Immigration : The Lou Dobbs effect

Immigration is a divisive issue. It will be a critical issue in the next election.
Most assume that ," a nation has a right to secure its
borders." Certainly Lou Dobbs takes this position as do almost all
of the Democratic Pres. candidates.
In the specific case of the U.S., the southwest of the U.S. was taken
from Mexico by war. (1848)
If a nation takes a huge territory by war, ie. imperialism, why then
do they subsequently have the right to stop people from the former
country from migrating to the ew conquered territory?
This is, for
example, a critical issue in the Israel case.
Most of the countries with major immigration were formerly
imperialist and colonial powers. the largest migration is from the
former colonies to the empire's center.
That is true of Latinos to the U.S., Pakistanis to England, and a
major problem in Russia.
And, the economic development of the central power was made at the cost of the
periphery. That is massive resources were taken from the colonies to
the center.
Then, does the center country now have the right to close the borders
and say,
We took your oil, land, resources, but now you must starve on what we
left you?
I am not comfortable with that formulation.

In the specific case of Mexico (and Guatemala, El Salvador, etc.) the
U.S. economic treaty NAFTA, enriched the ruling elite on both sides
of the border.
It placed over 1.6 million Mexicans out of work and out of
subsistence farming.
So, do we privilege economic treaties passed by the powerful, and
then say that people can not move to feed their families?
I think not.

More to come on this subject.
Duane Campbell
__._,_.___