Immigration: Where do I really come down?

For a while I have been talking about immigration and in support of many illegal immigrants, but do I believe that anything goes? What are my non-negotiables? What do I concede to the right? Do I have anything in common with Lou Dobbs? Well, I do receive his updates!

Let's start at the beginning. I have been working directly with immigrant students in one way or another off and on since I was in high school and I have counted some of them as my best friends. I have been to their homes, met their families, know their struggles. Many have been here legally. Many have not. Some have come legally as students and then searched for ways to stay. Of course, even before I worked with and befriended immigrants, I was and still am a patriotic American who stands when the flag passes during the 4th of July parades, and anyone who knows me will tell you that I am one of those goodie two shoes who does what's right and tries to follow the rules. I tell the cashier when she has given me too much change. I believe in rules. I also believe in hard work, efficiency, justice and goodwill.

I have known many law-abiding, hard-working honest people who have been treated rudely and capriciously in U.S. embassies and consulates in Brazil when applying for visas. I know of people who would just like to come back and forth to the U.S., but are afraid they'll be denied a visa the next time on the whim of some consular clerk, so they decide they are better off staying. I know of hard-working honest people who have been jumping through hoops, taking off days from work and wading through mazes of paper work for years only to have something lost by our government and then told they were out of compliance. I have known wealthy, lazy, well-connected foreigners whose parents can pay for expensive undergraduate degrees in our nation's top universities who partied through college sniffing coke in the VIP rooms of the best dance clubs whose dads got them set up with some internship or job after graduation and can come and go at will from our country.

This country's whole immigration policy is a disgrace. The bureaucracy approaches and often surpasses the inefficiency of the third world government institutions with which I have had contact. Many people talk about coming here legally--in this day and age, for most perspective immigrants that is far more easily said than done.

Our borders? Porous at best. Our messages--mixed. Don't sneak in, but once you do, there is plenty of work and realistically, the government is going to turn a blind eye on those who employ you. Don't ask. Don't tell. What we don't know won't hurt us. We don't really want to make new homes more expensive or price lettuce out of the grocery budgets of the middle class, so we'll use the illegals as a tool against inflation.

In the last few weeks we have seen some crack-downs on major employers of illegals, in what we are assured is coincidental timing. How many years did it take for these companies to accumulate so many illegal workers?

In the meantime, who the hell is here with the honest, hard-working families, a few terrorists? Who knows? What a mess.

• We need to enforce the borders--really.
• We need to know who is here.
• We need to stream-line the legal path to immigration.
• We need the legal process for both short and long-term visas to be transparent and fair.
• We need to wake-up to the fact that there are too many people here already to round up and deport en masse.
• We need to acknowledge the contribution that many of the illegals have made.
• We need to accept those who have been peaceably working or studying for a long period of time in this country and give them a chance to truly assimilate and be a full part of the nation.
• Once we have take these steps, we need to clamp down hard on those who employ illegals and who act as a magnet for their continuing arrivals.

The Hagel-Martinez compromise bill that was presented in the U.S. Senate is a good starting point. They would allow those illegal immigrants who have been in the United States for at least five years to pay a fine and back-taxes, show they have been working and agree to learn English to earn a spot at the back of the line towards becoming citizens. This gives them the incentive to really start to assimilate that leaving in limbo does not promote. Those who have been here for two to five years, must return to their countries and register to return. Those here fewer than two years will be sent back. We need some of these people and we need to know who they are. Otherwise we are in danger of having truly bad seeds among us. But no one has the time to weed through 12 million people to find them.

Of course, if you have been reading my blog for awhile you know I am most worried about those kids or young adults who were brought here as kids who have most of their ties and have had most of their education here in the United States. What would we be sending them back to when they didn't come here on their own to begin with? If we turned a blind-eye and created the environment in which their parents stayed here for years to labor cheaply for us, don't we have some sort of responsibility to them? They're kids. If they have been here fewer than two years, though it is difficult to be shuffled back and forth, it is not as traumatic or insurmountable a process of reacclimation.

I hope this is clear for you. I would like to thank one of my fellow teachers at Austin High School John Mast, for asking me some good questions. It led me to solidify my viewpoint here.

Latin American Left--Making a comeback?

Just out of college, I graduated in 1994, I ended up working in New York City at Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires, an Argentine bank, on their trading floor. At the time, Emerging Markets, especially Latin American markets were hot, hot, hot. Communism was dead--except for Cuba. Privatization, after decades of protectionism and nationalized companies, was all the rage. Mario Vargas Llosa, the famed Peruvian author and failed presidential candidate had spoken on the superiority of capitalism and free markets at my graduation from Georgetown's School of Languages and Linguistics. I was reading Utopia Unarmed: The Latin American Left After the Cold War, by Jorge Castenada, one of Mexico's most important political scientists, discussing a decline in the left of the region and their search for a place in the new world order.

Well, it looks like the left is emerging again, but what form it will take is still up for grabs. The 90s did not save Latin America. The poor are still desperately poor. The privatizations were not always the most egalitarian of processes and in many cases rich insiders became the oligarchs of industries. Despite the arguments of brilliant authors, like Vargas Llosa, capitalism, like communism, was not a magic bullet. Now we have Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva in Brazil, a president who began his political career as a labor leader. Michelle Bachalet Jeria, recently made history with her win in Chile, becoming the nation's first woman president. She is described as a pro-business leftist. In Argentina, Nestor Carlos Kirchner, was elected following string of short-lived presidencies after the economic collapse of the country. As a young man, Kirchner was a radical leftist who fought against the military dictatorship and as president has shown disdain for the International Monetary Fund using it to his advantage to restructure the country's debt and improve the national economy. Also on the left, Tabare Vazquez of Uruguay, but the two most radical and well-known of the new left area Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Juan "Evo" Morales Aima of Bolivia.

Chavez, whose government and personality garnered a feature story in the April 2006 issue of National Geographic, has partnered with Fidel Castro to bring doctors and free health services to the poor, seized private lands for redistribution to the peasants and used the country's oil reserves and exports as a bargaining chip with countries like the United States. "Evo" Morales cut his teeth in politics as the head of the cocalero movement, a coalition of coca farmers opposed to the eradication of the coca crop by U.S. supported Bolivian governments. What may have put him over the top in elections was an on-going, public feud with U.S. ambassador to Bolivia, Manuel Rocha. Anytime the U.S. representative had something negative to say about Morales or Morales against Rocha, he seemed to do even better in the polls. His election was as much a victory over American influence in the region as it was a victory over Morales' political opponents. His MAS party (Movimiento al socialismo) is anti-U.S. and anti-capitalism. Morales even dresses in a manner that demonstrates his disdain for the business driven capitalization that he rails against. Rather than a suit and tie, Evo sports a sweater made of alpaca wool, even when meeting with world leaders.

Morales and Chavez represent the most extreme left forms of government in Latin America. Other, like Brazil's Lula, though once quite radical himself, have adopted a pragmatic leftist leaning, but more centrist approach having reached office. Few expect Bachalet of Chile to be turning her country into a continental Cuba. Even Morales, who shunned the United States on his first international tour, visited with European leaders and the Chinese, as well has his comrades in Havana and Caracas on the trip. Obviously he is not unaware that business interests and investments have to be addressed if his government and his country are to succeed.

As former president of Brazil, Fernando Henrique Cardozo, himself a former left-leaning sociologist, said on Foreign Exchange this morning, globalization is here to stay. There are balances that need to be reached, but in the best cases, foreign investment opens up opportunities for both sides. And so the pendulum swings. Where it will eventually come to rest, is probably somewhere in the middle.

Here is a great quote I found on Wikipedia credited to now Bolivian president Evo Morales from his campaign for that office. His opponents from more traditional parties did not want to debate him, so he said referencing U.S. ambassador Rocha: "I prefer to argue with the owner of the circus, not with the clowns."

So what's the big deal with Rumsfeld?

Much has been made of the retired generals who have been calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. In the end, as Bush said yesterday, [Bush] is the "decider" when it boils down to the nitty-gritty. It is not Rumsfeld's War. He serves at the pleasure of the President. But, let's face it, Bush needs someone with new ideas, new perspective. Like Bush himself, the people with whom he surrounds himself are either loyal and persistent or stubborn and unable to admit mistakes, depending on your perspective. Even if you go with the former, is it a good idea to be loyal to something that doesn't work?

Rumsfeld needs to go. Bush needs fresh blood and in a bad way. Today I was listening to American Morning on CNN as I got ready for work, and I heard an interview with Major General Tom Wilkerson, retired. He was defending Rumsfeld. His main argument seemed to be that we need to stop harping on past mistakes and start dealing with the present situation. Besides, it is now up to the Iraqis to form their government and make things work, and the lack of progress on that front is not Rumsfeld's fault.

Okay, stop a minute. Let's think about this. First of all, I am sad to say that I have been right with about 90 percent of what has happened in Iraq since Bush started saber-rattling after 9-11. I kept wishing I would be wrong, but I wasn't. I kept hoping that these well-informed Bush administration officials knew better than me, a high school Spanish teacher, but alas, they didn't. Why, if the Secretary of Defense and this whole administration have made so many mistakes from day one, do we think they are the ones who will suddenly make all the right decisions from here on out? Hello?! We need fresh blood. Now.

And this notion that we are going to blame the Iraqis for the current problems, because they have not set up a workable government seems a bit like passing the buck. Of course, it is their country and they do need to have some responsibility in this situation, but let us not forget that they wrote their constitution and held elections on our timetable after we overthrew their government. Then we told them to set up a new one. Part of the reason that our democracy has endured (not without issues--remember that period from 1860 to 1864), is because it was formed from a home-grown revolution. It was our time. We decided. Forced democracy--talk about an oximoron.

So what's the big deal with Rumsfeld? He is the biggest, loudest, and I would argue, most arrogant symbol of what is wrong with this administration and its Iraq War policy. Please, show him the door.

On this Easter Sunday, more thoughts on immigration: Do the Europeans have the answers? Bush let this issue get away. Some historical quotes.

On this Easter Sunday, I am enjoying the bright sun and light breezes that grace Austin, Texas today. I am also, still thinking about immigration. Today on Foreign Exchange, Fareed Zakaria spoke with Omer Taspinar from The Brookings Institute and Jose Carrenco of the Mexican paper, El Universal, comparing the European Immigration "problem" with that of the United States. It was an interesting discussion, but one that I felt may have missed some important points.

First of all, Carrenco blamed much of the current situation in this country, while almost simultaneously pointing out that 50% of those illegal immigrants in this country are not Mexican, on increased security at the Mexican-U.S. border. His contention is that seasonal workers who once went back and forth, realized that it was becoming too hard to do that and decided to stay here. Then, of course, they missed their families and brought them over here, too.

Omer Taspinar was asked to discuss Europe's situation as compared to that of the United States. He spoke of the "guest worker" situation in Germany and how surprised the Germans, who recruited "guest workers" from Turkey to rebuild after World War II, were that the "guests" didn't go home. But he said that strong trade with Turkey meant that Turks in Germany were able to maintain employment and contrasted them with the other Muslim immigrants in other European countries--the Pakistanis in Britain, for example. He linked Pakistan's limited trade offerings with Pakistani unemployment in Britain.

Interesting, but what about the fact that compared to Pakistan, Turkey is a more westernized, modernized state, and thus there is less of cultural gap between the those immigrants in Germany and those who have immigrated to places like Britain. The whole "guest" situation, I think is what got Europe into trouble. The thought that the immigrants weren't really going to stick around and if they were just ignored they would somehow disappear, to me is what has led to a lot of the problems. Had the French made more of an effort to integrate the vast numbers of immigrants into their society, I don't think we would have seen such high unemployment and other issues leading to the riots we recently witnessed. Offering a path to eventual citizenship, to me, gives people a chance and a reason to get on board the train and assimilate and grow with the country. Does Europe have the answer with its guest worker model? I don't think so. Immigrants need a way to work towards permanent status as quickly as possible.

In this global world, people are mobile. To me, immigration is a blessing, because the laziest of the world sit on their butts. It takes some get-up-and-go, some real tenacity and courage to leave everything you know and strike out to a country where you don't even speak the language. I think the most revealing portion of the panel discussion on this morning's Foreign Exchange was when Jose Carrenco spoke about how the Mexican government is waking up to the fact that if they don't do more to give energetic, ambitious young people a reason to stay, they'll lose too many of them to the North. In my mind, immigrants raise the bar. They don't lower it.

Meanwhile, I also caught the rebroadcast of Washington Week in Review with Gwen Ifill. It was pointed out that it was strange that the polls seem to show how that many Americans seemed to share the same views with George W. Bush on the immigration issue facing the country, but at the same time gave the president low marks on the issue. Strange??? I don't think so. Think about it. He came into office in 2001 talking about U.S.-Mexican relations and proposing all types of measures to help out the immigrant population. Since then, we haven't heard a peep out of the White House on the issue, until Bush allowed it to be co-opted by the extreme right of the party causing it to blow up in his face. It is one thing to have a view on an important issue, but as President of the United States, you're supposed to actually do something about it. Give me a break. In a way (I never thought I'd say this), we have to thank the extremists, particularly, Rep. Sensenbrenner, for opening up this can of worms.

Thanks, too, to the voices of compassion and reason in the Senate: Senators McCain, Kennedy, Hagel and Martinez. Thanks to those who have taken to the streets to raise awareness and to keep it in the public eye during this recess. May our Congress get back to this and stay with it until we have a reasonable, workable solution to the immigration situation in this country.

Maybe, they should try streamlining the legal process of coming here, while they're at it. If it weren't so costly, unorganized and complicated, and if it didn't take often more than a decade to come legally, maybe we wouldn't have such a problem of illegals and we would actually know who was here! Just a thought.

Okay, so it is Easter, and you know that I have special place in my heart for those "illegals" who were brought here as minors or still are minors. They did not choose to come here, but they are here, and they are learning English and trying to pass state tests and graduate even though they will be cut of from almost all financial aid to continue their educations past high school. With this is mind, I will start off my list of interesting, historical immigration quotes with one from a very well-known historical figure, Jesus Christ:

"Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs." Mark 10:14

"The conclusion has never changed: the worst sort of people come here for the worst sort of reasons and put upon those of us who have conveniently forgotten where we came from and how we got here." --Anna Quidlen, journalist and author, 1994.

"We set this nation up...to vindicate the rights of man. We did not name any differences between one race and another. We opened our gates to all the world and said: 'Let all men who want to be free come to us and they will be welcome.'"--Woodrow Wilson, US president 1914.

"America was indebted to immigration for her settlement and prosperity. That part of America which had encouraged them most had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture and the arts." --James Madison, US president and founding father, 1787.

"Our ancestors... possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice has placed them." --Thomas Jefferson, US president and founding father, 1774.

"There is nothing less to our credit than our neglect of the foreigner and his children, unless it be the arrogance most of us betray when we set out to "americanize" him. --Charles Horton Cooley, sociologist, 1902.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me;
I lift up my lamp beside the golden door."
--Emma Lazarus, poet 1886.

Happy Easter.

"with malice toward none, with charity for all"

This Good Friday I am reflecting on this quote from Lincoln's second inagural address. I was reminded of it in an opinion piece, "The President Who Died for Us" in today's New York Times. It was written by a guy named Richard Wrightman Fox and explores comparisons drawn between our 16th president, shortly after his death in the 19th century and Jesus Christ. Many may not recall, that Lincoln was shot and killed on Good Friday.

Regardless of your thoughts on the Jesus analogy, though I urge you to read the piece and decide for yourself, Lincoln was a man who despite humble beginnings rose to prominence and held this country together despite all odds, when to many all seemed lost. And he did this "with malice toward none, with charity for all". What a lovely thought. So simple. So elegant. So necessary today no more and no less than any other day or an other time. Perhaps as we think about our place in the world--with regards to the immigrants who labor for us, with regards to the other countries with which we interact--we, now such a strong country, one which grew from humble roots, can remember those words and take them to heart and be just a little bit better.

Americans realizing that immigrants aren't so bad

I was heartened to see in today's New York Times a report based on three polls, one by CBS, another by ABC and the Washington Post, a a final one by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg that pretty much say the same thing: While many Americans are worried that illegal immigrants are using more in social services than they are paying into the system, most believe that those who have been here for more than five years and meet other requirements, like learning English, should be allowed to stay in some legalized status. Most Americans feel that these immigrants are doing work that Americans don't want and are not responsible for driving down wages. That is a huge start! It seems to me, that with a legalized status, it would be much easier for them to contibute towards the services that they use. Let's face, while many of these immigrants do pay some form of taxes, others, like those working as domestics and gardeners, often don't. Cool. I hope all our congresmen and women are reading these same polls.

Mexican-American War vs. Iraq War: More of the Same

I am currently reading Doris Kearn Goodwin's A Team of Rivals about Abraham Lincoln. Interestingly enough, there is a section in the book referring to Lincoln's time in the House of Representatives, which happens to correspond with the years of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). Apparently, back in the day, this was one of those gung-ho patriotic type wars with everyone signing up to fight. Polk announced that the Mexicans had fired on us, but Lincoln called on him to tell the nation on which side of the border this had occurred: the Mexican side(indicating a U.S. intrusion on Mexican territory) or the U.S. side (which would have signaled an invasion by the Mexicans). Polk avoided the topic and never gave the American public a straight answer. What were we fighting for? Well, in the end, most Americans didn't care, because we ended up with a lot of new territory--what we now know as the southwestern United States to be exact. So Lincoln ended up on the unpopular side of what was a popular war. Needless to say, Lincoln was a one-term Congressman.

Right now, we are questioning what is going on in Iraq. It may not be turning out as "positively" as the Mexican-American War did for the United States. Either way, we went to war for questionable reasons. Straight answers were and still are hard to come by from the current Bush Administration and people rushed into the war with a patriotic verve that many feel was misplaced. The jury is still out on how this one will come down, but there are very interesting parallels.

Additionally, it was an interesting tidbit of information to come across during the current immigration debate, since so many of the illegal immigrants in question are from Mexico. What an interesting history our two countries have.

Ballet folklorico, teenagers, immigration--they are all one in my world.

It has been just over a week since I last posted. Why? El Gran Show de Primavera. Last night was the Ballet Folklorico's 2nd annual spring show. We do two full-length shows a year at the school, one in December, which is a dinner theater production in the cafeteria, and one in the spring in the Performing Arts Center. There is a lot involved besides just the dancing and the dancers. There are costumes and hairpieces--which thank goodness, another teacher, Ana Luna helped be make last weekend--9 hours on Saturday, the programs, the light and sound cues, the set-up (or lack there of...tracking down a microphone 30 minutes before the show, because those who were supposed to set it up never did), the script I have to write and deliver about the various Mexican regions in both English and Spanish, so the girls have time to change, the ticket collectors, the ticket vendor, the process for the kids to get extra credit in Spanish for various other teachers who don't come themselves on the last day of the marking period, the hair and make-up, the nerves, the tears, the fear a non-make-up wearer has when she gets her eye glued shut putting on her fake eyelashes, the late pizza delivery and making sure everyone eats so they don't pass out on stage, the ticket-selling contest for which the prizes are dinners at restaurants that you pay for out of your own pocket, your choreographer giving the kids a homework assignment for next week without asking you if you have planned something and changing a costume plan, without telling you, which already has been recorded on the costume inventory for the costume mistress, the constant whining of your Spanish students because you are not grading fast enough for them while you are taking care of all these things, teaching all week through thick and thin to keep all your classes on track with the curriculum, because state testing week is not far off and then all you can do is have salsa lessons and play games, because you never know who will be in class and who will be finishing tests and the kids' brains are mush anyway. And you do all this for free, because the school wants to have a folklorico program, but they don't want to fund it. And while you don't really care about folklorico per se, you care about these kids and you want it to be good, because you want other people to see these kids and see how they are great and that their culture is great and that they matter and they have something to add to the world and the country and to the school. Because they do. Because they aren't here to take away anything. They are here to add to it. And they do. They just need a chance and an outlet in which to do it.

And I was asked to do it and so I do. But I have told the school that I am not going to do it next year, because I have real talents that I want to use, but I can't really teach folklorico, as I am dependent on a choreographer. It causes me to not be able to control and plan my classes they way I would like. I can direct plays in Spanish, organize events to promote Hispanic culture, work with salsa dancers, help produce spots for the campus TV station about Hispanic life and history--and have time to explore my own interests, like starting an online magazine to promote international interests in young women. But I really fear that the program will die. I pray that the administration really commits to getting someone on board with real experience in Mexican folklorico. It is important that there is a continuity, that the school see staying power in a Mexican program. In the meantime, we get ready for our Cinco de Mayo performances. We never stand still.

Today, I will get my hair done--the gray roots that I am too young to have are creeping back and then I will finally grade my Spanish tests. Tomorrow (Sunday), I will go into school to enter grades in the computer so that I can submit them on Monday. All the while I will be thinking about those kids and the immigration debate. Yesterday the Senate failed to pass anything, thanks to the conservative Republicans with their scores of amendments and the Democrats that didn't just let them be voted down. I wonder, on their recess back home fundraising like mad if they will be thinking about these kids. Probably not. On Monday I know a number of my kids are going to march about immigration, not understanding fully what the Congress being in recess means. They didn't march last week when kids from other schools did, because it was towards the end of the grading period and they cared about their grades and also they were getting ready for their show--these kids are really criminals, man. Some were talking about buying little American flags to wave, but I know that the kids with Mexican flags will make the papers, because that stirs up more debate--but let's face it, they are Mexicans until we let them in, and I, a Spanish teacher, have a funny Irish bumper sticker in my classroom, because five generations ago, some Irish people showed up here and now here I am and I am still proud of that, and here in Texas, not far from here, tens of thousands of people in New Brunfels celebrate Wurstfest every year and drink too much beer and listen to an unending stream of polka music and noone thinks they are unAmerican. But these kids will at best get unexcused absences from school and may get into more trouble than that. I want to adopt them all and keep them safe and let them grow and be what they should be allowed to be--their best.