Fair Migration Policy is a Moral Obligation

Conferences with American presidents always run the risk of being formal.

This last one was graced by the presence of Obama, very different from ex-president Bush in his way of relating and viewing things. It was not disappointing in its manner, although in the end the summit delivered rather poorly. For the challenges of a world in an economic crisis that at the same time engenders grave social problems, we did not see adequate responses.

With serious problems concerning inequality, our Latin America is the least prepared for the crisis. As that inequality increases and the breach between the rich and the poor deepens, the poorest are going to carry the heaviest burden and are going to increase the negative tendencies of power. Judicial insecurity, civic insecurity, right and left populist leadership, authoritative tendencies and temptations, corruption, drugs, violence and a lack of social cohesion can create new issues and stronger plagues in our Latin territories.

In this context, a relationship with the United States is even more important. The former government of that country and many of its millionaires and executives, in particular those from big companies, are in a large part responsible for this current crisis. With ample resources to overcome their crisis, it would not be fair that our countries would not receive some sort of support from the United States.

And nowadays, what would be of most help to our Central American countries is a fair migration policy. A policy that would have an insignificant cost to the United States in comparison to the costs that were generated by corporate irresponsibility and the speculation in its own productive and economic heart.

The news agency Reuters not too long ago reported from a study that shows the eleven principal executives of the eleven big United States companies received a total of 865 million dollars in two years. Meanwhile, they were responsible, in that same time period, for “a loss of 640,000 million dollars in value from the actions of their companies.” [Editor’s Note: This quotation is translated and could not be verified as original]. That the United States had to invest in thousands of millions of dollars to remedy the crisis caused by individuals and companies like the ones mentioned has been in the headlines of our newspapers and continues to be a scandal.

Adding to the scandal is the fact that an executive of this status is given a retirement pension of 98 million dollars, in one lump sum, and the same country has to invest thousands of millions of dollars to salvage companies run by this type of fortunate individual. This is a scandal that is amplified in the face of hunger, poverty and natural disasters. As if the companies and businessmen are more valuable than human life.

In this context of moral and ethical responsibility, Latin Americans should not cease to repeat the following: the United States has a debt to our poor countries, which have helped to build the North American well-being with their migrants working for feeble wages; as well as with their resources, many times cruelly exploited by North American companies (with the example of the United Fruit Company in Central America, not to mention miners that prosper while leaving poverty and problems behind them).

This debt needs to be paid today – as a crisis, which they have caused, also begins to hit us. Beyond international obligations, speaking of .7% of GDP set for development and half of that will hopefully reach the United States soon, the first and indispensable payment of its debt to our countries is what we call the fair migration policy.

Some Latin Americans think that asking for legislation that will affect all of those who have come to live in the United States since the Bush administration (which has been six months) is madness. Well then, from an ethical standpoint it is not madness but a responsibility. This is the case because the economy no longer generates the spending that has been bred by irresponsible economic practices backed by short-sighted policies, and because development [with Latin America] offers the United States new forces and the enthusiasm of hard laborers. The relations of the United States and Latin America lead to the possibility of intercultural dialogue in which both regions can end up satisfied.

Our governments, without aggression, without attacking the United States, should have the courage to ask for that. We should rationalize it from an ethical standpoint and in consideration of the debt that the United States owes Latin America. If our government officials and leaders tell us, at least here in El Salvador, that it is important that we learn English, it is also important that they are coherent in telling the United States government that it treat our migrants with respect. The United States and Latin America certainly have a common future. And that common future cannot in any way build itself upon walls of shame, with cruel traps, deporting good people or treating working people as delinquents. Recognizing the right of people that are already in the United States to have papers and stay in that country, along with the right to work, is a moral obligation of international status. And our government officials, as well as those of the northern country, should assume it.