In December, 2005, the House of Representatives passed a bill offering solutions to the problem of illegal immigration. The current bill includes a 700 foot long, 2.2 billion dollar wall to be constructed along the US-Mexico border. The Senate will vote on it in February, and is expected to make certain changes before attempting to pass it. Is the wall really going to happen, and follow the Great Wall of China and the Berlin Wall into history? Is it necessary and wise? The current situation does need to change somehow. But arriving at the best possible solution is undeniably going to be a great political challenge.

Since 1996, the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has almost quadrupled, from 3 to more than 11 million. Immigrants are increasingly willing to take their chances with the Border Patrol for under-the-table job opportunities. Most are coming from Mexico, where there simply aren’t enough jobs and money to support the population. Currently, illegal US workers send home 16 billion dollars, making it the second largest source of income in Mexico. The Mexican government stops just short of explicit support of illegal border crossing, and recently handed out 70,000 safety maps, noting potential danger zones around the border. The money is needed, and workers are finding the jobs. US employers have been consistently giving jobs to these illegal workers, who are often willing to work for less than minimum wage and under less than lawful conditions.

America is a land of immigrants, and has been dramatically shaped by each new group. But this current influx has been unregulated for years, and the system needs to shift to make things fair and efficient for all. As it stands, American taxpayers suffer, and are paying out billions of dollars every year to provide health care and social services to the immigrants, who pay no taxes. Our borders have apparent vulnerabilities and with the well-intentioned workers come drug traffickers and potential terrorists. For every illegal immigrant who enters the workforce successfully, a legal immigrant is cursing himself as he waits years for paperwork to process. The illegal immigrants themselves are not free from worries. They have to live in fear of exposure and are often exploited by less than scrupulous employers.

It’s clear that something must be done. President Bush wants a guest worker program, with temporary work cards for immigrants. Congress is divided. Hard line Republicans oppose Bush’s plan, and want absolute removal of workers and physical walls built. Some moderates, such as John McCain (R) and Edward Kennedy (D), want workers to be able to attain citizenship legally, after paying fees and passing background checks. The idea of a wall has already passed its way through the House, but it will be interesting to see if the Senate will approve of it. Historically, walls have either been largely symbolic (the Great Wall of China) or large and impenetrable (the Berlin Wall). The current version is still vulnerable. Is America ready to build of 2.2 billion dollar message telling Mexicans to stay home?

Originally published by InternationalistMag.com on January 27, 2006

On January 10th, 2006, Iranian officials broke through the seals on nuclear power plants, and aroused a worldwide sense of panic. The plants are active again, but Iran maintains that they are simply developing a source of energy. They deny plans to use this technology to create weapons. However, there has been evidence to the contrary: they are refusing to allow inspection of some sites, and American intelligence has found designs for nuclear missiles in Iranian computer files. The world has already seen the devastating capabilities of nuclear weapons. So why are Iran and other nations able to produce nuclear energy that could so easily turn the world into a pockmarked wasteland?

The Non-Proliferation Treaty was intended to negotiate this slippery slope. It was created in 1968, and a total of 187 nations signed it, including Iran. Member nations agreed to stop creating nuclear weapons, and to work to reduce and liquidate existing stockpiles. The Treaty is based on the fear of mutually assured destruction. Nations may create greater nuclear weapon capabilities if they feel that their neighbors are creating them. If left unchecked, this will pattern will continue, and both sides will eventually have a volatile stock of world-annihilating power.

However, the NPT does not demand that nuclear technology and usage be abandoned. Nuclear power is an unfortunate but highly valuable energy source. Nuclear energy is emission free. It generates an enormous amount of power in a relatively small space and time, and will be a viable option for potentially thousands of years to come. The US currently gets 20% of its power from nuclear energy, while France gets almost 80%, and the numbers are growing all the time. Because of its usefulness, the Treaty allows for, and encourages, proper development of nuclear power.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the watchdog of nuclear power. Their job is, essentially, to ensure that nations are abiding by the Treaty: they ensure that nations are developing nuclear energy for only peaceful purposes. They have the power to conduct searches and issue safeguards.

The IAEA will be meeting on February 2nd to investigate Iran. The onus is now not only on Iran to prove that it has purely peaceful motives, but also on the IAEA to prove that it has the power to stop a rogue nation.

Originally published by InternationalistMag.com on January 20, 2006

On January 1st, 2006, Delegate Zero, also known as Subcomandante Marcos, burst from the jungle on his motorcycle and began his six-month journey through Mexico. His goal is clear: listening to the voices of his country. Marcos and the Zapatistas will travel through every state in the country, meeting with local people, NGOs, and social organizations to start discussions on possible alternatives to the current governmental system. Their intention is to redefine democracy ‚ to create an anti-capitalist, bottom-up democracy that considers the needs of all Mexican people, especially the commonly overlooked lower classes. Called the “Other Campaign”, recognizing the 2006 Mexican election year, the Zapatistas are hoping to build a strong network of allies to put pressure on the current government, to give people an alternative to the current debates, and to eventually change the Mexican constitution.

The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) first entered in the scene in 1994 as a group of armed guerrilla fighters. At first, they were concerned primarily with the rights of indigenous communities; they had a dream of indigenous autonomy, and reclamation and ownership of lands. The struggles of these masses date back to the early 16th century, when the Spanish first began their colonization and control. The ancient Aztec and Mayan civilizations were conquered, lands and resources were appropriated, and the indigenous people were suppressed. This dispossessed underclass attempted uprisings from time to time, but the ruling class was always able to maintain control.

The EZLN originated in the areas of Southern Mexico that had been extremely depleted for farming purposes, and suffered in the face of global economic planning. The catalyst for the armed uprising was NAFTA, which many indigenous people felt to be threatening. The 1994 uprising was overpowered by the Mexican government within weeks, and the Zapatistas have been deliberately non-violent since then. Their interests have grown from being indigenous-centered to acting for all poor and underrepresented people. They have gained support throughout the world for their ability to make the Mexican government recognize those who have been marginalized by economic decisions, and to take all Mexican people into consideration.

The EZLN has their share of critics. Many are afraid that the left will divide between the Zapatistas and the current left-of-center candidates, and that the right will take power in Mexicoís 2006 elections. Nonetheless, a discussion of a grassroots democracy as a reality is intriguing to many. Doubtless, the frustrated masses will be happy to have a place to go, and will realize some satisfaction and hope through their conversations with Marcos and the Zapitistas. The Zapatistas have been applauded for their ability to rally enormous interest and support, and to bring to the table a discussion that is simply not possible in most of the world.

Originally published by InternationalistMag.com on January 13, 2006