Recently, in symbolic fashion, spectators of Mexican ancestry in Pasadena’s Rose Bowl did not merely cheer on the Mexican national soccer team in a game against the U.S. national team — such nostalgia would be natural and understandable for recent immigrants — but went much further and also jeered American players and, indeed, references to the United States.
Which was the home team?
Was America to be appreciated for accepting poor aliens, or resented for not granting them amnesty? Is the idea of the United States to be conveniently booed or opportunistically thanked — depending on whether you are watching a soccer match or, for example, entering a Los Angeles emergency room with a life-threatening injury?
This otherwise insignificant but Orwellian incident reminds us that illegal immigration in the 21st century is becoming an illiberal enterprise.
Consider the prevailing myth of Mexico as America’s “partner.” Aside from the violence and drug cartels, an alien from Mars who examined the relationship would instead characterize it as abusive. Close to a million Mexican nationals annually try to cross illegally into the United States, aided and abetted by a cash-strapped Mexico — in a fashion that the latter would never permit on its southern border with Guatemala. Indeed, if Guatemala had published an illustrated comic book instructing, in pictures, its presumably illiterate emigrants how to enter Mexico illegally — as Mexico actually did — the Mexican government would have been outraged. So is the surreal logic of Mexico City summed up by something like, “We value our own people so much that we will help them break laws to go elsewhere”?
In the old immigration narrative of the 1960s and 1970s, affluent, profit-minded white American employers often exploited cheap workers from Mexico. But that matrix has been largely superseded. So-called whites are no longer a majority in California, where large Asian and African-American populations often object to illegal arrivals from Mexico who cut in front of the legal-immigration line, tax social services, and raise costs to the detriment of American citizens.
Even the notions of “white” and “Latino” are becoming problematic in today’s intermarried and interracial society. Does one-quarter or one-half ethnic ancestry make one a member of the “minority” community? And, if so, by what logic and under which convenient conditions? For the purposes of hiring or college admission, should we apply one-drop rules from the Old Confederacy to measure our racial purity?
Poverty is no longer so clearly delineated either. In an underground economy where wages are often in cash and tax-free, and entitlements are easier than ever to obtain, well over $20 billion a year in remittances are sent southward to Mexico alone — maybe double that sum to Latin America as a whole.
Something here once again has proven illiberal: Does a liberal-sounding but exploitative Mexican government cynically encourage its expatriates to scrimp and save in America only to send huge sums of money back home to help poor relatives, so that Mexico City need not? In turn, do an increasing number of illegal aliens count on help from the American taxpayer for food, housing, legal, and education subsidies in order to free up $20 billion to send home?
The paradoxes and confusion never end these days. Do today’s immigration activists work to grant amnesty on the basis of a legal philosophy and principled support for open borders, or just because of shared ethnic identity? If there were now 11 million East Africans in America illegally, would today’s Hispanic immigration lobbyists seek amnesty, bilingual services in Swahili, and yet more illegal immigration from Kenya and Uganda? Would they ever seek racially blind legal immigration into the U.S., based on education and skills rather than point of origin?