A temporary "solution" to an ever-present problem

The other day, in the midst of all of the recent Haiti chaos [disclaimer: many of these images are graphic], I happened to catch a news segment on TV discussing the idea that Haitians should be granted temporary legal status in the United States. It would be for 12 to 18 months, and after that, they would have to return to Haiti. One caller -- an unemployed man from Middle America -- vehemently opposed that the offer even be extended. He said that he has been without work for two years, and if all of those Haitians were to come to the U.S., then "they would be taking away the jobs that currently aren't even here for the American citizens." While I do see what the guy is saying, I don't really agree: if jobs are available at all, then any qualified person should be eligible for hiring.

My main issue with making this generous offer to Haitians affected by the earthquake (which would likely be more Haitians than fewer) is that, essentially, the U.S. is waiting for disaster to strike before lending a hand to those in need. I realize that the U.S. isn't big enough for everyone in the world to emigrate here (though wouldn't that make international travel cheaper? hmm..), but I do think everyone should be given a fair chance. During the Civil War in El Salvador, which took place between 1980 and 1992, many people received permission to emigrate to the United States, just as they should have. Likewise, after Hurricane Mitch occurred in 1998, Hondurans and Nicaraguans received similar privileges. While I agree with Obama's decision to provide Haitians with this temporary solution, I wonder why immigrants from elsewhere (that is, from places besides Haiti) who have independently taken it upon themselves to flee their respective countries are not afforded the same opportunity.

The main source of income for El Salvador is remittances, or money sent back from friends and family in the United States. Prices of goods there are not drastically different from those in the United States, but the salaries that some people earn in one year are much less than many Americans make in a week. Why, then, do these "temporary solutions" have to follow natural disasters and tragedy? Nearly half of the people in the world -- more than three billion people -- live on less than $2.50 a day. Almost a billion people entered the 21st century without knowing how to read or write. What these statistics suggest [not even suggest but, rather, demand] is that the world lend its support before matters get worse. Maybe countries could grant temporary status to applicants who can demonstrate that they will contribute in some way to the American economy (thereby enabling the same opportunity to be available to others). If, after however long, the recipients have not established themselves as productive residents, then their status could be reviewed and reconsidered.

The United States is fortunate to have such plentiful opportunities, high standards, and a notable caliber of excellence to go along with all of it. Of course, while many within the U.S. borders lack the resources (both financial and otherwise) to be successful, that does not mean that the chance to better the country -- and, therefore, the rest of the world -- should be denied to those born on different soil. It all boils down to the transitive property: if the U.S. helps immigrants, and those immigrants help their families in their own countries, then the U.S. is helping those other countries by arming the immigrants with the skills to succeed, rather than by merely sending money. Sounds to me that by being more accepting of immigration, the U.S. would essentially be hosting a work program yielding lifelong benefits for everyone. There is, after all, no substitute for education. Is it the kids' fault that quality of education in many places is not enforced and, thus, they will grow up even more uneducated than the generations of people that preceded them? Perhaps it is the world leaders who have not done their jobs effectively and need help in order to equalize the playing field.

I have often heard the phrase that "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link." How do you explain, then, how those proverbial stronger links try to maximize their power without helping to increase that of the weaker links? Isn't it true that if part of a chain is weak and breaks, then the whole chain is divided? While we're on the proverb train, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." In other words, if the U.S. were to help other "individuals" to succeed, then I firmly believe the world would be a stronger entity -- both as a whole and as individual parts. And oh, while I'm at it, since I've never been (and never will be) part of some cheesy beauty pageant, I suppose this would be my moment to push for world peace. So, come on, everyone and give yourself and those around you a push for world peace. Just make sure you push the right people and you push them hard.