It might be time to revise the constitution and put out there what we’re really about in America — stop hiding behind idealistic abstractions like happiness, and just call a spade a spade. I remember reading that in the original drafting of the constitution, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of property” was one suggestion for the ending line. Sometimes I think we would have been closer to the mark if we had gone with that, since happiness involves an intangible kind of promise about life — unlike that new yard decoration you just bought at Ocean State Job Lot, which is ever-so tangible.

Buying stuff does make you feel good, doesn’t it? I’m willing to admit that it makes me feel good, but I am also careful to remember that it is a small part of the constitution of my life, and what also makes me feel good is living in a country that is respectful of working people, compassionate about those less fortunate, and committed to improving things socially and economically for everyone. All that stuff is part of my personal struggle for “happiness,” and one that I often feel is not adequately nourished by our society. The reason? An overemphasis on consumption, to the exclusion of these other important values.

As consumers, we’re in pursuit of cheap products. As employers, we’re in pursuit of cheap labor. In the short term, these both feel like good things. But this dual pursuit of cheapness has driven many jobs out of the US. And the pursuit of cheap labor is driving employers still here to skirt the law in order to find the least expensive worker willing to bust his or her hump. If none of these workers were available, employers would have to take their lumps and invest a larger share of their profits in wages. But cheap workers are available in the form of undocumented immigrants.

There has been an overwhelming amount written on the liberal blogs about immigration since the March rally in Los Angeles where lots of people showed up. The numbers at that rally are actually one source of much discussion on the blogs, with estimates ranging from 200,000 to half a million. The fact that many Mexican flags were waved at that rally is also a source of much discussion, since some claim it will result in a reactionary backlash against Mexican immigrants, while others regard it as a great sign of cultural solidarity and strength.

Then there is the reignited discussion of “the wall” or “the fence.” To this, Molly Ivins gives this response:

The Fence will not work. No fence will work. The Great darn Wall of China will not work. Do not build a fence. It will not work. They will come anyway. Over, under or through.

Mitchell Freedman, a lawyer and blogger in California, is for the wall:

3. Build the freakin’ wall already. And build it at the Canadian as well as Mexican border. It’s a great government works program. And if we have unions with prevailing wages, and hire American born or naturalized citizens, we create wealth through spreading wealth. Note who in the US is against the wall: The Chamber of Commerce and the Wall St. Journal. That’s also the same crew who support a “guest worker” program, which is just legalizing illegal immigration and codifying the lowering of wages. Separate question: Will the wall work to keep out illegals? It won’t be perfect, especially if we don’t have guards to check out tunnels. But really, the wall will work well enough if we…

But these issues are all side dishes. The main course, the source of the immigration problem, is the fact that American jobs pay better than Mexican jobs, or jobs in many other countries. This is where Mitchell Freedman is going in his post, and so I will continue on with points 4 and 5 of his 5-point plan to address immigration issues:

4. Increase sanctions against businesses that tend to hire illegal immigrants. Make the agricultural, restaurant, and construction industries, for starters, actually check social security numbers. The technology is there. Just make ’em use it, dammit. If the businesses get caught, fine ’em and if they are repeat offenders, jail time for the business leaders will be a fine example of deterrence.

5. Aid to Mexico–especially if it elects, as president, Lopez Obrador of the PRD. Why? Because he’s a New Dealer at heart. Most Mexican immigrants, for example, don’t want to leave their homes when first deciding to go “el Norte.” They leave home because the Mexican economy continues to suck after 10 or more years of the NAFTA. A nation that buys what it makes and makes what it buys is more stable than one that imports its basic products…

Points 1 and 2 of the Freedman Five are also noteworthy and are, in a nutshell, give amnesty to everyone already here, and make it easier for workers to form and join unions.

Molly Ivins also argues that until we start sanctioning businesses for employing illegal immigrants, we will not get at the driving force of the problem. David Sirota, an authorative voice on issues of labor standards and corporate influence on US government, gives no shortage of emphasis to these points on his blog. Sirota points to Time Magazine as the first mainstream media outlet to draw attention to free trade as the source of the problems with immigration. From the article:

President Bush spent the past four years snubbing and otherwise alienating his supposed amigo, Mexican President Vicente Fox, because Mexico didn’t back Bush’s invasion of Iraq. So Bush’s critics in this hemisphere find it fitting that he’s now knee-deep in a policy mess over illegal Mexican immigration into the U.S., looking to Fox for any help he can provide. But when Bush, Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper meet today in Cancún to discuss the continent’s dysfunctional immigration situation, they might consider that one solution lies not so much in guest-worker programs or a 2,000-mile-long border fence, but in trade—namely, a revision of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Perhaps they should ask why NAFTA—which took effect 12 years ago amid promises to raise the fortunes of Mexico’s beleaguered workers—hasn’t done more to reduce desperate labor migration over the U.S. border. That illegal flow, about a million migrants a year, is as heavy as ever. (Just ask CNN’s Lou Dobbs, who’s broadcasting live from Cancún this week because he’s so aggravated about it.) NAFTA has not been an altogether bad deal for Mexico; it has buoyed the economy and improved opportunities for workers in the more technologically advanced north. But it has only exacerbated their plight in the nation’s south and midsection—states like Oaxaca and Zacatecas that are hemorrhaging workers to California lettuce fields, North Carolina poultry plants and Chicago restaurants.

US business has become heavily dependent on cheap labor, to the point where Republicans — traditionally the party of the Chamber of Commerce — are having a hard time reconciling their pro-business stance with the host of other issues that come with uncontrolled immigration. Tom Tancredo has taken a strong position on this, as quoted in the latest edition of Business Week:

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in February, Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) won a standing ovation for skewering companies that profit from imported labor. “The conservative movement can either be the voice of principle or it can be the voice of the Chamber of Commerce,” Tancredo roared. “But it cannot be both.”

So which is it going to be? My opinion: the sudden attention to immigration is similar to the “Little Bear” story where Little Bear keeps coming inside and complaining to Mother Bear that he is cold and she keeps giving him more things to put on, until he finally realizes that he has a fur coat and doesn’t need all those other things, and he stops complaining.

Like Little Bear already having a fur coat, we already have laws that protect American jobs and make citizenship a requirement of holding those jobs. We need to enforce those laws. Republicans and Democrats alike need to be willing to see hiring of non-Americans for what it is: a white collar crime that is driven by greed and lack of principle. They need to hold accountable those practicing this unscrupulous behavior under the existing laws.

And we need to reform NAFTA so that free trade supports the economic development of Mexico and other North American developing nations.

Then, maybe, we will be fostering the “pursuit of happiness,” both nationally and beyond.