Immigration Debate Spin-Doctoring

This article starts with a joke. But, it's a joke meant to illustrate a point.

An undocumented worker walks into a bank and pulls a gun on the teller, demanding all the money in her cash drawer. The teller complies but presses a foot-activated silent alarm to alert police. Police arrive quickly and arrest the undocumented worker before he can get away. But as they're reading the undocumented worker his rights, he protests his arrest, saying, "No, you don't understand. I wasn't robbing this bank. I was merely making an undocumented withdrawal."

The immigration debate has brought the spin-doctors out of their shells. Until recent years, an illegal alien was referred to as an illegal alien. But now, the catch-phrase attributed to illegal aliens is "undocumented workers." However, just as the police would not buy the argument of a bank robbery merely being an "undocumented withdrawal," we in turn should not buy the argument that an illegal alien is just an "undocumented worker." Any way you cut the cloth, the fact remains that an illegal act is being committed by someone. And, we all know who is committing the illegal act.

However, undocumented withdrawals are not limited to banks. Sometimes, these withdrawals hit very close to home.

My ex was a legal immigrant from the Philippines. She was already in the US when we met. After we married, she became a naturalized US citizen. At that time, we petitioned her 4 siblings. And, at the time, the normal waiting period for petition approval was 3 years. However, approval took 6 years. Why? As an immigration officer told us, petition approval rates are revised downward to take the estimated influx of illegals into account.

When her siblings finally arrived here, 3 of them worked on a farm picking fruits and vegetables while 1 of them worked as a maid at a hotel chain ... jobs that most liberals say would ONLY be done by illegals. In short, illegal aliens took 3 years of income out of the pockets of my ex's sibling who would have otherwise held the jobs THEY held.

Shortly after the farm worker siblings were hired, the farmer decided on a change of policy to simplify his accounting. He decided that, on a certain date, daily cash payments would stop. All workers would receive weekly checks ... meaning that ALL workers had to fill out an I9 form and prove their identity. The day this change took effect, only a handful of his Mexican workers showed up in the fields. So, he went to his remaining coworkers (Filipinos, other Asians or Islanders, Kenyans, people from post-Soviet republics, etc.) and asked them to tell their friends that jobs were available. Within 48 hours, his fields were full of workers again.

It is a myth to believe that illegals are necessary to our agricultural economy. In many cases, illegals are merely taking the jobs legal aliens would take IF THEY COULD ONLY GET TO OUR SHORES IN A TIMELY MANNER. But as long as the estimated influx of illegals holds them back, that can't happen.

When will the preferential treatment of Mexican illegals stop? When will we begin to treat ALL immigrants equally under the eyes of the law without regard to race, color, creed, or national origin? When will we stop telling legal aliens to "go to the back of the immigration bus" to make way for the illegals who are stealing the jobs they would hold? And, when will we stop allowing illegals to make undocumented withdrawals from the bank accounts of legal aliens who would otherwise be making the deposits?

In regards to theft, however, many Mexicans believe they are only "reclaiming" their rights. In Mexican schools, children are taught that the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) was an illegal war ... that it was a war of aggression with the purpose of stealing Mexican land that the U.S. wanted to annex. The land in question included Texas, California, and New Mexico. Therefore, because they believe the war was an illegal war, these children are brought up to believe that these lands are their "birthright" ... that our President James K. Polk was nothing more than a big bully and a thief ... and that the job of their generation of Mexicans is to "retake" the stolen land.

However, Mexican schools have their own spin-doctors at work. And, their take on the Mexican-American war is taken out of context. Here's what really happened.

Prior to the war, Mexico borrowed $4,500,000 from the United States. In the 1800s, that was a LOT of money. But then, citizens of Texas voted (democratically) to secede from Mexico in 1836 to become their own independent Republic Of Texas. A brief war erupted. And after the defeat of the Mexican army at the Battle of San Jacinto, Mexican President Santa Anna signed away rights to the land to the new republic in the Treaty of Velasco. However, internal politics within Mexico were such that they refused to accept their own President's authority ... and the Treaty of Velasco was never ratified by the Mexican government.

Following the war for Texan sovereignty, Mexico decided that they wouldn't repay their loan to the United States. Things came to a head in 1845 when President Polk sent a representative to Mexico City in an attempt to resolve the matter. And, what he had to offer was substantial. In brief, the United States would agree to "forgive" the loan to Mexico and, in addition, pay another $25,000,000 for land we were interested in (New Mexico & California). Unfortunately, the Mexican government never knew of this offer since officials refused to even meet with the US representative. And, they continued to stiff us on the $4,500,000 loan.

Nowadays when you owe money to a creditor ... and if you won't answer the phone when the creditor calls ... or won't answer the door when the creditor visits you, we have courts of law that will champion the creditor's rights in the matter. But back in the 1800s, when a debtor country just decides to stiff a creditor country, there were only two choices left to the creditor country - (1) allow themselves to be stiffed, becoming a laughingstock among other nations, or (2) take direct action in response to being stiffed. President James K. Polk chose option #2 - and so began the Mexican-American War in 1846. And in winning the war in 1848, Polk acquired the land he was fully willing to pay-through-the-nose for. Point is, had Mexico paid back the loan as it promised, Polk would have been the true villain he's painted to be. But since Mexico refused to pay back the loan, the moral authority for the Mexican-American War clearly rests with the United States ... unless of course you believe they were NOT robbing us - that they were merely forgiving their own loan in some "undocumented" fashion.

Just one more post-scriptum on stealing land from others. If you go back further in Mexican history, you'll find a group of people known as the Olmecs. However, you won't find those people anymore. Why? Because the Mexican newcomers moved in, trounced the resident Olmecs, and stole their land. It's almost as if the Mexicans of today are asking us, "What right did Polk have to steal the land we'd previously stolen from the Olmecs?" Am I the only person who detects a teensy bit of hypocrisy in that question? I don't think so.