It's gratifying to read the previous two posts. They face the realities that progressives can't face: our complicity in this plundering economy and the great difficulty in creating effective remedies, rather than dishing up ideology. How might we come from a place other than guilt, one might ask . . .

As to the strata question:
1)The US has had a constant underclass of about 34 million persons living in poverty since the Depression. That means, on a net basis, that every single person added to our population since then, about 150 million, has been an American not living in poverty.
2) How stratified? Not very. The Gini Index shows us to be moderately so--midway between a Scandinavian country and a country like Mexico. The bottom 20% account for 5% of wealth. The top 20% account for 45%. And the middle 60% account for about 50%. The top gets a double portion, the vast middle gets an average portion, and the bottom gets a quarter portion. At least 80% of Americans are apex consumers. Recall that we are less than 5% of world population, yet we consume about 25% of world resources. One last note, among many other proofs: US oil consumption has shown itself to rise exactly at the rate of population growth. Figures from nationmaster.com.
3) A cis.org survey/study shows that Mexicans of all social classes have a strong desire to immigrate.
4) The real story is that the Federal Reserve Bank in conjunction with the oligarchs will do anything to make sure that the economy keeps growing and that labor costs are kept competitive. There is a singular goal at work within the immigration debate: MAINTAIN UNEMPLYMENT AT ABOUT 5% IN ORDER TO KEEP A LID ON WAGES. To blame NAFTA is to go hunting a whale and end up harpooning a minnow. Even the moribund AFL-CIO, torn between its current members and prospective members (afterall, illegal immigration, just like illegal drugs, floats all boats in our casino economy), is finally getting it.

'we might actually help - rather than punish - immigrants' - I think that their home countries must be punishing them more by forcing them to immigrate here for jobs. Why can't their home countries improve and we won't have to accommodate as many of them here. accommodation can be tough on us. Unfortunately there are too many poor people in the world for us to accommodate. My solution: I don't think there is a nice solution for everyone involved. Employers are the most to blame for drawing them to this nation.

I think we need to be very careful here.

While it is absolutely true that (assuming a continuation of current consumption rates) any appreciable population growth in a global overconsumer like the United States is disastrous news for the rest of the planet, I am very concerned with any argument that would restrict the focus to our need to achieve zero population growth. The assumption that new migrants become apex-consumers shortly after their entrance to the U.S. leads to the implicit conclusion that (for the sake of the planet) we need to shut the gate to immigrants because the U.S. already overconsumes world resources.

I am troubled by this argument for several reasons. First, it too easily shifts the focus from the problem of overconsumption (which, for reasons unknown, becomes impervious to change) to a particular source of population growth (migration), overlooking the problem of birthright growth of citizen families already enculturated to overconsumption. Second, it assumes the very thing it needs to prove: that new immigrants rapidly become apex-consuming Americans. Third, it neglects any attention to the specificity of overconsumption patterns in the U.S., assuming them to be roughly equal across the socio-economic spectrum and assuming their rapid adoption by newcomers. Fourth, it fails to account for variables (besides the aforementioned variable of socio-economic status) like distinctive cultural mores that might actually make some newly arrived immigrant groups less likely to become overconsumers than their U.S. counterparts.

More attention needs to be paid to patterns of overconsumption relative to socio-economic status since overconsumption in the U.S. is decidely not the same across the socio-economic spectrum. While it is almost certainly true that nearly every individual in the U.S. consumes more than his or her counterpart in the rest of the world, some of us (and this "some" is quite sizeable in a country as wealthy as the U.S.) consume many, many times more than those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. Consequently, we need to be a lot more specific about the types of overconsumption that occur in U.S. society and which strata have shown both the largest changes in their consumption patterns and have experienced the largest growth in membership.

To use just one example of rapid changes in overconsumption that should be familiar to most of us and should alert us to the need to attend to the socio-economic specificity of overconsumption, let us take the housing market. In 1973 the average U.S. home was 1,500 square feet. Today it is over 2,400 square feet. Keep in mind that this is an average. There are probably many of us who know large numbers of median-income Americans living in houses well over 3,000 square feet. This expansion of the size of the average American home, aside from using larger amounts of timber and other home-building resources, has led to a significant increase in fuel consumption to heat and light them. Add to this changes in settlement patterns relative to employment (suburbanites tend to live farther away from work)and you have an increase in fuel consumption for transportation. This increase is exacerbated by the fact that these same median-income families own, on average, more cars today than they did 40 years ago, consuming an even higher amount of fuel than their predecessors.

What's my point? That U.S. overconsumption is both very bad and very socio-economically specific. Unless someone has hard data to the contrary, the U.S. overconsumption problem is not largely due to the presence of increasing numbers of low-income workers from Mexico and Central America. I'm pretty sure that their consumption patterns don't change anywhere nearly as significantly as have those of median-income (to say nothing of those on the higher end of the socio-economic spectrum) U.S. citizens. They aren't filling those 3,000 and 4,000 square foot homes; they aren't the 2+ car owners.

The fact is that we need to curb overconsumption in the U.S. But this requires that we understand not only the general problem it poses to the rest of the world but also the specific character of it (the strata most contributing to it, the cultural sources for it, etc.) in our country. We also need to beware of the growing threat posed by "green" consumerism, really a false form of environmental conservation that promises American consumers that they can have it all: the 4,000 square foot enviro-home equipped with solar panels and a geo-thermal energy unit. Nor would it be an adequate solution (although it would help) if we could wave a magic wand and replace all U.S. cars with hybrids--one person per car, even if it is a hybrid, is still a problem.

Sorry to divert the discussion so badly, but I felt that this needed to be addressed.

I appreciate Eric's response. Any vegans or 100-mile a week bike commuters out there? Anyone who foregoes a/c or central heat? Who wears three layers around the 60 degree house in winter? That's what I do.

I share the common goal on this list of correcting global inequities. The reality that no one seems to get is that high levels of immigration to the US is a hallmark of neoliberalism, not an effect of neoliberalism.

Just ask the Clintons: Bill, who suspended GHBush's vigorous prosecution of illegal employers. Hillary, who sat silent on the board of Walmart as they successfully fought off unionization. Al Gore is the only one who truly gets this. He should know!!

The problem with high levels of immigration isn't the immigrants, (my lovely wife is one), the problem is that they become apex-consuming Americans in very short order. (There has been a constant 35 million or so Americans living in poverty for the last 70 years.--nationmasters.com.)

Please, someone, demonstrate to us how this process corrects global inequities.

Finally, how can the US sign on to the highly-desirable Kyoto Accords with our population growing at 1% per year? We can't. It's a delusion to think that we can.

So we will by necessity continue to be the sort of pillaging, renegade nation that we all oppose. No end in sight.

RR

RR--

I don't think anyone is suggesting that supporting corn prices in Mexico will resolve the migration issue. The real fix requires addressing vast inequalities in the distribution of global wealth (which, of course, makes possible U.S. overconsumption of world resources and which you quite rightly cite as a pernicious problem).

There is a tendency in the U.S. to engage in a dangerous fantasy I call the "development myth." This myth is entirely monocular in its focus. It looks at the very real problem of global inequalities and uneven development and imagines that simply promoting development abroad will address these global disparities. It fails to look at overconsumption at home as a serious factor in the maintenance of such inequalities and, as a result, lacks any real commitment to systemic analysis and evaluation of the problem. It simply subscribes to a whiggish faith in development as the global cure.

So I entirely agree that adding 3.3 million more Americans a year is, globally speaking, a disaster at current consumption rates. Without serious attention to U.S. consumption patterns no progress can truly be made on reducing the persistent global inequalities that are the principal motor for migration to the United States.

It's too bad the comments continue to frame this issue solely in terms of labor issues. The most pressing issue is environmental degradation. It sinks all boats. Actually, while no one else gets it (except for the kooky Tom Tancredo) Al Gore does get it. While the Hillary Clintons of the world continue to aid and abet the race to the bottom, Al Gore rates an A- at numbersusa.

Americans consume at 5 times the world average. Once again, please explain how making 3.3 million more of us a year is a good thing? If not a good thing, then please outline a feasible plan for achieving zero or even a negative US population growth before 500 million. Demonstrate how supporting corn prices in Mexico will make the 40 million Mexicans living at under $10/day not want to move to a place where they can make $80+/day. How did that Bill Clinton line go (I'm not directing this at any person)? "It's the economy, stupid". In Mexico, the economy is peonage.
RR

we need an international living wage. the whole continent is "America."

go to ussf2007.org to find out more about the US social forum and the fight against neoliberalism exploitation of workers everywhere...

There are some real inaccuracies being circulated here.

NAFTA almost certainly contributed to immigration in the period since its implementation. Corn exports from the U.S. to Mexico until at least 2000 created devastating effects for Mexico's subsistence corn growers (who comprise 60% of that quarter of Mexico's workforce engaged in agriculture). The influx of cheap, U.S. subsidized corn combined with the removal of traditional protections for Mexico's corn growers has wreaked havoc on this sizeable majority of the country's corn producers. To ignore NAFTA's role in the migration issue is foolish. Nadal's work on this subject makes abundantly clear the social and environmental impacts of NAFTA on Mexican corn production.

Corruption, while an issue, cannot seriously be regarded as a sufficient explanation for Mexico's problems. Although widely regarded as a corrupt and imperfect entity, CONASUPO played a vital role in offering some measure of protection to Mexico's corn producers. Since NAFTA, its intervention into the Mexican food market has been severely restricted and this, along with the liberalization of trade with the U.S., has contributed to the increased insecurity of Mexico's corn farmers. My point here is that complaints about "corruption" simply aren't very useful (except rhetorically) in discussions of Mexico's economic problems in the wake of NAFTA. CONASUPO's reduced role in the Mexican agricultural sector is a good example of this: if eliminating corruption is imagined as the way to fix the Mexican economy, then one would have to conclude that restricting or even eliminating CONASUPO would be beneficial for corn farmers. That isn't the case.

Preston (above) makes an important point that deserves reiterating: neoliberal capitalist policies have harmed working class people throughout the globe (although not, certainly, to the same extent in every country). Sadly, in much of the immigration discussion we see an effort to pit low-wage U.S. workers against immigrants when in fact they are both being subjected to economic exploitation by wealthy elites. Right-wing "populist" types like Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan do this all the time: distracting working people away from a focus on the real economic issues involved through popular appeals to nationalistic sentiments and easy scapegoating of undocumented people.

Ms. Kohn is perpetuating a politically-correct urban myth:
1) Corn prices are up due to it's diversion to corn-ethanol fuel. Article after article . . .
2) Subsidies, for better or worse, reduce the price of corn. Theoretically, this would help Mexicans. But Americans feed enormous amounts of corn to cattle so we can eat steak . . . and drive to the steakhouse in "corn-fed" SUVs.
3) Illegals do not provide "invaluable" services. They are largely a servant class. They bid down the price of labor. If not for high levels of immigration business would be forced to pay a living wage. Poor Americans know this and resolutely oppose high levels of immigration.
4)While it's popular for the Left to flagellate Americans, deserved so, we should flagellate for the right reasons--overconsumption. And in the flagellation we must not forget that Mexican poverty is overwhelming a product of its feudalistic political system. Mexico is a rich country, at world average in per capita income. Inequality and corruption is the main cause of poverty in Mexico. Shall we just invade a la Iraq?
5) In the period 1990-2007, American per capita GDP is up 40%. But Mexican pc gdp is up 67%.
6) NAFTA didn't create the illegal problem. It was a product of the Clinton/Walmart/Tyson suspension of prosecution of illegal EMPLOYERS. Under GHBush there were 1200 prosecutions per year. Since Clinton and under GWBush the number has recently fallen to 12 per year!
7)In addition, the population bomb went off in Mexico by 1990 or so. Land resources were finally outstripped.
8) Finally, would someone just point out the advantages to Mexico and the rest of the world of a USA with 450 million apex consumers by 2050?

RR

Actually, if you look at the polls, many of the folks that have enough money for childcare and home remodelling projects do tend to "stick up" for illegal immigration(or for that matter owning farms or other businesses).

Beyond Red and Blue is a good report that explains some of the dynamics here. A lot of the anger is coming from relatively poor folks that have found themselves in direct economic competition with various classes of recent immigrants.

Just FYI, I grew up on a farm, worked construction during college and become a software engineer. I have direct, personal experience working side by side with illegal immigrants--and with H-1b workers.

Frankly, the folks that claim to be "progressive" while acting to reduce the income and working conditions of poor folks in America strike me as utter hypocrites.

One prominent progressive that is addressing the issue is Thom Hartmann of Air America.

What's really sad to witness is the relentless dehumanization of these economic refugees. Day after day, on talk radio stations across the country, the poor people who pick our food and watch our kids and clean our offices are kicked in the face. One would hope that their employers would stick up for them once in a while. Those employers are often (40% of the time) private households who need a hand with their lawns or their kids or with a remodeling project.
It's appalling how quiet progressive people are on this, and other issues. There shouldn't be a right-wing talk show in the country that doesn't have a full board of liberals to challenge the nonsense. And the station managers should be hearing complaints when these bigoted broadcasts go on.
Even some progressive radio hosts are on the "get tough" jihad.
http://www.borderlinks.org

I'm glad the author also mentioned approaches to the issue like "compensatory funding" for the poorer nations. It worked so well for Europe, that some people who had migrated earlier moved back to their less-wealthy home countries - Spain, Portugal, Greece. It seems the US elite favors cultivating us vs. them attitudes, so they can sell their security gadgets and the expanding police state.
Fair Trade projects are also very hopeful, but the "Free Trade" fundamentalists don't want us to think about economic justice.
http://www.globalexchange and http://www.humaneborders.org and other groups are doing all sorts of good work on immigration issues. They deserve the sort of publicity the Minutemen have been getting.

There was immigration before NAFTA, but the rate of immigration was dropping. When NAFTA was signed, the US government simultaneously passed "Operation Gatekeeper" because they knew full-well the economic dislocation NAFTA would cause. "Operation Gatekeeper" and other operations that militarize the border provide another stream of subsidies to those corporations that are building the detention centers, the drones, the surveillance cameras, the motion detectors, etc. Boeing is among the companies that will be cashing in on the building of the high-tech wall.
It's starting to look like the dystopia envisioned in the film "Children of Men."
I think repeal of NAFTA would be a good start. We also need to understand that working class people all over the world are suffering under neoliberal economic policies. We've been discussing the neoconservative agenda, as we should, but it is neoliberalism that is guiding the global economy.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade/Neoliberalism.asp

for more detail on this than you might care for, I'm reading Jeff Faux's "The Global Class War: How America's Bipartisan Elite Lost Our Future and What it Will Take to Win It Back". A very good economic/political history of the last 30 years. The last two chapters when he gets into "what it will take to win it back" are the best parts.

It's obvious. We want to stem the flow of illegal immigrants, we must support real HUMAN development south of the border. Real economic as well as political democracy in Mexico and beyond.

The question that needs to be asked here:
why should working Americans pay for problems created by corporate-sponsored NAFTA?

It is the most wealthy, high income and politically influential Americans that have supported NAFTA, illegal immigration and that have reaped the bulk of the economic benefits. The fundamental problem with the current immigration policy is that these wealthy interests keep their profits-and the costs are socialized.

I would argue that instead, the wealthy interests that have garnered profits from NAFTA and illegal immigration should take some responsibility-and set things right both for working Americans and for working Mexicans.

Granting 12 Million illegal immigrants citizenship isn't going to come for free. The social benefits that are now made available to each and every American are close to $10,000/year per adult citizen. The US gets 10 million applications for immigration each and every year. Currently, only around 800,000 are legally admitted(another amnesty might change those numbers). We need to ask ourselves whether we are selecting those immigrants that are making America a better nation for those already here and a better member of the world community--and what type of selection process might meet those ends?

There is strong indication that increased access to US labor markets has done nothing to decrease poverty in Mexico. That raises the question of what might actually help?

I think we need to look at seriously taxing the wealthy in both the US and Mexico to set this situation right. Collecting the existing $25,000/violation fines on employers that violate US immigration law-and applying those revenues to infrastructure and alleviation of poverty in Mexico is perfectly reasonable. Long run, those fines are too low to be really effective-the profits from illegal immigration are so substantial to employers that for fines to be effective, they would need to be much larger and more regularly enforced.

It would take only $60 Billion/year to alleviate all of the most extreme poverty in Mexico, Central America and the Carribean. Correcting major regional infrastructure problems would be done for even less.

These issues can and should be addresed.

While I do agree with Ms. Kohn that NAFTA and farm subsidies have been detrimental to Mexico, I have some problems with this article:

1. "Corn is what causes migration and corn is the only way the injustices of immigration, on both sides of the border, will ever be solved." I'm certainly no economist (nor an expert of any kind actually) but my liberal arts education makes me wince at the idea that "corn is what causes migration." This is obviously false--before NAFTA there was migration, the value of the peso has fluxuated and has affected migration, and it's not just the Mexican farmers who are migrating north. Surely the immigration debate is much, much more complex than Ms. Kohn portrays it in this
article.

2. "Even though the "alternative" fuel actually wastes more energy than it produces, it's made from corn so agribusiness loves it." This is a false statement. Two University of Minnesota researchers found that while the net energy balance in ethanol production isn't huge ("Ethanol yields 25% more energy than the energy invested in its production" -- http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0604600103v1) it is indeed positive. And while we can all agree that corn-based ethanol is *not* the answer for our energy problems, it's not just agribusiness that supports it. For now, locally owned and operated ethanol plants have the potential to stimulate rural economies. See the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy paper that uses MN as a case study: http://www.iatp.org/iatp/publications.cfm?accountID=258&refID=76223

3. "Under the farm bill, which is up for reauthorization this year, we taxpayers give over $25 billion each year mainly to large, industrial corporate farms. And the more corn the factory farms produce, the more money they make." Yes, we subsidize corn growers. And yes, the majority of subsidies go to large production ag farms. This needs to change, we need to support legislation that helps farmers transition away from corn and beans. However, I'm getting tired of people lumping all farmers who grow corn into the "large, industrial corporate...factory farms." My neighbor Ray grows corn, a lot of corn in fact. But he also voluntarily does some of the major tilling for my organic farm since he has the equipment. And my other neighbor Dave, another corn grower, promotes no-till whenever he can, drives the bus for St. Olaf's band, and oh, did I mention he's the director of the Cannon River Watershed Partnership?
Non-farmers have a tendency to demonize the corn growers, but it's counterproductive to point fingers at them when we should be shaking our fists at the government.

Eliminating the subsidies was an excellent idea. Petrosaurus, you did not mention that they were replaced with a program to provide a certain ammount of free tortillas to the needy. General subsidies go to everyone, and why should the rich Mexican from Chapultapec or Garza Garcia get taxpayer subsidized tortillas? With electricity it is the same way. The first 250 Kw/hours are subsidized in Mexico. So, the taxpayer is subsidizing every mansion in the country's electricity bill. This is dumb, imoral, and a waste of money. Government help should be aimed at those who need it, not everyone.

Here we have yet another article attempting to link NAFTA, ethanol and tortilla prices, yet neglecting to add the eliminiation of the subsidies to the tortilleries circa 1998, long before ethanol became a factor. Corn prices have had an effect, but as you point out the NAFTA and US imports drove the price of corn down, not up. While this had a devastating effect on the Mexican farmer in theory, the fact that the US wasn't, to my knowledge, exporting significant amounts of the white corn used for tortillas at that time, the linkage seems weak.

While I appreciate the sentiment of the article, that's about all there is to see here. I'm on your side, but you are making a factually weak article, probably based on repetition of other factually weak articles. This is what the right wing does so often, but I was hoping for higher standards. By the way, the subsidy was just under 300%. Ethanol production has raised the price of corn closer to the old Mexican price which theoretically should aid the Mexican farmer.

This is a huge and complex subject, and your article is better than others I have read, but still there is a reluctance to link the subsidy revisions of the late 90's to the current price crisis. NAFTA certainly hit a lot more than the corn farmers, as I remember cut price California corn fed chickens flooding the Mexican market as far back as 1992. 'Free' trade has been reasonably sucessful between Canada and the US, but Mexico was inevitably in for a rough ride, and bound to be the loser in a subsidy war. I'm not the least surprised. Quite how subsidies and free trade are supposed to coexist is still a mystery.

Yes, NAFTA and the corporations have ruined Mexican farmers. I agree with that.

On the other hand, Mexico is not a poor country. The problem is the distribution of wealth. The rich live like kings. The poor have nothing. I am afraid that our country is going in the same direction. Will we be climbing over fences to get into Canada?

The intellectual discussion here bothers me. I am 71 years old. I paid into social security for 46 years. I started out poor and never made a lot of money (women are still paid less). I finally saved enough to buy a house in a working class area. My older sister and I live there.

This area used to be a quiet place where people knew each other and took care of their properties. Even after Katrina, we were able to put a block party together. A well-integrated one; blacks, whites, and legal Hispanics.

This has changed rapidly. We have been taken over by large numbers of Hispanics. Crime has increased. Our neighbors who have young children are afraid of the drugs which seem to be everywhere. People who could afford it have moved.

I spent much of my life living in places that where not "the best part of town". I put my money and a lot of work into this place. What do I do now? In another year, I won't even speak the language. Sometimes, I'm afraid of going outside. The majority of my income comes from social security. If it will be available to illegal aliens, will I lose some of mine?

If I were the only working class person to be affected, I could say that I just fell through the cracks. But I know that many of us are in the same boat.

So, what happens to Americans? Who speaks for us?

Yes-the CREEPs have manipulated the immigration crisis to the nth degree. The unethical corps. wanted cheaper and cheaper labor-no real effort to curb illegal entry. Now the corps. figure they have enough surplus labor to maximize profits for the forseeable future-with fanfare the spigot will be closed.
The only way to even begin to improve this situation is to fight[the long fight]to restore the right to unionize.Even with success in that area-unfortunately most in the US will have to accept a lower standard of living.
It's sickening but true that about 40 years of slow but steady progress for the working classes were blunted by Ronnie's crew and all but obliterated by the shrub.
ADM and other corps. truly treat humans like a commodity-or less in actuality-the corn is an asset to them-workers or farmers are a debit.

I seem to remember that the Mexican Government was going to make the use of yellow corn to make tacos illegal. All the corn in Mexico is white corn. I thought that was a good idea but I guess like most good ideas it did'nt happen, maybe Mexico's trading partner threatened to take it to NAFTA.

The answer is permanent mass boycott of all power concentrations, economic, political, social. The NAFTA policy driving a million or more Mexican farmers from their traditional livelihoods is enabled by US legislation coercing wealth redistributions from US consumers to US corporations as illustrated by the following:

"Victor Suarez, a representative of the Partido de la Revolucion Democratica (PRD) argued that not placing a tariff on yellow corn will jeopardize 3 million small and medium-sized producers and will benefit 10 large corn transnational and Mexican firms; among the Mexican firms, he singled out Bachoco, Lala, Maseca and Minsa, and among multinational corporations, he named Cargill, Archer Daniels, Corn Products International, Tyson, Pilgrim's Pride and Ralston." - Elba Mónica Bravo, "Representatives back agreement to eliminate tariff on yellow corn," La Cronica, Dec. 29, 2003, via organicconsumers.org

"At least 43 percent of Archer Daniels Midland's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30." - http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

I live in Long Island too, the Hamptons, it is ridiculous. I remember when there were no Hispanics to do the work, the bosses were forced to pay up, and everyone managed. They (the contractors) have become very wealthy the past few years and they don't even seem to want their own kids to work at all. They send them to private schools and take long Carribean vacations every year. Many of the low skilled workers have moved out. It is actually better for us because, and I know this sounds terrible, but the Hispanics tend to be a better class of people. They are very hard-working, family oriented and all go to church. Still, it just isn't right, we should have been lifting up the ones already here.

It's heartening to read in the last paragraph Sally Kohn's call to "repeal NAFTA and other disastrous trade agreements and remove bloated corporate subsidies from the farm bill." The bankrupting of Mexican farmers is indeed what's driving much of our massive illegal immigration problem.

However, it's disheartening that Ms. Kohn seems unaware of economist David Ricardo's "Iron Law of Labor:" a shortage of labor raises wages, while a surplus drives them down. The 12 million uninvited workers in the U.S. are doing just that. Here on Long Island during the recent housing boom, every construction site you passed was full of workers chattering away in Spanish -- while unemployment among our African-American young men was (and is) over 10%. Why did the contractors hire illegals? Simple: they'll work for less than half the usual hourly wage, and often off the books.

I do NOT blame them for coming here -- they're desperate. But so are America's undereducated and low-skilled workers. Shouldn't they be paramount in our concerns?