The Wall

“Two Wrongs, Don’t Make a Right”

During the past months the United States, Mexico and the International Human Rights Community have had an ongoing debate with regards to the newly approved “Secure Fence Act of 2006”, which was disapproved by wide sectors of both the United States and Mexico. Since illegal immigration in the United States is usually considered a burden on services such as health care, education and security, a need for tighter border control including a Fence in the Mexican border was considered an accurate way out of an emerging problem. In a broader picture the problem that both countries are facing is that they both are trying to resolve a wrong action with another. Mexico is stating that immigrants will cross the border with or without the wall which doesn’t offer a solution and neither does the United States approach to the problem which is building the wall.  Such a decision goes against the logic of the era in which we are living, which is closely tied to globalization and to democratic governments who should have more logical forms of facing the immigration problem.

As noted above immigration has always been considered a big problem in the United States and its bordering neighbors, it has its pros and cons, which has made the topic of illegal immigration a big issue with lawmakers. Mexico and the United States share one of the largest borders in the world, which separates much more than two bodies of land, it separates languages, traditions, customs and ways of life. The United States has over the years maintained a clear supremacy in the economic sense, technological advances as well as military power, while Mexico has been given the title of a “developing country”. The title might seem reasonable since for Mexico the borders have come at a high cost, almost half of the national territory was taken away by the United States and a position of power was then given to them, for their apparent superiority.

In early writings such as “The United States vs. Porfirio Diaz” published by the University of Nebraska in 1963, the North American start to publish their view of the New Mexican Government. Press from the United States starts publishing articles on the Mexican corruption, electoral fraud and lack of trust on its institutions. Such publications started creating a negative view on the Mexican government by the American people.

Although for Mexico neighboring with the United States has had its pros and cons some of its most present advantages are being close to the biggest consumer market on earth and ironically a savings on military equipment. As an apparent disadvantage Mexico would have to point out is its dependence on the United States. Overall what can be considered an advantage for some can be considered a disadvantage for many.

As for the United States they are facing a difficult situation, their vulnerability was demonstrated to them in the worst way possible as we saw on September 11, 2001. Their reasons for stopping illegal immigration start first of all with the prevention of another terrorist attack. Stopping drug and human trafficking is also a very important subject matter to the United States. As for the economic reasons there are many expenses that taxpayers cover for illegal immigrants such as health care and education and also the amount of remittances sent to the home countries. In Mexico for example the migrant remittances account for the countries second largest income, next to the vast amount of oil produced.

Up to now the United States has taken drastic measures against illegal immigration, such as harsher punishment against people hiring migrant workers as well as more investment on border patrol. Even with such measures taken, American border policy has failed to stop the flow of undocumented workers who enter the job market in the United States. Now days there are approximately 8 million people living in the United States without legal documents and each year it increases an estimated quarter million, and more than half of those who enter the country or are already here come from Mexico. The typical ports of entry for most used to be San Diego, California, and El Paso and Laredo in Texas. With the stronger guard over the border the migration patterns changed to the desert between Mexico and Arizona, which is less patrolled but much more dangerous. Such pattern changes have affected American land owners whose property is invaded and damaged by immigrants, while it has also affected the migrants who have lost their lives in the attempt to cross the border.

As for the current immigration laws, they contradict themselves with the harsh economic reality that is taking place. The Immigration from Mexico has been for years driven by the increasing demand for labor that is less qualified in the United States and the decrease in domestic labor to fulfill such duties. Contrary to popular belief Mexican immigrants are not depriving Native United States citizens of their jobs; such is demonstrated in the low immigrant presence in fields such as science and technology but high presence in the hotel and food service industry. As for tax expenses, studies show that over time a migrant worker will usually pay much more in sales taxes over the years than the amount received in state services. In regards to population, the growth in population in the United States has maintained itself under the global levels and has not caused problems.

A solution to the problem was apparently taken care of when during the first years of both the Mexican President Vicente Fox and George W. Bush of the United States met in Mexico and later in Washington to establish a new and realistic immigration policy. Such policy included “making the willing workers meet the willing employers, while serving the economic and social necessities of both nations; showing respect to the human dignity of all migrants with no regards to their migratory status; recognizing the contribution of migrant workers to both nations and sharing the responsibility for a safer and legal channel of migration”, but was put on hold due to the mentioned terrorist attacks to the United States. Even with the mentioned hold put on the immigration policy it is evident that business between both nations has increased dramatically. Mexico is now the United States’ second largest commercial partner next to Canada, and the direct foreign investment between both nations has also continued to grow.

With the proposed migratory reform on hold, in recent times the United States has for now set up an extremely harsh response for stopping the flow of illegal immigration. The bill that was passed by both the lower and upper houses of legislature and the President indicates that the United States will build a 700 mile fence along the nation’s Southwestern border. The estimated amount of money that will be spent on the wall ranges from 2 to 7 Billion dollars, with an approved 1.2 billion down payment to also reinforce border surveillance with new technology and man power. The wall should then slow down the flow of illegal immigrants before exploring broader changes to immigration law such as granting legal status to most illegal immigrants and a guest worker program to supply the nations industries. The controversial part of the wall building begins first of all with the strong opposition by groups on both sides of the borders, who claim the wall a violation of basic human dignity and compare it to the Berlin wall and Great Wall of China. Another strong point of opposition are the facts that such a wall will then make those who are willing to take the risk of entering the United States go through even harsher conditions than the ones available without the increased security and wall.

A viable response to this established immigration policy is the legalization of all Mexicans coming into the United States. Although it would be a long and difficult task, in response it can reduce expenses on border protection that can then be applied to counterterrorism expenses.  The legalization of Mexican migration would also bring to legality an underground market; it would allow American producers in important sectors of our economy to hire the needed workforce for growth, higher wages, and improve the present work conditions of less qualified workers. 

Another reasonable response to the harsh immigration policy that is going to be implemented would be temporary work visas. An effective work visa program should be reinstated as in past but now with a possibility for renewal for another period of time.  In a general sense the mobility would allow work to flow in order to satisfy an ever changing demand. It would also make sure that the temporary foreign worker doesn’t enjoy legal advantages that are not earned or illegal disadvantages. As for the regulation of such visa, there should be a set number of openings that would satisfy the demand for employees, and should be given a reasonable cost to cover program expenses as well as the demand. For example if 300,000 visas are given at $1,000.00 each the $300 million income would cover program expenses and the rest should go to local governments to cover for the expenses incurred in the workers temporary stay.



Another reasonable idea would be to re-implement a program similar to the Amnesty program of the 1980’s. It would implement the same temporary visa program for all those who are living in the United States once they register their status with the government. And after a predetermined amount of time in the United States, if a clear employment and criminal record is proven, the migrant worker would be granted permanent residency and a further opportunity for citizenship. A cost should also be given to the Temporary Visa to cover for the program expenses and should be controlled by strict deadlines to control the number of applicants.

All in all the program to which I am more in favor of would have to be the Amnesty type program because it seems fair and regulates past, present and future immigration and is self sustaining. Meaning that it would only regulate the status of hard working individuals who deserve the opportunity to receive all the benefits included for being part of the American workforce, while also keeping a close control on the quantity of people who enter. The fact that it would practically pay for itself is evident, since the payments must be made in order for all paperwork to be submitted. For practical reasons, legalization should begin with Mexican immigrants given their location and the quantity al ready present in the United States. Also the Mexican government is willing to work in the implementation of a successful program and its cooperation will be necessary for the program to work. For example the long border between both countries and the rising of business between both, stimulated by NAFTA, is clearly in favor of legalizing what is already an integrated labor market of North America.

Overall the decision that was taken by all the branches of government should not be taken into consideration, even if the United States seems to be the one to be at risk it can be clearly demonstrated that the demand for a work force will continue to grow and illegal immigration will continue to rise in accordance. Both sides of the border should come to a logical agreement and take into consideration that there are many viable ideas that offer a better immigration reform policy, and not be at a constant combat to demonstrate who has the better solution to an ongoing problem.