyone seen "The Help"....see any similarities?

Instead of talking about putting money into things that make us an antagonistic, pugnacious, and uncaring society, why not talk about putting resources into making sure all elements of our society are educated, have a way to provide for themselves, and have a way to contribute to their chosen society. When you shore up your society's provision of education, you achieve direct and indirect benefits for everyone. When you shore up a truly robust free market economy where everyone--especially the wealthy and the incorporated, pay their way instead of sucking our backbones out of us, everyone benefits.