In response to my article "US-Mexico wall proposal highlights bad government on both sides of the border
", I got a rather interesting comment
from one "Jimmy Lago" who used an e-mail address making it clear he is Mexican. (I won't post his e-mail address here, however.)
It was fascinating in the sense that he again proved my point about how people simply don't listen to each other in the immigration debate. Most participants in the debate are so polarized that anyone talking about immigration must be either for it or against it, with no shades of gray allowed.
Jimmy starts by saying that "the US stole more then 50% of Mexican terretory." (sic) So, we know where he's coming from.
He then proceeds to imply that I somehow am anti-immigrant or against having "cheap labor out in the fields", both positions I trust I was clear about in the prior article: I'm for increased immigration and I love cheap labor. I simply oppose illegal immigration and the massive toll it takes on our society, not to mention the security risks.
Jimmy really is the perfect charicature (almost too perfect) of his point of view, trying to argue about stolen land, "Native people", and racism rather than having any real argument against the wall or illegal immigration.
Jimmy, if you're reading this, I love immigrants. America was built on immigration. I agree that many immigrants take jobs that Americans don't want. I didn't say the 9/11 terrorists came from Mexico, but there are many reports of Arabs coming into the US illegally through Mexico of late. As someone once said "a good wall makes a good neighbor". Let's increase the allowed legal immigration but use a good wall to prevent "coyotes" and terrorists from getting into the USA. And don't forget, immigration into the USA is an issue for Americans and the American government. It is NOT for Mexico to dictate how they want us to run our borders or our economy.