Every day, on average, one of the Mexicans who sets out to enter the United States illegally will die. Unseen and unknown, faceless and nameless, his or her passing will have no apparent effect on the United States, Mexico or the vibrant border that separates and connects the two nations with competing intensity.

But the desperation that drives a person to leave home, pay scarce money, travel under dangerous conditions, vie against major odds and risk death for a chance to earn a living wage should not be simply dismissed, as some do, as unlawful behavior. Mexicans, the critics say, should wait their turn, as legal immigrants from Mexico and other countries historically have done.

The issue is far more complicated than that. I have to agree with Geronimo Gutierrez, the Mexican Foreign Ministry’s Undersecretary for North America, who spoke at the Hispanic Summit in Orlando, Fla., last week. Those who now attempt to sneak into the United States almost definitely would not succeed if they tried to enter through mainstream channels. They lack either the close family ties or the skill sets that typically open the door to legitimate immigrants.

What to do?

One proposal that I reject is the construction of a border-long barrier from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. Such a structure would allow Americans to reclaim control of the border and save the dying Mexicans from themselves, supporters insist.

Well, the history of walls designed to keep others out has a mixed record; those usually have been built to deter adversaries. Mexico does not fall into that category. Indeed – despite certain policy differences – Mexico has been a neighbor, friend and partner of the United States. The relationship greatly expanded after the debut of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which will add immeasurably to the economies of both nations during the long term.

Moreover, the millions of Mexicans living in this country, both legally and illegally, are a prominent, productive and growing part of the American scene.

A barrier along the border would prove insulting, costly and even more dangerous than current conditions. Do supporters really believe that the persistence and zeal of determined border-crossers would wither and wane in the shadow of a 2,000-mile obstruction?

My guess is that Mexicans would deal with the challenge in the manner that one usually engages an obstacle: by finding ways around, over or underneath it. If anything, more Mexicans likely would die, should the United States erect a border wall.

In addition, the expense of a clandestine border crossing, which already ranges from several hundred dollars to a few thousand, would rise. That money currently provides economic benefits only to smugglers. Would it not make sense, as Gutierrez suggested, to create more legal avenues for Mexicans and thereby redirect the smugglers’ ill-gotten gains toward legitimate services?

I would rather see U.S. policymakers focus on more humane and promising solutions, such as a guest-worker program that held considerable appeal before Sept. 11, 2001. Of necessity, the border was essentially closed after that tragedy, with predictable economic damage. Now that U.S. and Mexican leaders have a better handle on their security needs and a free flow across the border is more important than ever for economic reasons, they need to put their heads together on the issue of illegal migration – ideally before Mexican President Vicente Fox leaves office.

I am interested in what readers of this column have to say. Is the status quo acceptable? Should the United States build a protective border wall? Is it time to consider a significant guest-worker program? Does another solution present itself? Kindly send your comments to me at jbersia@orlandosentinel.com, and I will summarize them in a future column.

– John C. Bersia, an editorial writer for the Orlando Sentinel in 2000, is also the special assistant to the president for global perspectives and a professor at the University of Central Florida.