Every sane individual would agree that people are not supposed to steal, and yet, Non-Native Americans live on stolen land every day. 

If Europeans didn't steal the land, then another group would have sailed over and stolen the land, some might argue. That does not justify the first theft and there is no guarantee that Native Americans would have allowed the other group to steal their land. And actually, Native American's did not allow Europeans to steal their land. Amerindians did not believe in owning land. They believed in sharing the land. They believed they were sharing the land with Europeans. And actually, the French did share the land and traded goods peacefully with Amerindians for 100 years before the British arrived. 

For those who believe in liberty and freedom, we would have to admit that the liberty and freedom of Amerindians was ignored in favor of the greed of Europeans.  

 History repeats itself. The modern corollary is that European Americans want to disposes Hispanic Latino Mexicas of their freedom and liberty to work an honest job harvesting crops that feed the nation. Ironically the nation that is being fed is mostly European American 79.96% in 2010. The other corollary is that the U.S. military is inviting itself into Oil Rich countries to help themselves to their resources. 

But I digress. What I wanted to ask is: When worlds collide, who's interests should win? The group with the bigger guns?


Glenn is a European-American married to a Mexican-American. They have two children. Glenn is interested in progressive immigration reform, and desegregation within schools and communities. He is a life long learner with interests in sociology, anthropology, psychology, history and politics.
Connect to Glenn at CommunityVillage.us

The New York Times ran a series of articles on immigration, August 18, 2011

I collected some humanitarian comments from the article that I wanted to highlight

"While farms dot the country, many of them are relatively small and exist in small, farming communities -- they're not easily accessible by the general population, which lives in cities and suburbs. Therefore, the legal labor pool they have to choose from is limited to local teens who are willing to work long, hard hours for relatively little pay. Working in the fields is backbreaking work, which is why many of today's farmers do so to continue a family tradition -- it's rare that someone enters the industry as an outsider.

Hiring illegal workers is a hot-button issue, but it's not a black-and-white one for an industry that relies on it, not just for cheap labor, but for nearly all labor. Congress can require verification, but without working through the ramifications of that decision (other than a feather for the cap of Republicans in the next election cycle), Congress is setting farmers up for failure. Farmers cannot replace illegal workers without an available legal workforce..."

-Lindsay H., Cincinnati, OH


"If we are that dependent upon the labor of immigrants (and I suspect we are), we should formalize the terms of our mutual interests by expanding the numbers of those allowed into the country to work legally..."

"Perhaps we can set up some kind of regional clearing houses through which farmers can submit their anticipated labor needs for the season, which the government will assist in providing vetted immigrant labor from among those registering with it overseas as available for such placement.

Again, though, we have no business exploiting foreign labor. If someone is good enough to build America, he is good enough to make his permanent home here and to become one of us."

-Kurt, NY

"Conditions in the fields have changed little since the time of "Grapes of Wrath". Ten years ago most of the workers went back to Mexico or even Guatamala at the end of the harvest. Now with a tighter border they usually stay. Maybe some of the Border Patrol Officers should be let go and sent to do farm work." -Vernon Huffer, Portland, OR