In a recent article
, you wrote
"The flow of Mexicans to the north can be strategically contained either by improving the quality of Mexican economic life, or by suppressing opportunities in U.S. life. The former cannot be done, given cultural rigidities and impermeabilities. The latter can be attempted, but at great cost to American business interests and ideals. Congress could pass a law imposing huge fines on any American enterprise that hires illegal workers. Collateral pressures could be applied, involving driving licenses, hospitals, schools. Are we willing to adopt such measures?" Can We Stop Illegals?, April 8, 2005
Mexican states differ rather markedly in their tendency to produce migrants and to accept migrants internally.
Furthermore, claiming that just because the PRI or PAN can`t improve opportunities in Mexico, it can`t be done is showing a rather extreme lack of imagination or willingness to investigate—and frankly has twinges of racism attached to it.
On the other point, fines on U.S. employers of illegal aliens are part of the law of the land—law which the party you supported has chosen
not to enforce—benefiting key blocks of supporters
—but at enormous cost to the public.
Why shouldn`t the property of those profiting from the labor of illegal aliens be liquidated to pay these fines—and if need be that of lenders
who have broken these laws?
What this would mean is that a younger, poorer generation of Americans would get a chance to use these assets legally.
You used to support responsibility and law and order. What happened?
If the US tax and regulatory structure is such that it mandates use of illegal aliens, that should be fixed.
But it won`t be until the law is taken seriously by those that have benefited the most from it.