Immigration, as a problem in the Americas, began over 500 years ago. Upon arriving at Hispaniola, Columbus wrote the following: “They … brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks’ bells. They willingly traded everything they owned. … They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features. … They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane. … They would make fine servants. … With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.” And Columbus knew what he wanted – gold – and within a few decades the entire indigenous population of the island had died in the search for it. Later these “illegal immigrants” wanted coal, iron, uranium and land – always land. From the time of Columbus’ arrival, European Americans drove the indigenous nations of the Americas off their land by military conquest, disease, lies and extermination. For most white Americans, our “legal rights” over this land stem from our own luckiness that that our ancestors were among the perpetrators, rather than the victims, of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Equally relevant to the immigration debate is how the United States came by its southwestern states. In short, a colonization of the area by the Anglo “heroes of Texas” (most of whom were also on the extreme fringe of the pro-slavery camp) culminated in a war of aggression to take the land from the Latino elite in Mexico, who had previously stolen it from its indigenous inhabitants. Given this history, who but the remnants of destroyed indigenous nations can claim the moral high-ground? Some who favor restrictions on immigration will accept all this. “Yes, the history is evil,” they admit, “but an economy cannot function without controls on immigration. So for everyone’s good, we must uphold the laws, whatever happened in the past.” Again, let’s consider this argument with a clear view of the actual social function of immigration policy. The U.S. economy has always profited from cheap labor. From “subhuman” African slaves laboring in plantations, to Irish “trash” dying in mines and factories, to “Chinese devils” building railroads, to the migrant farmworkers, hotel maids and nannies for the wealthy of today, it has always been convenient for capitalists to have at their disposal a desperate and insecure work-force, if only to undercut more organized elements. Today, capital is free to move from country to country. Don’t like the local wages, environmental regulations or age and hour restrictions on workers? Just move your production to another country with different laws – laws likely established by a dictatorial regime put in place by the U.S. military. (Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Guatemala – Homework: what is the only country in Latin America never to be invaded by U.S. troops?) Of course, workers aren’t allowed to respond with international unions. Capital solidarity and cross-border movement is “free trade.” Cross-border worker solidarity is “socialism” or illegal immigration. This is the ugly reality behind talk of “immigration reform.” Like so much, this reality is obvious to much of the world, but white America hides its eyes, chattering on about the rule of law, as if history and economics do not exist. We white Americans live in a land conquered through genocide and war. We Hoyas attend a university built on indigenous land by slave-owning European priests. Some of us descend from the original murderers and thieves; some came later, perhaps as last century’s hated immigrant. Some of us worked for what we have, and some had it handed to them. But in every instance, our opportunities and life exist within an economy that controls the hemisphere and exploits workers, legal and illegal, here and in other countries. Our wealth – all wealth in this nation – was built on the backs of slaves and despised immigrants, using stolen land. If you can face that honestly, you are in a position to begin thinking honestly about the issue of immigration. What counts as fair treatment of someone who lost their job in a U.S.-owned maquiladora, perhaps for daring to talk about unions, after working 15-hour days for a fraction of our minimum wage? If you first face your own history, you can decide whether to scorn such people for sneaking into California to scrub toilets so as to feed their children. You can decide whether to deny them health care. Perhaps, after facing reality, you will decide that someone else altogether should be making such policy decisions. For myself, I dream of a council of elders from the remaining indigenous peoples of the Americas formulating a hemispheric policy on immigration. And I dream that white people would, for once, shut the **** up and accept it. But that, of course, is merely a dream. And while I don’t really suppose it is more than that, I do have a message for my white brothers and sisters: no more debate as if history does not exist. No more blind, willful ignorance. Face reality first, and then tell me how immigrants to this land deserve to be treated. ark Lance is a professor in the philosophy department and a professor and program director in the Program on Justice and Peace. He can be reached at lancethehoya.com. COGNITIVE DISSIDENT appears every other Friday.