''I didn't have a good job... not enough money to live.'' With that one sentence, she explained the pressing rationale for leaving her home and family in Burma and heading off to a foreign land, hoping to provide a better life for herself and those whom she had to leave behind. It is a sentiment that is timeless, one nearly universal, leading millions and millions in the past and present to move about the world seeking a little more financial security and with it, a strengthened hope for a better future.

While this common motivation might lead so many to risk so much, it is one that has been met with varied responses from the countries from which those people seek that better future. Some countries have been better at encouraging that simple human hope, while also helping themselves in the process, than have others.

In the last several decades Thailand has seen masses of Laotians, Cambodians, and especially Burmese, cross its borders for the exact same reason as the woman, to work for a better future. Many Thais are still poor and dependent on agricultural and other manual labour jobs. The presence of illegal foreign workers certainly didn't help the country's citizenry feel any securer in its own economic plight, especially after the Asian financial crisis of the late-1990s. While the presence of a large number of ''illegals'' was a contentious issue for the country to contend with, it has not done so through mass deportations and the construction of impermeable fortified borders. Rather, it has responded through a relatively open and fair rationalisation of its migrant worker policies, conducive to supporting both the hopes of migrants as well as its own economy.

Thailand had a simple reality to deal with at the turn of the century: roughly a million illegal migrant workers who were overall beneficial to its economy and in any case impossible to permanently deport and exclude from re-entering. Given that simple reality, despite some heated political debate, the Thai government has since chosen to offer several general amnesties, in 2001 and 2004, to illegal migrant workers. It granted them one-year, renewable work permits in exchange for registering with government agencies. Since these initial amnesties, it has maintained a relatively progressive programme of offering work permits to those foreign workers from three neighbouring countries who register following a standard, simplified protocol.

Amazingly, it also has sought to provide them with some social services, such as basic health care.

Undoubtedly, migrant workers still face many challenges in Thailand even when they are in the country legally. Yet, it is insightful to learn how a developing country has dealt with such a contentious issue (considering that it arguably has the most to fear from masses of unskilled, cheap labour crossing its borders), when the presence of foreign workers and illegal immigration has become such a horribly contentious issue in the developed West. This is especially the case for the United States at present, which is in the middle of a heated debate about ''immigration''.

Essentially, the USA is facing a similar situation to what Thailand has recently been through _ the presence of a large number of illegal migrants that cannot simply be deported, despite the demands of certain political groups, because it is practically impossible. What's to be done instead is an exceptionally provocative political issue domestically. What is initially necessary for a saner, more realistic debate on ''immigration'' issues in the USA is to be clearer about the terms and parameters of the political debate. At present, it is a rather convoluted one, with everything lumped into the ''immigration'' category which makes the issues unnecessarily emotive. It is necessary to be clear about distinguishing between 1) relatively short-term migrant work and 2) permanent immigration, i.e. that directly leading to citizenship.

As with Thailand, what the USA really needs to do is firstly rationalise its migrant worker policies to recognise some basic realities. Most notably, there needs to be acceptance of the simple truths that migrant workers are present in large numbers because there are large numbers of jobs for them to do, that their presence is largely unavoidable in any case, and it is undoubtedly good for the country economically.

Given that, a fairly open policy should be adopted for providing work permits to migrant workers quickly and easily. Such a policy should allow migrant workers to stay in the country for the specified time and come and go from their home countries as they please.

If the USA accepts a fairly open migrant worker policy, it is reasonable that it also maintains a rather tight immigration policy, as does Thailand. This is necessary in order to encourage migrant workers to utilise the migrant worker policy rather than consistently enter the country illegally, overloading the immigration system. However, it is important that there is a meshing of the systems in the USA, such that migrant workers who have lived in the country for an extended period legally do progress, if they like, into acquiring citizenship.

A ''tough but fair'' approach to immigration policy only makes sense if it works in tandem with a fairly open migrant worker policy. A ''tough'' immigration policy can only be ''fair'' if people still have the opportunity to work in the country through a migrant worker programme and still have hope, if it manifests itself that way, into eventually acquiring citizenship if they follow the rules. This ''meshing'' of systems is an issue not yet fully rationalised in Thailand's policies, and perhaps it's not as necessary here, but it is essential in the United States of America.

America is a country defined by immigration. It must never shift from believing that its strength comes from allowing newcomers to stir its ''melting pot'' with fresh ideas and energy. It also needs to accept the reality that through mass deportations, armed borders and rigid policies, it will still not be able to end illegal immigration. A better way forward is to accept that people will move, at least temporarily and despite the challenges, if they can have more hope for a better future elsewhere and to rationalise and formalise that energy and hope through more pragmatic and holistic policies, suitable to meeting their aspirations as well as helping the host country meet hers.

The woman from Burma now has a work permit and contributes to Thailand's economic growth as well takes care of her family back home. If Thailand can take bold steps to be ''tough but fair'' to those wishing to seek a better future inside her borders, even though she arguably has more to fear from incoming masses of foreigners, then certainly the USA should be able to as well.

Bangkok Post 18 May 2006