Does the American dream still come with Spanish subtitles?

Like it or not, the epicenter of the immigration debate is the Hispanic community. Most of the 12 million people living in America illegally are Hispanic, and the majority of immigrants entering America each year are from Latin America as well. The growth of the Latino population, both legal and illegal, has inspired many to oppose liberalizing immigration, a stance supposedly prompted by security concerns, but that sounds just a tad racist to some of our Hispanic leaders.

“These people are not criminal masterminds,” Fernando Espuelas, who heads Voy, a Latin multimedia company, said. “They are hungry. It’s not an intellectual decision to come to America They have no choice.”

For Mr. Espuelas, the topic is personal. When he was 10, an economic disaster in his native country of Uruguay caused his mother to board a plane to America with nothing but her son and $200. When their tourist visa expired, they stayed on, occasionally dodging immigration officials checking green cards at the factory where Mrs. Espuelas worked. Eventually she found an employer who sponsored the family, and they worked their way out of the shadows.

In Mr. Espuelas’s view, the proposed immigration bill is imperfect, but at least opens the topic for debate. “Immigration is a huge problem that has to be addressed. A lot of the debate is cynical, and focused on only one part of the issue. The government is not addressing the bigger question of why these people are coming here.”

The root cause of the unstoppable wave of Spanish-speaking immigrants is the lack of economic opportunity in Latin America, Mr. Espuelas says.

A former U.S. congressman who also headed CUNY, Herman Badillo, agrees. “I don’t think the immigration bill tackles the real problem at all. Latinos don’t come here because they want to but because conditions are terrible in their native countries. In a poll taken in Mexico, 49% of the people said they would come here if they could.”

When people are hungry, he says, “they will do anything they can to provide for their families. No immigration wave based on economic necessity was ever stopped. No matter what bill you write, you cannot keep them out.”

Messrs. Espuelas and Badillo feel the first priority of the American government should be partnering with certain Latin American countries to create more stable economies in the region.

“We have to help them develop their countries,” Mr. Badillo said. “No one is asking — why are they here? These people don’t want to be here, they have to be here.”

Both men point to widespread political corruption and the hangover from centuries of near-feudal government as having retarded development in most Latin American countries. The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom bolsters these charges. Only Chile receives a decent score for freedom from political corruption. Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, and others are on a par with countries such as Laos, Albania, Yemen, and Libya.

One of the legacies of this backward rule, according to Mr. Badillo, is a lack of education in the region. He says the absence of a strong educational culture travels with Hispanics coming to American shores, and impedes this group’s progress in America This is the central point of his book “One Nation, One Standard,” which came out last year.

“There was huge migration from Puerto Rico after World War II” he says. “It came to a relative halt when the government set up an educational system, which eventually brought in jobs. Imagine — it stopped when the per capita income reached half the level of Mississippi, one of the poorest states in the country. In other words, it doesn’t take much.”

Like many others, Messrs. Badillo and Espuelas see the proposed immigration bill as flawed, but at least a step in the right direction. Both are concerned about the requirement that illegal immigrants return home in order to get in the queue toward citizenship. This is the element that apparently dissolved Governor Richardson’s enthusiasm for the measure, as was reported yesterday in the New York Times.

“It’s an unrealistic assessment of how people live,” Mr. Badillo says. “How are they going to feed their families? If they can only stay here two to four years, they will go into the shadows.”

“I don’t have a problem with anything that has logic,” Mr. Espuelas says. “But it’s not positive to create a situation that is punitive. These people have limited resources, and this would be a very disruptive event in their lives.”

For Mr. Espuelas, a real risk is that Hispanics will be dehumanized in the debate about immigration. “This cleaves a country apart,” he says. “And, there will be a reaction. These are not animals. It’s important to find a way to unify people behind this. Let’s go back to the heritage of the country. Let’s do something reflective of the very best of America.”

Still, both men argue that the first response to uncontrolled immigration should be to help Latin American countries develop their own economies.

“The U.S. has a strategic interest in Latin America,” Mr. Espuelas says. “We share a continent, we are bound together.”

What can be done? For starters, America can pursue improved trade relations with the friendly countries of Latin America. At the moment, America has in place Nafta, which began in 1994 and covers trade with Canada and Mexico, and also an agreement with Chile, which began in 2003. Agreements with Panama, Peru, and Columbia will soon be up for consideration by Congress.

According to Frank Vargo of the National Association of Manufacturers, Chile is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, in part because of the trade understanding with America

Congress should be encouraged to give the go-ahead to engage in more such collaborative efforts with neighbors to the south. Let us hope that the economic lift offered by increased trade with America gets funneled back into investments in schools, housing, and infrastructure. “Free trade agreements can’t do it by themselves,” Mr. Vargo says. “It’s only part of the solution.”

peek10021@aol.com