In a soapbox published July 22, Kimberly Baker Medina points out that "our immigration laws are a convoluted, dysfunctional mess," the enforcement of which results in great injustice.
Her article prompted more than 80 online responses, many of which asked some variant of the question, "Which part of illegal don't you understand?" Not one of the responses mentioned the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.
To focus on the technical illegality of being in the United States without documentation is to miss Baker Medina's point. As she states, violating Jim Crow laws, such as drinking from a "whites-only" fountain and violating Prohibition by selling or transporting "intoxicating liquors" were both formerly illegal.
Enforcing these unjust laws was problematic, and ultimately they were repealed. Baker Medina argues that current immigration laws will also need to change if they are to become enforceable and humane.
I would argue that NAFTA is responsible for much of the increase in immigration to the United States from Mexico and must also change if we are to address the problem of mass immigration to the U.S. from Mexico.
It is important to recall that NAFTA was originally presented by both Presidents Bill Clinton and Carlos Salinas as the solution to the immigration problem. These leaders claimed that NAFTA would result in Mexico becoming a first world nation, with plenty of employment for all those who sought it there.
The reality since NAFTA came into force in 1994 has been far different.
Because of NAFTA, subsidies for farmers in Mexico, where corn was first domesticated from wild teosinte, have vanished. Price supports for farmers in the United States have stayed in place. Unable to compete with subsidized U.S. corn, millions of Mexican farmers have been forced off the land.
Simultaneously, wages and employment opportunities in Mexico's industrial sector have decreased, due to both NAFTA-related privatizations and to downward pressure on wages from Asia. In order to survive, both rural and urban workers have emigrated to the United States.
Since few green cards are available for these displaced workers, the majority are undocumented
The number of undocumented Mexicans in the U.S. has increased from less than 3 million in 1994 to more than 6 million presently. Much of this increase can be attributed to the passage of NAFTA.
Therefore, the repeal of NAFTA, or at least those elements contributing to Mexico's agrarian and industrial crises, would likely result in a significant decrease in emigration to the United States. Those calling for reduced immigration should focus their attention on repealing this truly dysfunctional law, not on punitive measures against undocumented workers or those who employ them here.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the question, "Which part of illegal don't you understand?" is its refusal to acknowledge the humanity of those who come here from Mexico and other countries.
If you find yourself asking this question, please consider asking yourself what you would do if decisions made by domestic and foreign elites threatened the well-being of you and your family.
Would you consider emigration to a country where employment opportunities were better, even if that meant risking deportation? Or would you stay at home and risk abject poverty and starvation?
Countless others ask themselves these questions every day - not as an idle exercise but as a matter of survival.
Kevin Cross lives in Fort Collins and is active with Strength Through Peace (www.cjpe.org/stp).