Immigration: Looking at causes south of the Rio Grande

(NOTE FROM LP: In light of the seemingly waning brouhaha over immigration, the following is an article that addresses the issue from a Mexican, rather than U.S., point of view. It originally appeared in National Review, but has been reposted — for free — elsewhwere.)

Mexico, heal thyself

By Jason Lee Steorts
Sunday, July 9, 2006, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

If there is a leitmotif in the immigration debate to vex a conservative soul, it is the idea that border enforcement is anti-Mexican. This idea is vexatious because it ascribes the worst possible motives to border-enforcement advocates while disregarding the substance of their position.

But it is also vexatious for the simpler reason that it isn't true. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the social and economic effects of illegal immigration on the United States are positive or negative; and reasonable people can plausibly claim that Mexico benefits from the remittances that illegal immigrants send home.

What is considerably less plausible is the notion that Mexico's long-term interests are advanced by the exodus of 10 percent or more of its population.

"It's easier to blame other people than to blame yourself," says Fredo Arias-King, who served as a foreign-policy adviser to Mexican President Vicente Fox during his 2000 campaign. "You can export your problems to the unwitting United States. But it's not good for Mexico when American politicians don't stand up for their own dignity. Instead they just say, 'Yes, of course, we should help the (illegal) Mexicans.'"

Those Mexicans leave their country for a simple reason: They are poor and the opportunities they lack at home can be found here [in the U.S.].

(The article is here. The immigration issue has been covered by Vox Verax here and here.)