by Tom Shuford
Columnist EdNews.org

"I began (reporting) in 1956 and never have I seen a more badly covered subject, and there is no question it is a political correctness issue. I find that offensive as a reporter." (two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Donald L. Barlett of Time Magazine on the reporting on illegal immigration)

Coverage is bad. Political correctness is a major reason. But there is one more reason coverage is poor: To understand America's immigration crisis, a reporter must solve for herself a puzzle with strange pieces, and then explain the puzzle to the public.

That's a lot to ask. It hasn't happened.

Given immigration's impact, however — on education, on the social fabric, on national identity, this a puzzle that deserves attention from all who care about their country and society, reporters and citizens alike.

I've written about five "pieces" of the puzzle:

*"automatic birthright citizenship" for the American-born children of illegal alien parents

*the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965 with its generous "family reunification" provisions that made Latin America and Asia the near-exclusive sources of legal immigration

*Plyler v. Doe, the 1982 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision which required taxpayers to pay for the schooling of children brought illegally to the U. S.

*the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which gave amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens

*the 1999 decision by California governor Gray Davis to derail his state's appeal of a judge's ruling against Proposition 187, which would have denied services to illegal aliens. Had California's Prop 187 appeal reached the more conservative Supreme Court of the 90's, Plyler v. Doe may have been struck down.

There's another "piece" of the puzzle — known to few. That's the scope of the Bush administration's efforts to provide financial services to illegal aliens and thus to embed them into American society. Symbolic is the Bush Treasury Department's instructions to banks in 2002 that Mexican government-issued ID cards are acceptable identification in opening bank accounts.

Charlotte is headquarters for Bank of America and Wachovia. Last summer the Charlotte Observer published a three-part series on American banks' role in promoting illegal immigration: Hiding in Plain Sight (8-27-06), Banks: Residency Not Our Business (8-27-06), and Banks Creative in Courting Latinos (8-28-06). What follows is a time line, derived from the Observer's reports and other sources, of the Bush administration's efforts to use the U. S. financial system to normalize illegal immigration:

2001 (September)

President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox announce a "Partnership for Prosperity." Increasing remittances (money transfers) sent to Mexico will be a focus for both presidents. Both want to reduce the cost of sending remittances by encouraging banks to enter a business dominated by wire transfer services like Western Union.

2002 (October)

The Department of The Treasury explicitly tells banks that the "know your customer" requirements of Section 326 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 do not prohibit banksfrom using Mexican matricula consular cards as one way to verify identity. See footnote #17 of Treasury's Report to Congress, Oct. 21, 2002, page 16:

"Thus, the proposed regulations do not discourage bank acceptance of the 'matricula consular' identity card that is being issued by the Mexican government to immigrants.

"

Insecure matricula consular cards are issued by Mexico's 47 consulates throughout the United States to Mexican nationals regardless of their immigration status.

2003 (June)

Presidents Bush and Fox meet in San Francisco. They announce that the U. S. and Mexican governments will themselves enter the remittance business:

"The U. S. Federal Reserve and the Bank of Mexico would start a remittance system . . . The system, Directo a Mexico, allows banks in the U. S. to send money to banks in Mexico . . . It is intended for use by small banks and credit unions. Large banks can make their own international transfers. The Fed charges a fixed fee of 67 cents, allowing the bank or credit union to charge a fee to customers that can be as low as $2." ("Hiding in Plain Sight")

2003 (July)

The Treasury Department comes under pressure from members of Congress alarmed that U. S. banks are accepting the fraud-prone matricula cards, which are used almost exclusively by illegal aliens. Treasury reluctantly solicits comments from "interested parties." The Financial Services Roundtable, an influential banking trade group, lobbies to preserve banks' acceptance of the matricula cards:

"We are very supportive of banking the unbanked . . ." (Andy Barbour, vice president of government affairs at the Rountable)

2003 (September)

Treasury reaffirms its earlier ruling. Banks may continue accepting matricula consular cards.

2006 (Summer)

The Bush administration steps up efforts to increase the flow of remittances to Mexico:

"...the Fed is working to increase use of Directo a Mexico . . . As of July, 86 banks in the U.S. offered the service . . . It is perhaps a sign of the political times that many of the banks have declined to publicize their participation . . . There is no doubt that illegal immigrants use the service. A questionnaire about Directo explains that if a customer is deported, the money in his bank account can still be withdrawn from an ATM in Mexico." ("Hiding in Plain Sight")

There it is: the financial support system the Bush administration has erected to support and encourage illegal immigration.

Novel Theory: Make Illegal Immigration Highly Profitable, Then Expect It To Stop

We turn to the question of why. What's behind the administration's aggressive use of the U. S. banking system to promote illegal immigration?

"To curb illegal immigration, the federal government has posted soldiers on the Mexican border . . . But it puts greater hope in a relatively unknown and unlikely strategy: increasing the amount of money immigrants send back to Mexico. The Bush administration says the billions sent south each year can be used to build the Mexican economy, thereby reducing immigration . . . Remittances to Mexico have more than doubled, topping $20 billion in 2005." [$24 billion in 2006]

How is this curious theory about reducing illegal immigration working?

"There is little evidence the inflow of money is reducing the outflow of people."

Rodolfo Garcia Zamora, an immigration expert at the Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas in Mexico, is among a growing number of experts warning that Mexico is becoming dependent on remittances while doing little to promote development:

"The U.S. has become addicted to cheap Mexican labor, and Mexico has become addicted to the remittance."

"Relieving Pressure on the Border"

Without a hint of irony, President Bush speaks often about America's need for amnesty for illegal aliens and for a temporary guest-worker program to "relieve pressure on the border."

Perhaps he sees no connection between "pressure on the border" and his own relentless efforts to make illegal immigration lucrative — for illegal aliens, for banks and for low-wage industries.

Or maybe he does see the connection.

Maybe President Bush thinks the American people may not appreciate his grand designs if revealed in all their splendor.

The President is, after all, a man of large, bold ideas: installing democracy in faction-riven Iraq, federalizing management of schools (No Child Left Behind) and, biggest of all, merging the United States, Mexican and Canadian economies and people (the Security and Prosperity Partnership).

No doubt this is a Great Leap Forward in his mind. It's utopian folly in many others.

Tom Shuford [email protected] is a retired teacher living in Lenoir, North Carolina

Published April 17, 2007