It's always disappointing and, frankly, a bit shocking to hear of ESL teachers so unsympathetic to their students' plight. As a group, these teachers have been among the strongest advocates for undocumented kids. But I guess it's inevitable that, as many new people come into the field, there's going to be a need to raise consciousness. Otherwise, some teachers will continue to absorb the callous and misinformed notions so prevalent in media these days.

Plyler v. Doe does give us grounds to argue that kids' immigration status should be irrelevant for schools. But to me that's not a very satisfying response. As on various other fronts, we need to recognize that attitudes matter and to take seriously the need to challenge both factual misconceptions and racist biases. Here are a few points I think are relevant:

1. Contrary to the nativist stereotype, the vast majority of immigrants who arrive here without documents are not coming to victimize Americans by breaking laws, exploiting the welfare system, and stealing jobs. By and large, they are coming out of desperation -- as economic or political refugees or both. Americans, whether they want to admit it or not, often bear responsibility for creating the conditions that force, e.g., Mexicans and Central Americans to leave their homes and cross the border without papers.

2. Among the big factors driving illegal immigration are:

-- NAFTA, which benefited some people and businesses on both sides of the border -- primarily those on the high end -- but was devastating to many others. An early indication was the 1994 devaluation of the peso, which wiped out about 2/3 of the savings of average Mexicans (recent Wall Street losses pale by comparison). Even more serious, NAFTA forced small farmers to compete on the commodity markets without protection from U.S. and Canadian agribusiness. Over a few years, this wrecked the rural economy in much of Mexico, leaving millions of people without any hope of employment in their home towns and villages. By now, the young and able have largely departed. Where do you think they went?

-- U.S. meddling in Central America in the 1980s. We are still reaping the harvest of our support for the Contras in Nicaragua -- illegal under both U.S. and international law -- and our toleration of Right-wing death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala. These policies destabilized the entire region and worked against progressive, democratic forces that could have done something about the savage inequalities there. For many Central Americans 20 years ago, the choice was between flight to El Norte and an early grave. Now the violence has subsided somewhat, but the economies remain depressed and jobs remain scarce. Many of those who have come to the U.S., legally or otherwise, would like to return home but can't do so without subjecting their families to hardships.

-- The enormous demand for low-skilled labor in this country, from gardeners to meat-packers to construction workers. Virtually all Americans have benefited, one way or another, from two decades of economic growth that has relied heavily on immigrants, often working under exploitive conditions. Arguably, there's been a depressive effect on the wages of some U.S. workers. We've also seen social conflicts because of cultural differences in certain communities and some additional expenses shouldered by U.S. taxpayers -- primarily for education and emergency health care, rarely for other welfare services. But let's not forget that the undocumented pay taxes like everyone else (and don't claim refunds). Virtually all the studies show that, on balance, the economic benefits of today's immigrants far outweigh the costs. So it's the height of hypocrisy, now that we've gladly accepted their contributions, for so many Americans to condemn "law-breaking" by the undocumented and demand their deportation.

3. Finally, there is never a moral justification for punishing children because their parents have broken laws. Given the numbers, it's fairly certain that the vast majority of the undocumented and their kids will remain in the United States indefinitely. No amount of "border enforcement" or moral posturing will change that fact. Americans' choice is whether we provide them civil rights and educational opportunities, or we turn them into a permanent underclass. How would the latter option benefit anyone?

My sense is that many ESL teachers -- and even more mainstream teachers -- are unfamiliar with these realities. How are we going to address that?

Jim Crawford

It's always disappointing and, frankly, a bit shocking to hear of ESL teachers so unsympathetic to their students' plight. As a group, these teachers have been among the strongest advocates for undocumented kids. But I guess it's inevitable that, as many new people come into the field, there's going to be a need to raise consciousness. Otherwise, some teachers will continue to absorb the callous and misinformed notions so prevalent in media these days.

Plyler v. Doe does give us grounds to argue that kids' immigration status should be irrelevant for schools. But to me that's not a very satisfying response. As on various other fronts, we need to recognize that attitudes matter and to take seriously the need to challenge both factual misconceptions and racist biases. Here are a few points I think are relevant:

1. Contrary to the nativist stereotype, the vast majority of immigrants who arrive here without documents are not coming to victimize Americans by breaking laws, exploiting the welfare system, and stealing jobs. By and large, they are coming out of desperation -- as economic or political refugees or both. Americans, whether they want to admit it or not, often bear responsibility for creating the conditions that force, e.g., Mexicans and Central Americans to leave their homes and cross the border without papers.

2. Among the big factors driving illegal immigration are:

-- NAFTA, which benefited some people and businesses on both sides of the border -- primarily those on the high end -- but was devastating to many others. An early indication was the 1994 devaluation of the peso, which wiped out about 2/3 of the savings of average Mexicans (recent Wall Street losses pale by comparison). Even more serious, NAFTA forced small farmers to compete on the commodity markets without protection from U.S. and Canadian agribusiness. Over a few years, this wrecked the rural economy in much of Mexico, leaving millions of people without any hope of employment in their home towns and villages. By now, the young and able have largely departed. Where do you think they went?

-- U.S. meddling in Central America in the 1980s. We are still reaping the harvest of our support for the Contras in Nicaragua -- illegal under both U.S. and international law -- and our toleration of Right-wing death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala. These policies destabilized the entire region and worked against progressive, democratic forces that could have done something about the savage inequalities there. For many Central Americans 20 years ago, the choice was between flight to El Norte and an early grave. Now the violence has subsided somewhat, but the economies remain depressed and jobs remain scarce. Many of those who have come to the U.S., legally or otherwise, would like to return home but can't do so without subjecting their families to hardships.

-- The enormous demand for low-skilled labor in this country, from gardeners to meat-packers to construction workers. Virtually all Americans have benefited, one way or another, from two decades of economic growth that has relied heavily on immigrants, often working under exploitive conditions. Arguably, there's been a depressive effect on the wages of some U.S. workers. We've also seen social conflicts because of cultural differences in certain communities and some additional expenses shouldered by U.S. taxpayers -- primarily for education and emergency health care, rarely for other welfare services. But let's not forget that the undocumented pay taxes like everyone else (and don't claim refunds). Virtually all the studies show that, on balance, the economic benefits of today's immigrants far outweigh the costs. So it's the height of hypocrisy, now that we've gladly accepted their contributions, for so many Americans to condemn "law-breaking" by the undocumented and demand their deportation.

3. Finally, there is never a moral justification for punishing children because their parents have broken laws. Given the numbers, it's fairly certain that the vast majority of the undocumented and their kids will remain in the United States indefinitely. No amount of "border enforcement" or moral posturing will change that fact. Americans' choice is whether we provide them civil rights and educational opportunities, or we turn them into a permanent underclass. How would the latter option benefit anyone?

My sense is that many ESL teachers -- and even more mainstream teachers -- are unfamiliar with these realities. How are we going to address that?

Jim Crawford