Vice President Harris, early last month, traveled to Guatemala and directed the people there, “do not come” (to the United States); she actually said it twice, for emphasis. This statement was off, stylistically; historically, it’s neither an inspiring message nor a reflection of the traditional mission of the United States of America. More importantly, it fails to address the needs of our nation at this moment.
The vice president delivered that particular message with an eye toward domestic politics. The Biden administration has wisely overturned some of the more egregious anti-immigration measures laid down by the previous president. For example, we’re no longer constructing a costly and unnecessary “China Style” wall between the U.S. and Mexico. But the current administration seems far too focused on a strategy designed to please the inflexible right on immigration. President Obama tried to placate these people, and that strategy failed, spectacularly, to produce any congressional action on our long-outdated immigration policy.
Pushing domestic politics aside, the longer historical arc is important here: The United States helped overthrow Guatemala’s democratically elected government in 1954, which triggered a 36-year civil war that led to about 300,000 deaths in the tiny Central American nation. The U.S. then oxygenated that war by supporting some of the most reprehensible tyrants in the hemisphere, including General Efraín Ríos Montt, accused (and convicted) by a Guatemala Court of genocide.
The inspiring language inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, penned by Emma Lazarus, does not include the words “Do Not Come.” The United States must continue to act as a hopeful beacon where a more perfect union is possible to people from all over the world, especially to people in the western hemisphere where America’s actual priorities and policies have often (as noted above) had deleterious consequences for ordinary people.
Central American nations like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador are ruled by corrupt autocrats, and de facto rule has been ceded to criminal gangs who profit through narcotics and arms transfers. There are few options other than the United States for a person who wants a better life. Mexico, struggling with its own economic deterioration and chaotic rule, has never had an especially enlightened immigration policy toward its southern neighbors. Mexico “was” a destination for refugees escaping Nazi Europe as well as Spain during the dreary Spanish Civil war and fascist take-over (1936-1975), but poor, indigenous peoples from below its southern border? Mexico has been reluctant, historically, to roll out the bienvenido mat for those folks.
Moreover, the current minimum wage in Mexico, a relatively well-off nation (an “upper-middle income country,” according to official economic wonky classifications), fails to offer much of a path out of poverty. Its minimum wage is 7.10 (dollars, converted) per day despite being the 15th largest economy in the world.
Our federal national minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, but driving down Union Avenue here in Memphis, a McDonald’s posted marquee advertises job openings starting at $13.50 per hour.
We could, now and in the future, benefit from “more” not less immigration. We’ve all noticed how there’s an acute labor shortage right now in the USA and plenty of people are willing to work, if given the opportunity.
This is not a clarion call for “open borders.” It’s a reflection of our historic need for labor. Sadly, we have an inflexible labor/immigration system that allows labor shortages to metastasize while profit, productivity, and economic gains (in certain sectors of the economy) stall. In the past, Republicans led by the Chamber of Commerce-wing of the party and liberals found common ground in reforming our immigration system by seeking to create a nimbler system that paired the need for labor with the desire to provide opportunity for those arriving at our borders. That wing of the Republican party, however, is now dead. Replaced with short-sighted nationalists.
Given our need for labor and our historical role as a welcoming home for new immigrants who energize and remake our collective culture, the national leadership’s message of “do not come” to our neighbors is problematic. There is little appetite for the type of federal structural reform needed to fix this problem, but our local leadership can move us in the right direction with a different message.
Come! We need immigrants here in Memphis who want to live here, study here, work here, and contribute to the overall fabric of society. It’s pretty simple. Welcoming immigrants is a basic, essential core value of this nation, and if we as a nation are unable currently to live up to that promise of America, then we as Memphians should lead until the rest of the country catches up.
Bryce Ashby is a Memphis-based attorney and the board chair of Latino Memphis. Michael LaRosa teaches history at Rhodes College.
