I don’t know what America’s policy should be toward immigrants. Clearly, “days without immigrants” would cripple our economy, but how do we keep from being overwhelmed? How do we establish a policy that’s fair?
Perhaps the way to find the answer is to begin at the extremes and work our way in, eliminating the unworkable options until we arrive at a ground that feels comfortable.
One extreme says we should deport all aliens in the country illegally, we should build impermeable barriers along our borders and we should make it a felony to aid illegals. That would be a practical and philosophical disaster. Practically, the absence of immigrants would deprive the U.S. of much of its low-wage work force. True, it would force employers to pay decent – or at least minimum wage – salaries, but an economy predicated, as ours is, on an available work force, would suffer significant dislocation before adjusting. Philosophically, a border lockdown would repudiate of 200 years of history. The “deport, wall and felony” option is, however, part of the debate; it’s been put in play by folks like Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo.
The other extreme would be to open the borders, welcoming all citizens of the world to move here – or leave here – as their desire for a better life for themselves and their families dictates. No one in Congress or the punditocracy is advocating an open-border policy – for people.
There is a “no borders” policy for money and corporations. It’s “globalization” and it’s codified through treaties like North American Free Trade Agreement and groups like the World Trade Organization. The theory holds that the more freely money and trade move across borders, the more economic activity is stimulated and therefore the more material goods everyone, rich and poor, will be able to afford.
Everyone from Clintonistas to Bushites, from Condi Rice to Tom Friedman, agree free trade lifts all boats, but how free is free trade, how free is the free market, if workers are prevented by national borders from following their best opportunities for employment? What kind of a world have we made if corporations are allowed the pursuit of happiness (in the form of profits) on a global scale, but the pursuit of human happiness (in the form of feeding one’s family) is limited by geographic accidents of birth? Born in Mexico, or Nigeria or Romania? Oh well, looks like decades of toil and poverty for you; better luck next life.
(Some well-intentioned folks on the left say the solution is to regain control over corporations by revoking their charters for bad behavior. It’s a nice thought and technically possible, but revoking a U.S. corporate charter will just move the corporation offshore, where the WTO still assures it access to American markets. So reform or abolish the WTO? It’s probably not something a nation with trade deficits like ours really wants to contemplate.)
Free traders would argue free trade obviates the need to open borders for people, that free trade means jobs will seek people out, with industry naturally finding places where labor is cheapest and most abundant. Mexicans learned this the hard way. American jobs moved to Mexico in the 1980s, by the mid-90s, when NAFTA came into force, jobs were already leaving for southeast Asia. Why would a Mexican want to follow a shoe-making job to southeast Asia and work for half as much as she or he made at home? Better to sneak into the U.S. and cut up chickens or wash dishes or build condominiums.
I think people – even politicians – intuitively get the unfairness of freeing international capital while binding labor to one country. People certainly get the idea that punishing people for wanting to perform low-wage menial labor is not only uncivil, it’s not in our best economic interest.
People will always follow the money and if the money crosses borders, then people will cross them in pursuit. We, as a nation, have an interest in shutting our borders to criminals and deadbeats. Beyond that, if people want to come here and contribute their labor, pay taxes and be consumers, I say: “sign ‘em up.” If the free market is really free, the immigrant stream will stop when the economy has absorbed as much as it can.
Over the Line
I don’t know what America’s policy should be toward immigrants. Clearly, “days without immigrants” would cripple our economy, but how do we keep from being overwhelmed? How do we establish a policy that’s fair?
Perhaps the way to find the answer is to begin at the extremes and work our way in, eliminating the unworkable options until we arrive at a ground that feels comfortable.
One extreme says we should deport all aliens in the country illegally, we should build impermeable barriers along our borders and we should make it a felony to aid illegals. That would be a practical and philosophical disaster. Practically, the absence of immigrants would deprive the U.S. of much of its low-wage work force. True, it would force employers to pay decent – or at least minimum wage – salaries, but an economy predicated, as ours is, on an available work force, would suffer significant dislocation before adjusting. Philosophically, a border lockdown would repudiate of 200 years of history. The “deport, wall and felony” option is, however, part of the debate; it’s been put in play by folks like Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo.
The other extreme would be to open the borders, welcoming all citizens of the world to move here – or leave here – as their desire for a better life for themselves and their families dictates. No one in Congress or the punditocracy is advocating an open-border policy – for people.
There is a “no borders” policy for money and corporations. It’s “globalization” and it’s codified through treaties like North American Free Trade Agreement and groups like the World Trade Organization. The theory holds that the more freely money and trade move across borders, the more economic activity is stimulated and therefore the more material goods everyone, rich and poor, will be able to afford.
Everyone from Clintonistas to Bushites, from Condi Rice to Tom Friedman, agree free trade lifts all boats, but how free is free trade, how free is the free market, if workers are prevented by national borders from following their best opportunities for employment? What kind of a world have we made if corporations are allowed the pursuit of happiness (in the form of profits) on a global scale, but the pursuit of human happiness (in the form of feeding one’s family) is limited by geographic accidents of birth? Born in Mexico, or Nigeria or Romania? Oh well, looks like decades of toil and poverty for you; better luck next life.
(Some well-intentioned folks on the left say the solution is to regain control over corporations by revoking their charters for bad behavior. It’s a nice thought and technically possible, but revoking a U.S. corporate charter will just move the corporation offshore, where the WTO still assures it access to American markets. So reform or abolish the WTO? It’s probably not something a nation with trade deficits like ours really wants to contemplate.)
Free traders would argue free trade obviates the need to open borders for people, that free trade means jobs will seek people out, with industry naturally finding places where labor is cheapest and most abundant. Mexicans learned this the hard way. American jobs moved to Mexico in the 1980s, by the mid-90s, when NAFTA came into force, jobs were already leaving for southeast Asia. Why would a Mexican want to follow a shoe-making job to southeast Asia and work for half as much as she or he made at home? Better to sneak into the U.S. and cut up chickens or wash dishes or build condominiums.
I think people – even politicians – intuitively get the unfairness of freeing international capital while binding labor to one country. People certainly get the idea that punishing people for wanting to perform low-wage menial labor is not only uncivil, it’s not in our best economic interest.
People will always follow the money and if the money crosses borders, then people will cross them in pursuit. We, as a nation, have an interest in shutting our borders to criminals and deadbeats. Beyond that, if people want to come here and contribute their labor, pay taxes and be consumers, I say: “sign ‘em up.” If the free market is really free, the immigrant stream will stop when the economy has absorbed as much as it can.
© Mark Floegel, 2006