mmmm hmmm!

You make $360/hour? Am I reading that right?

hardly the most important part! my rates are not set as such. its not steady (thus the can earn, not "do" earn). but sure, i have jobs that pay me hundreds for work i can do in far less than an hour. also, i have jobs that i take on that pay very little, but are important to me and that i do for very little profit. i also (sometimes, and when I can afford it) donate work to ideas and people and orgs that are important to me. and, in the past, i've worked for years at a lower rate than she has, as well. and my cable was shut off last month!

the point is that this woman is busting her ASS for very little. while many of us are rich in comparison. that's my point. sorry it wasn't clearer.

Beautifully written. I really enjoyed the corrected headlines you provided about the Church. Big media is certainly as complicit as the law in these matters. The MLK quote reminded me of Lt. Ehren Watada in Washington, refusing to deploy to an unjust war.

Look, for some people it is the big scary brown coming over the borda'. But the reality is that our "bad" immigration law keeps out most would be economic immigrants who are not Spanish speaking. Desert Flor has it tough. So do some 10 million underemployed Chinese. So do some 10 million Africans and 15 million Indians. Throw in 5 million Russians, 5 million assorted Poles, east Germans and Rumanians. All would be better off taking American jobs than staying home. Cool, so what about the 45 million Americans who are told they have to compete with 3rd world wages or be on the streets? As though their bosses don't already threaten it but can't actually physically do their work overseas. What about the effect on Los Angeles and New York that struggle to provide education and healthcare to overcrowded populations and already don't have enough money to do it right. Double their poor population and that makes it EASIER?

I don't think we need to hunt down every Mez'kin and disrupt lives that are integrated already in America, but population growth has real costs, as does pollution. We SHOULD have some say about how crowded our cities are. I don't feel guilty about Aztec descendants wanting to move from Oaxaca to California. I feel guilty about the genocide of the Sioux, Gabrieleno and Iroquois, something the Aztecs would have done too if they'd come here. Real job verification and one time amnesty is what is needed, unlike the Pete Wilson sponsored wink and look the other way 1984 reform, so bosses could get cheap labor and hold deportation over it. Los Angeles would work better, be a more humane place to live if it weren't so huge but we aren't gonna squeeze that toothpaste back in the tube. But its not wrong to say Fix Mexico and Fix the country we have before taking on all of Mexico's poor and having a lame policy that tells the 45 million unemployed of the world that they can't come because we only have room for Spanish speaking law breakers.

We need population control and we should encourage it around the world. A crowded rat cage is an ugly rat cage and I'm not calling Mexicans vermin, WE ALL WILL BE RATS if we let the situation get so bad that we can't behave decently because of desperation, fear and anger. I love multicultural LA, pour 10 million more into its inadequate health system, undernourished schools and stressed out (and freaked out) police force and it will be BRUTAL to live here.

"fixing the country we have" includes all the effects our broken country has around the world. México is one of those that suffers consequences of our "broken" country. That is why you have a ghetto right outside the gated community that we are. we are all intertwined, my friend.

we are the rats. in the gilded cage.

I took the "unfortunately ..." part to mean that it's "unfortunate" (i.e., the polite version of effed up) that there's a need for them to do this, that immigration law is so messed up in the U.S. that churches have to shelter people to keep them from being kicked out of their homes and their children going hungry.

I liked the corrected headlines as well.

Fine, you want to fix NAFTA bankrupting Mexican farmers with subsidized American corn? I'm all for it, because it makes the situation better. You want Mexico to exercise the power it rightfully whipped out to nationalise resources we were pillaging, like they did after their revolution, fine... they have as much right as the Arabs. I'm all for it, it makes the situation better. You want workers to unite so they don't get poisoned in the workplace so Walmart can import cheap TVs from cheap factories without pollution controls, in Mexico or here? I'm all for it, it makes the situation better.

You want an open border so Mexicans and Poles and South Africans and Chinese ... , can equalise wages and save employers a bundle in costs? Oh, you just meant Mexicans (no you probably didn't, but real open borders are open to EVERYONE). We got Fascism and Stalinism from the sudden economic shocks of the 1930s. What do you think we'd get in America if suddenly everyone had to deal with twice as much traffic, noise, pollution, half as much chance of being employed, competing for existing open space and housing? War and revolution are exciting but suck to live through.

Adding more people doesn't make the situation better, it makes it tougher, more challenging. Trees are cut down, species go extinct, local cultures are overwhelmed. Tell the Cherokee how much good open borders did them, they weren't asked either. Fix the country? Yes. Fund universal healthcare, develop more jobs without more pollution. Promote mass transit and development that gives more open space per person. These are all things that would make life better and make it irrelevant if you added one more person to the mix, if they were DONE. We've hardly started because some people make more money looting the world and distracting us with sideshows. Does Jewish immigration make Palestinian lives better? Yes, Mexicans are kinder than Americans and Jews but so are the citizens of every overcrowded underdeveloped country in the world. New Zealand is a great place. Throw 40 million people there and it might not be hell, but it would be a lot less wonderful than it is today. Mexico needs to overthrow its masters, just like we do. Providing an escape valve for that just puts off the necessary changes there. Changes that would make things better.

Yes, Nez! How is it that some who speak so loudly about God are most lacking in compassion AND most reluctant to speak truth to power?

where did i say "open borders"? anyway, CB, you just sound like a lot of noise to me.

"México is one of those that suffers consequences of our 'broken' country. That is why you have a ghetto right outside the gated community that we are. we are all intertwined, my friend."

Well spoken, Nezua.

Why is it that people find it so easy to isolate "AmairKa" from the rest of the world, as if what happens in other corners of this planet is somehow isolated from what happens here? The colonialism of our (OK, my) ancestors is directly responsible for the mind-boggling inequity in the world. I know this is an over-used statistic, but 16 percent of the world's population (that is, us, some European countries, and probably Japan) controls 80 percent of the Earth's natural resources. No one seems too troubled about that, but when some of the people who make up that other 84 percent come around looking for a little bit of what they should be entitled to, everyone gets all worked up about how "they" are infringing on "our" way of life.

There is no "us" and no "them," no matter how it looks from this side of the fence.

I'm just saying, locals should have a say about how non-locals affect their lives in their own backyard. That is how the Iranians got control of their oil. If the other 84% wants to nationalise their resources or take control of it like Hugo Chavez, great, we'll have to deal with being less hoggish of the world's resources. You don't say "open borders" but you act like there is no downside to immigration and no justification for home rule except prejudice or heartlessness.

Immigration is a symptom of underdevelopment and overpopulation. Fight the imperialism that fosters underdevelopment and fight the ignorance that fosters overpopulation, but don't fight the self determination of people to decide how many people to invite or not, to the space where they live. Ask the Tibetans how glad they are that Beijing has decided to fill in all their empty space with ethnic Chinese, without consulting them. The Gabrielenos would rather have California back than casinos to scalp stupid white people. I can't help that, I was born here, I didn't kill anyone but I don't have anywhere else to go but America and wherever the locals will have me. A Michoacan has Mexico and should be satisfied with that (or change it) or go wherever the locals will have him. But if they say "No mas." he should acept that.

dont fight the self determination of people trying to feed their children, thnx.

CB .... I had to re-read and change lenses more than once. I understand corporatism, and I certainly grasp the concept of the "race to the bottom" created in the name of the ultimate oxymoron "Free Trade." One point I do not accept: "if we let the situation get so bad that we can't behave decently because of desperation, fear and anger."

I hold out hope that a re-read with a different lens will also allow you to accept that only you can make the choice to behave decently, or not, by your actions. Only you can be overwhelmed by the desperation, fear, and anger being presented to all us peasants. Yes, it is a battle.

I also hold out hope that you do not include yourself when you say that "we can't behave decently"." You can. If not, accept it as a goal.

Flor has the ability, the energy and right, just as poor Americans had the ability, energy and right to speak up in her own country for higher wages and increased opportunities in Mexico, for herself and her children to have a better quality of life. Entering the US illegally does nothing for her children other than set themselves up for living under the same status quo. Americans in the early 20th century, when we had far few opportunities decided that they wanted their children to have a better life than they had. It wasn't about getting rich, or the latest toys, it was about better wages, a chance at higher education and a way to lift ones self out of poverty.

Now, if you attempt to make excuses that it's not possible for Flor and others like her to unite in her country with others of a like mind, then you are guilty of racism and elitism. There are movements of poor and struggling Mexican citizens attempting to do just that. They bemoan their fellow citizens taking the easy way out by leaving Mexico, and entering the US illegally. It's a shortsighted and foolish thing to do.

Flor is looking for short term gain, she is selling her children out to a worse future, and future generations as well. She and other illegal aliens willingly pit themselves against struggling poor American citizens who desperately need to work and support their children. The cost of living here for them is higher than it is for Flor in Mexico. No one said working for change was easy, but it would be the right thing to do. When she rationalizes helping corporate interests to hurt poor Americans, she helps create an excuse for the Mexican government to do nothing. She places a greater burden on her children's shoulders, which will be insurmountable. Even worse, when she and others like her help further the lies about Americans either not wanting to do the jobs they always have, accusing them of being hateful, merely for speaking out in defense of their own lives, their children's lives, it is she and those like her who are guilty of hatred and racism. Poverty is no excuse to help impose further poverty on others.

We had a black janitor's union (open to everyone but was mostly black) in the early 80s in Los Angeles. Some number of hotel owners determined they weren't making enough profit and some number of Mexican immigrants decided they needed to feed their children with California jobs and not Mexican jobs. The hotels broke the union and the black janitors went.... somewhere... with some pain and hardship. Years later, Mexican janitors got tired of being exploited and formed a union with the help of Mexican American politicians who had replaced Black politicians whose constituencies were diluted and displaced. Yay.

With open borders would it be right for X million Chinese immigrants to self determine to feed their children in California and put unionised Mexican-Americans out of work in a world of layoffs and mergers and outsourcing? If so, will you be there to say yay and build us a new everything for when our city grows another 33-50% and nothing works well? If not open borders for Chinese, why for Mexicans? The United Farmworkers should be able to win a competitive wage so that people could live with dignity off a farmer's wage without the threat of Mexican or Chinese immigrants allowing the agribusinesses to keep wages low. The whole scheme works because once farmworker immigrants realize what a con it is they move to other jobs lowballing the people in them, and new immigrants come in and the farm bosses and city bosses just get richer.
Immigration is not the answer, organizing is. It just enables the status quo in Mexico and here.

Have to go to school now to learn new trade after my last layoff (corporate greed the villain there not the dreaded immigrant). I salute your heart Nez, just saying its not all Lou Dobbs on the side of controlled borders. We have young blacks, Latinos and gringos who could be trained as nurses instead of importing them from the Phillipines. Turkish immigrants made Germany the success it is today but it should be a choice people make on BOTH sides of the border, and if people need help over there, maybe we should help them over there.

Peace to Flor and to you all.

its cool if we disagree, my friend. be well. :)

I hire people. My life and my success/failure depends on the people I work with. I would hire Flor. Sorry Jenny, you would not make the first cut, and if your feelings of privilege and entitlement have been passed along to any offspring, they need not apply either.

Yeah, thanks Peasant. I have nothing to say to the likes of Jenny. Her words are like a blast of alien air washing over me, the strange and inhumane and simply wrong reasoning she employs.

I don't believe in open borders in the short-term, but I do believe in them in the long-term. The key is to 1) balance power on both sides of the border 2) balance the flow of labor and capital. The border should not be a tool that primarily benefits one side over the other (currently, American over Mexico). The border should not block the flow of labor while allowing the flow of capital in order to keep the price of labor depressed.

Also, CB, one of many medium-term answer to the problems you're talking about is the formation of transnational unions.

Also, here is an economic argument for the future of wide open borders.

I have a selfish motive. I want open borders so I can buy a house on the Pacific Coast of Mexico! I believe Mexico should absolutely have the right to regulate me, a foreigner, and make sure that I (and my ilk) are not crowding out locals and taking the best land. In fact, maybe they're not regulating this kind of stuff as well as they could be... But in a more equitable future this would all be less of an issue. The locals would have a higher price for their labor within Mexico and more power to determine their own future.

I do agree that the current immigration system -- the large majority of visas being family reunification -- has one serious inequity that few people talk about in a non-racist way. The system privileges nationalities who have a long presence in the U.S. The older the presence, the wider network of extended family to bring in under family reunification. Mexicans are big beneficiaries, as are Chinese. Mexico because it's a neighboring country. China because, although early racist immigration laws were carefully designed to specifically keep them out, Chinese got really organized about it and hundreds of Chinese used to sneak in under the same papers because officials couldn't tell them apart.

Is this fair? It's hard to say. I do believe countries like Mexico should be privileged when it comes to visas because 1) they are our neighbors 2) the U.S. has been directly exploiting and meddling in their internal affairs for hundreds of years. This also applies to most Central American and Caribbean countries. It can get hard to balance the interests of "restitution" with "family reunification". We have some really bad marks in some areas. We have caused millions of Iraqis to flee their homes and live in desperate refugee camps, and don't give them any visas. We allow boats from Cuba but turn them back from Haiti.

I don't think wide open borders in themselves would solve much of the world's social justice and environmental problems. But I absolutely think they are part of the solution. We need to start considering the Earth as a country... I hope one day a migration from Somalia to the Netherlands will involve the paperwork of a move from Vermont to Louisiana.

thank you for a well thought out, reasonable and humane comment on the issue, atlasien. you make many good points.

What sucks is that I think that suspension of deportation, something that Bill Clinton killed, might have helped her. The system, though not great, was more humane before he put his pen to paper and signed IIRIRA.

I have to say I would agree with Vox about the interpretation of the words "It's unfortunate we have to do this." Note that after that, he cites the mandate of God to look after a poor, unfortunate sister. He says that when God orders us to do something, it is beyond our control and accordingly, this is a man who (unlike G.W. Bush and countless other "religious" people) takes the mandates of his religious belief seriously. He doesn't just selectively choose the passages which might be politically or otherwise beneficial. I could be wrong on this, but I am a very liberal Christian too and in reading that, to me, his willingness to commit his church's resources to the other ministries to which he refers, and to minister to this hard-working lady, seem fairly clear. Perhaps I'm being overly generous in my opinion, but there it is. Thanks for a great blog post.

i prefer your reading of it as well...but what bothers me about entirely accepting that is the next line, where he expands on his feeling, citing

It's unfortunate we have to do this. This church has other priorities, like helping the poor in this neighborhood'

why cite Other Priorities? it implies the origin of this unfortunate-ness...it gives a priority on helping. why? and thus, the rest of my words on it.

all that said, i think its a minor point. and i'm not stuck to it. as i stated, he said some good things all 'around. and he is helping. i've been interviewed a few times. i am ready to distrust the reporter without hesitation.

nez, donde consigio los 20, 000 pesos para el coyote?

well, do we really know how much it cost her? or how she did it? i know i don't. i mean, it says she paid a smuggler, but ...we dont know how much. or if thats what she really did! and even if so, i dont know the answer to where!

No, I think he's saying if we had a more just society in which people weren't commodified and graded like so many cattle, the church could focus on the issue of poverty. Again, just my take but I'd bet good money that if we got that guy on the horn he would clarify that he didn't mean that his church felt unduly burdened by having to shelter Mrs. Crisostomo and that he would be quite happy to do that for anyone who happened to be in the same unfortunate predicament Mrs. Crisostomo finds herself in in this callous land.

yo sé. i understand your point here, and agree completely.

when an element or two doesn´t ring true in my mind it bothers me. does worsening her situation win supporters?? why can´t people i support be more honest?

(¿regresé, y extrañé mucho tu blog. qué pedo?)

i don't understand why she isn't honest in your mind. please explain. because you dont imagine that she had any way to get to the US? or that she was rich? or well off, and is...what, lying about living in a cramped apartment? i dont even know what you are implying!

dont' support dishonest people if you don't want to, is all i can say!

and i don't know what mean, either about my blog. sorry... feel free to elucidate.

and its hard to tell if something has the ring of truth from one article. i mean, its in the press. so its been interpreted by someone...if anything, maybe someone helped her phrase her letter, or translated it in a way that would touch on certain themes or legal history (civil disobedience), but i'm not sure what else you might mean. as i said, please explain if you care to.

Wonderful post and ensuing discussion.