Danielle Levy

I’ve long stopped looking at issues through either a Republican or a Democrat filter. While it takes a certain discipline not to let oneself fall one way or another, it yields a picture of a given situation that can either be more encouraging or more disconcerting. In the case of the discussions about raising the debt limit, when certain congress people took a stand divorced from the realities of the Market or the global economy or consequences to the average person, I am so saddened, for what their stance looked like to me is intransigence. I ask myself, what is the place of intransigence in a democracy? In a dictatorship or other form of authoritarian regime it’s clear, but in a system built to uphold democratic principles, wouldn’t intransigence erode those very principles?
Mike Duffy of Time Magazine commented during a recent television appearance that although in the past Congress always compromised, these days even the hint of compromise was seen as a surrender. His view reinforces the fact that whatever the outcome, the legacy of this protracted discussion can’t help but be an exercise in intransigence. Those members of congress who feel they must stand on their interpretation of principle and refuse compromise feel virtuous and right, unaware that their stand seen through a wider lens erodes the premise of the democracy they think they are defending.

Bangladeshi Workers sent home $11.65 billion in 2010—a record. The sum represents what 7 million Bangladeshi working abroad sent home, most in unskilled positions. The jobs were in countries of the Middle East, the U.K., Malaysia, Singapore, Italy and the U.S. among others. As a whole the remittances make up about 10% of the Bangladeshi economy of about $100 billion. Over the last five years, they have played a key role in lifting some 14 million people out of the poverty. Banks have made it easier to transmit money, so that the remittances can not only avoid the illegal system but also be used to boost the country’s foreign exchange reserves. The $11.65 billion figure is 6% over similar remittances the previous year. Even without the increase, one must admit it speaks of hard work, dedication, devotion, sacrifice, and a form of love that the more affluent West hasn’t needed—perhaps unfortunately—to develop.

It’s become harder to cross the border from Mexico into the U.S., more expensive and more dangerous. According to a recent study, however, there are more powerful factors keeping Mexicans at home. Douglas Massey, co-director of the Mexican Migration Project at Princeton University, points to changes within Mexico itself. Education is easier, economic prospects are stronger than they were and families are decreasing in size. The younger generations, who in the past would have come North to the U. S. for jobs, are now staying home. Mr. Massey says “ No one wants to hear it, but the flow has already stopped. For the first time in 60 years, the net traffic has gone to zero and is probably a little bit negative.” While there are other countries involved in illegal immigration, the majority of undocumented workers come from Mexico. Should opportunities in those countries similarly improve, surely they would make the same choice as the younger generations of Mexico and stay home. I wonder if our rhetoric as well as our policies about immigration would as a result make a 180—for we may then realize how important immigrants are.