Why immigration control is ineffective
Crossing the desert
There are two central facts about immigration which haven't come up this week.
One, without an exit north, Mexico would resemble Colombia. The Chiapas rebellion of the 1990's was a small taste of what could happen. We do not want to live next to the Mexican version of FARC. In fact, we don't like the Colombian version of FARC all that much.
It would take US Attorneys a year to build cases for hiring illegals and jail the people who do it. ICE could raid companies across America and deport people.
But they don't.
Because if the border was really shut, really blocked to Mexican metizos and Indians, the drug gangs of northern Mexico would morph into revolutionary movements which would repeat the 1910 Revolution.
Do you think that 11m people wound up her by accident, with stores, churches and lives?
Oh no. For the most part, it is the price we pay to keep Mexico stable. Oh, Tom Tancredo can stomp about, make noise about a wall, but our pourous border is part of our unspoken deal with Mexico. We let your troublemakers in, you don't go soggy on us.
The Mexican government doesn't stop immigration north, because with Mexico's social structure, a second revolution has been postponed for nearly a century. They can moan about the treatment of illegals in the US, knowing damn well they let them come here to keep their social structure in place.
Ever watch a Mexican novella? See any brown people in them? No? Not an accident. Most of Mexico has little voice in how the country is run.
Our inability to control the border has as much, if not more, to do with serving as Mexico's release valve than mere greed.
posted by Steve @ 1:22:00 AM