As our culture evolves, society has struggled to reconcile the ideals of an accepting nation with fears that each new wave of migrants poses a greater threat to our way of life. In Britain, these simmering conflicts first came into the limelight when riots broke out in its impoverished Muslim suburbs and are on display once again, as government leaders weigh on a debate over the Muslim veil.

Even Prime Minister Tony Blair has called elementary teacher Aishah Azmi's veil, which leaves just her eyes exposed, a "mark of separation." Since she refused to remove the veil after a request from school administrators, Azmi has lost a discrimination claim and has been suspended pending appeal. The question connecting this case from across the ocean to immigration policies here is, "To what extent is it migrants' responsibility to fit in?"

Perhaps the greatest benefit in Azmi wearing the veil during class is the lesson in tolerance she inadvertently gave her students: We are all connected as human beings regardless of our beliefs. Yet, in our post-feminist society, the very idea that women be concealed from everyone besides husband and immediate family is offensive.

What liberals and other advocates of religious rights must remember is that those against the veil don't oppose it because of religious hubris or a fear of Islam and immigrants. For the most part, they are seriously concerned about the place of women in Islamic society, and it's not hard to determine the roots this sentiment. It took us such an extraordinary amount of time to recognize the place of women in our society that it doesn't seem unreasonable to consider the concealed 21st century woman the ultimate form of subjugation.

So the debate is in a stalemate dominated by two visions of liberalism, each sincerely hoping to look out for the best interests of the populous. I have no doubt that the same applies to our immigration debate. However, we cannot demand immediate assimilation of newcomers if we are not willing to help.

This underscores the absurdity of those who insist government should not fund bilingual education. They claim our tax dollars shouldn't be wasted on a language that won't help kids assimilate or gain a true appreciation American culture. So in exchange for this ideological obstinacy, are we to leave Spanish speakers behind and confused in the classroom? Isn't the point of conservative policy to discourage kids from failing out of schools and making a living on the streets?

For everything we expect from migrants, we ought to expect something from ourselves. Now we're building a border fence, while many cities consider legislation barring landlords from renting to illegals. And in Wisconsin, gubernatorial candidate Mark Green is assailing Gov. Jim Doyle for opening the University of Wisconsin's in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. Besides this argument's rhetorical impact, how is keeping illegal immigrants away from our universities going to aid domestic security? The inability to afford a UW System school isn't going to encourage migrants to report themselves to INS. It just takes away the incentive for illegals to succeed in high school and contributes to inner city strife.

The counter argument to more sympathetic illegal immigration policies is that the tide of illegals causes unemployment. While this holds true at an elementary level of analysis, in reality the expenditure of goods by an illegal immigrant creates more demand for the goods he consumes. So it is true immigration can create an oversupply in certain types of labor, but it can't produce too much labor in general because they are consumers like the rest of us.

I don't mean to suggest it's not dangerous to have undocumented persons in our country. But it is wholly counterproductive to politically scapegoat them while failing to address why our economy is addicted to their labor. In what history may see as a vindication for the Bush presidency, he realized the dynamic scope of this problem and sought compromise to make comprehensive reform a real possibility. Meanwhile his congress — including Mark Green — used the issue as a political ham and continues to do so.

Through their unwillingness to support tangible improvement over partisan buzzwords, many Republicans support the status quo. So perhaps it is a false debate, a political ham put out to exploit conservatives and make their mouths water. While we're having a great time playing politics with the livelihood of people trying to support their families, our seminal moment in immigration waits on the horizon. As the ham spins slowly in the oven, we can be sure our society will not be equipped to face the challenge.

Bassey Etim ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and journalism.