.....are mostly indigenous/mestizo people from rural villages in Central and South America. They do not want to leave their family and friends to live in a country where they are despised, persecuted, and exploited just because of their appearance. Spoiled, lazy, arrogant, clueless Americans cannot imagine how hard conditions must be to borrow money to travel hundreds or thousands of miles just to be able to try and feed your family. The exploitation of the poor and dark peoples of the world continues unabated. But that's the "free market" and "democracy" at work.....

I would be happy to call immigrants from Latin America and other countries "refugees" if the U.S. had ever shown any consideration for refugees. But the fact is, the U.S. routinely locks up asylum seekers, often for years while their case is under consideration. In the end, many of these people end up being deported anyway. For that matter, a number of American citizens have been deported. From 2005 until 2012, the budget for ICE detention operations more than doubled. This is largely driven by the profit motive, as lobbyists for the private prison industry lavish money on legislators.

That said, I believe the word "refugee" is more accurate when you consider U.S. foregin policy and the history of U.S. oppression in Latin America which you and Joseph Thomas have pointed out. I'm glad that there is this debate over the words we use to describe our neighbors, friends and co-workers who happen to be foreign born. Because words do matter. And we are talking about human beings who are an integral part of our communities. Not some "alien other"

I prefer the word "immigrant" plain and simple, without any embellishment (no "undocumented", no "illegal"). I think it shows the most respect because it doesn't create a special class that sets them apart from the rest of us (we are all immigrants, except for Native Americans). And I see these folks as Americans regardless of their immigration status because anyone who has lived through the terror of U.S. policy in their homeland, and then summoned the courage to strike out for a better life, fully deserves to called an American. Because that's what Americans do...have always done.

Has the US made poor choices and done bad things in Central America, absolutely, but that does not make us responsible for the welfare of all the citizens there. Sorry, but when you look at it, the US actually has a pretty liberal immigration policy compared to other countries.

There are discrete policy choices which both push and pull Latin Americans to the US.

The imposition of brutal regimes for most of the 20th century as a central pillar of US foreign policy pushed people north.

Those regimes made it so that natural resources and cheap labor in these places were available to US corporations for at rock bottom prices, the products of which artificially raised the standard of living in the US.

Many folks came north to get their share of resources that were stolen from them by brutal regimes that had them voting with their feet. In both cases, political and economic, US foreign policy was the central causal factor.

We own the consequences of our country's foreign policy whether it be 9/11 or Latin American immigration.

I wonder what the over-all consequences would be if every nation's currency were the same value as all the others. If everyone got compensated at the same rate for their labor, then would companies take their jobs elsewhere? Why would they? Well, to answer my own question, maybe the labor protection laws in one country would be more bothersome to management than in another. But still, if all the currencies in the world were the same wouldn't that lead to less emigration? Wouldn't that remove one of the reasons for "capital flight", since the advantage of the exchange rate of one nation's currency as opposed to another's would no longer be in play.

Anyway, it seems to me that now that globalization of corporate operations is in full swing, perhaps all the different currencies ought to be worth the same amount in wage-power and buying-power. One world economy? i guess there's people that'll really hate that idea since there's probably people who are regularly making money doing currency exchanges. And who knows what other ways one can profit on the different exchange rates?

Pinochet from Chile, Peron from Argentina.