Author: Natalie Martin

Now, I’ve always been the first to accuse mankind of having a collective memory similar to the goldfish, but I still give the goldfish some points for not having such a predilection for selective memory. In fact, the more I look at it, the more we seem to have devolved into some type of cognitive hybrid, somewhere between those forgetful little guppies and mindless sheep that are willing to shift our focus, and our tax dollars, toward whatever cause a politician tells us should occupy our time and attention. It’s almost a given that any particular cause almost always comes in an election year, but how strange it is that this nation’s government has asked its citizens to shift focus amongst three different causes within such a short time span. For the benefit of keeping us one level above the sheep and the fish, I’ll focus on one: immigration.

You know what’s sad? I cannot predict lottery numbers to save my life, but I knew sure as the dickens that immigration would be the next election-year issue that would effectively distract the public. Sometime ago, several friends and colleagues were deluged with my daily ranting about how the administration would shift its focus from abortion and gay marriage to immigration as the next big issue for 2006. Hopefully, some of those friends entered pools or perhaps made small side bets. Before it can be debated with clear, concise looks at the problems and solutions, first we must consider if immigration is really an issue. Better yet, is it any more an issue today than it was twenty years ago? Even better still, why do people care now? Despite the sideways apologies and dismissals from politicians who are striving to retain their conservative voting base in active form, this issue reeks of racism–and it mirrors, to an extent, the same divisive political pandering that took place when Proposition 209 (in California), the anti-Affirmative Action bill, gained center stage during another election year. How soon the public forgot…

Although undocumented immigrants come in all nationalities and political ideologies, it seems that the only group ever to garner interest among legislators and voters consistently has been the “brown” people. And why not? They’re easiest to spot, and they make for great immediate vilification when the public needs to be distracted from the attention being paid to high gasoline costs and runaway budgets and an unending war. But, in fairness to both those who vilify illegal immigrants and those who wish to offer amnesty to anyone who touches American soil, let me suggest some options that would be easy to instate–but would also prematurely end the national debate on immigration in a matter of weeks–long before politicians would like to see an end to the pandering.

Option No. 1: Let’s let ’em all in! It’s not an untruth to say that there are some jobs that Americans won’t do; and if they are not willing to do certain jobs, and a company has the opportunity to get workers who will do them, then those workers who are risking their lives to perform a menial task should by all means be given the opportunity. However, there is the other side of the coin. Perhaps it’s not that American workers are unwilling to do a job, but rather, unlike in Mexico, where $5 a day is considered adequate, there’s more incentive for an American to remain unemployed and collect a government check than to work for a wage that cannot afford even the most basic living amenities. Putting aside the costs of perks like gasoline, health care, and food, in taking a look at the lowest cost of living, the minimum wage in this country is below poverty level. And, no matter how much practical sense it makes, working three jobs to be above the poverty level is impossible when trying to raise children, pay for a home, and ensure residence in a neighborhood where it is safe for those children to play outside.

Option No. 2: Kick ’em out; keep ’em out! Way out! While this sentiment pleases most members of the Minutemen, the logistics are completely screwed, and ignorant of history. This nation was not originally inhabited by Europeans, and everyone knows this. Nor is this nation a “nation of immigrants,” a statement that should enrage any indigenous person who hears or reads it. Much as history books seem to omit the details of early America, Europeans were not much different from current undocumented immigrants–save for killing the native inhabitants with war and disease, stealing the land and forcing those who survived to assimilate into a religion and culture with which they were unfamiliar. So far, most undocumented immigrants I’ve met just want to find a good job–and they’d probably feel better if more people spoke Spanish. But, most importantly, those on the anti-immigrant side seem to forget that parts of this country belonged to Mexico in the first place, and that many of the “wars” waged to acquire California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas were slaughters of indigenous peoples during which European nations, namely England and Spain, battled to control the land they stole. Maybe Mexicans just want it back, but they don’t want to go about it the same way the conquistadors did.

Option No. 3: An easy solution that would anger the politicians who want you to stay focused on illegal immigration through the election: or, how we learn to stop giving credence to wedge issues and apply actual solutions to perceived problems. It sounds so simple to suggest that the federal government institute a tax program that would collect fees from undocumented workers (and their employers) that essentially would pay an immigration tax for acquired citizenship. See, these huge upfront fees that legislators are asking for are just going to scare undocumented workers who desperately want to become citizens, and they would just perpetuate a cycle of “work-until-you-get-caught” behavior, which would just perpetuate a continuation of border crossing. However, if the fees were included in paycheck deductions at a rate of $2 per check, per immigrant (matched by the employer) for a 10-year period (subject to transfer if immigrant worker changes employment after beginning citizen-taxation program), that amount would be less intimidating and would generate quite a bit of revenue for the states that implement such a program. And it would quell the debate by appeasing those who wish to see all immigrants amnestied and those who think immigrants should pay their fair share to society. But, unfortunately for politicians, it would put an end to their grandstanding and base-appeasing rhetoric that keeps voters focused on everything but the real issues.

Option No. 4: The Hail Mary pass. I write this because it is very likely that you won’t see it mentioned in the mainstream media, although there’s documented proof that several officials witnessed the alleged interaction. So, what better way to describe it than a series of hypothetical and rhetorical questions, such as:   What if illegal immigration is encouraged by the current administration? What if many of its members, their friends and their lobbyists and business partners benefit from cheap labor? What if these businesses find it much easier to avoid the costs of employing an American citizen so they hire a migrant and get said disenfranchised citizen to hate the illegal immigrant that got his/her job? What if Bush and President Vicente Fox agreed that illegal immigration would be tolerated (let’s say that Fox likes the additional revenue his country sees from immigrants who send money back to Mexico) if Mexico would deregulate its oil supplies and allow U.S. companies first bid/refusal to acquire them? What if this agreement was witnessed by several U.S. and Mexican officials? What if by writing this, I seal my fate?

There are a lot of “What ifs” around this issue, but the answers aren’t as far away as we think. In fact, the same people who want us to ask the questions just happen to be the same people who fear our finding the answers to them before November.   Makes you think, doesn’t it?

Written by Natalie Martin