The proverbial double whammy, I guess. I would probably not be responding to Jeff Minick’s thoughtful, well-researched piece (“The problem with illegal immigration”), had it not been on the page right next to Scott McLeod’s editorial “So what is the standard for a patriot?” McLeod set me up when he wrote that patriotism involves “taking part in the civil discourse of the country”, a belief I have long held.

So let me start by saying that Minick writes like a real patriot. I happen to disagree with him on many of his points and, contrary to what some whom I consider pseudo-patriotic “nativists” might say, I don’t think that makes me any less patriotic. Jeff Minick and I both care about what becomes of our country. Where we differ is in the definition of certain problems, and therefore in the solutions we would propose to those problems.

Let me state my qualifications to enter the debate: I am a native-born U.S. citizen and resident, who spends half of each year working in Latin America. My particular patriotism expresses itself in being a professional conservation biologist, trying to protect the natural heritage of my country (and others) – including “dual citizens” such as our migratory birds. I confess to being a member, not always active, of some of those “environmental groups” Minick suggests fear being “tarred with the nativist brush” if they speak out on this problem.

To get through with all the confessional stuff at the outset, I will also offer my belief that no one who has not lived and worked in a poorer country can really appreciate how essential emigration is to these countries. Without the “remittance economy” of workers who send money to their families back home, a country like El Salvador, for example, might suffer utter economic collapse.

With that point made, my remarks which follow will be largely confined to what I know best, the environmental aspect. Do allow me, however to start by disposing of the only red herring in Minick’s piece — the argument on the basis of disease. Disease organisms don’t look for passports; a disease can as easily be brought in by a legal immigrant, a tourist, a U.S. citizen returning from abroad, or even another animal species. The “globalization” of disease is a consequence of greatly increased travel and trade, coupled with the breakdown of environmental barriers that formerly served to geographically limit some diseases.

Minick’s speculation about the motivation of environmental groups which have not offered any opinion on illegal immigration may be correct for some. However, he is wide of the mark when he refers to environmental groups as if they were a monolith.

To start with the obvious, every immigrant adds to the population of the country, and yes, this contributes to the strain we are already putting on our resources. “See the newcomer, blame the newcomer” is, superficially a logical reaction but in fact it represents NIMBY-ism, written large.

I incline toward the belief, held by many students of the environmental crisis, that population growth is the “mother of all environmental problems.” Certainly it is a huge contributor to our unease about the future. But at what level does the population problem express itself? The real population problem exists at the planetary level, and each of us contributes to it.

Remember the wise cliché “think globally, act locally?” If I prevent or curtail pollution in my stream, or upgrade the quality of my recycling, I act locally and, in small measure, benefit the whole world. The same if I reduce population growth by restraining my reproductive activity. But if I merely prevent an existing human person from occupying a given spot, I am just displacing a problem. I am thinking locally and acting locally, which accounts for most of what human beings have ever done, and is what got us into our global environmental fix.

Poor people in the so-called “developing” countries contribute to environmental problems for a variety of reasons — because the areas available to them are locally overpopulated, because they move out of these areas and in so doing damage natural ecosystems, because they have insufficient choices and/or have not received the kind of education which would facilitate better choices. But most of all, they contribute to environmental problems because their circumstances compel them to put short-term economic benefit for themselves and their families far ahead of all other considerations. This is the reality that leads to, for example, the decision to become an illegal immigrant.

Most people in affluent countries like the United States contribute to environmental problems because we too “think locally” most of the time. We pollute and destroy ecosystems as a consequence of our susceptibility to the constant invitation to participate in the wanton consumption of a hugely disproportionate share of the world’s resources. Which of course exacerbates the situation of the poor person.

Considered in ethical terms, and until some more fundamental problems are corrected, I find it relatively attractive to think of a poor Mexican struggling to rise from the level of a “poor polluter” to become an “affluent polluter” and participate in the destruction of the planet — Gringo-style — while enjoying the opportunity to raise healthy children who just may avail themselves of educational opportunities which permit one to become “part of the solution.”

My thesis is that we cannot solve either the world population problem, or the environmental crisis of which it is a major part, within the borders of the United States. I don’t feel like I have to work very hard to persuade the reader that denying access to a poor Mexican would-be immigrant does not solve his problem. The more controversial part of my position is that neither does it benefit us.

What excluding the Mexican does do is change the nature of the problem, so that it is not only less visible to us, but less amenable to our control. Let us suppose that we have effectively implemented Minick’s proposal and eliminated illegal immigration to this country — without expanding the scale of legal immigration. Let us further suppose that our hypothetical Mexican would-be immigrant does not have, or does not prefer, the “opportunity” to half-support his family by scratching away at a piece of land. We have already thoughtfully provided him with the opportunity to go to work in a maquiladora in his own country. Which factory is located there because of the cheap labor, but also because the company which owns it (quite likely U.S.-based) can get away with environmental abuses which would not be tolerated here. And the results of which may come back to haunt us in many forms (unsafe food, air pollution, loss of habitat for migratory birds, etc, etc.) Absent the escape valve of emigration, these abuses will escalate, to the detriment of all. Well, almost all:

This is where my opinion and Minick’s start to converge again. Neither of us is a fan of the Free Trade concept, as embodied in agreements such as NAFTA. (And look out, here comes CAFTA.) These things come about because of the economic interests of a relatively few individuals who realize short-term profits as a direct result of trashing the global environment, displacing the North American worker, exploiting the poorer countries and promoting international migrations. When one sector of those who are being exploited identify another such sector as “a problem,” it strengthens this shortsighted way of doing business.

Lets get back to patriotism. If we accept Minick’s closing point, that “A nation that cannot control its own borders is, by definition, no longer a nation,” then the argument applies not only to the U.S., but to Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Turkey — anywhere that masses of people are economically motivated to leave, or enter. There is a concept of the world economy today which is in fact an attack on national sovereignty worldwide. The U.S. government (and here I refer to all recent administrations, Republican or Democratic) participates in this manipulation. So does that great champion of free trade, President Vicente Fox of Mexico. Absent the sweat shops, and absent the escape valve of illegal immigration to the U.S., he would be unable to govern.

It’s time to realize that the North American and the Mexican concerned about their environment, or the Mexican and North American laborer, have more in common with each other than with international business. When trade, labor and environmental laws once again begin to be made with all the people in mind, we will all be better off. The place where most of us can begin to attempt to effect that change is here in the US. Not by asking our representatives to be hypocrites by cracking down on immigration, when it serves the economic interests they support, but by demanding that they support us.

Whenever anyone reaches the conclusion that their best option is to break the law, be it of their own or a neighboring country, something is wrong. When thousands of individuals feel compelled to break the same law over a period of time, it is reasonable to question the rightness of the law. We are heading toward increasing economic disparity, not just between countries, but within our own country. (The model promoted by the current administration and international business interests looks increasingly like the old Latin American model to me.) This will bring with it accelerating environmental damage and a host of other ills. Can you imagine the scrapping of environmental restraints in the U.S. and other free trade countries? It’s already ongoing. Is it too far-fetched to imagine a future in which U.S. laborers seek work in Mexico?

The solution to the suite of environmental and other problems I suggest may require the placing of blame, but it will not do to place it inaccurately. The questions for U.S. (or Mexican, or Russian ... ) patriots would seem to be “How is my country complicit in this process? And what can I do about it?”

(Bill McLarney is an aquatic biologist who lives in Franklin and Coast Rica. He can be reached at anaiinc@dnet.net.)