Migration is an economic issue

DEMAND AND SUPPLY By Boo Chanco
The Philippine Star 04/17/2006

Following the hot debate in America today about immigration, one gets the idea that the general thinking at the US Congress is, it is largely a law enforcement issue. It is really more than that. Immigration is also an economic issue and is probably more economic than a lot of people think.

Man has been moving from one location to another from the beginning of time in search of food. As societies developed, migration movements were dictated pretty much by the same need to have easy access to food and other necessities, as each era defines what these are.

Closer to home and our times, we have noted migration from the rural areas to the cities as economic prospects in the agrarian countryside declined compared to the industrial urban areas. It didn’t matter to the rural migrants that they ended up in squalid conditions in crowded squatter colonies in the cities. That was preferable to the hopelessness of the countryside. The right thing to do here is put more resources towards developing the countryside so that the rural folks won’t want to come to the city to live in squatter areas.

That’s what’s happening in the larger international stage as people from developing countries migrate to the West in search of better lives. In a sense, it is not just America but the rest of the original G7 nations are getting their comeuppance from years of enriching themselves at the expense of the Third World. The Americans have to contend with Latino migrants and Old Europe has to worry about the flood of North African Muslim migrants.

But as the world grows flatter, movement of people will likely take a two-way direction as countries like India and China start attracting back the high quality migrants that left some years before. The key to stemming the tide of migration from poor Mexico to rich America is economic development. The Indians are starting to show how this works.

An Indian computer scientist who made good in Silicon Valley may now find it worthwhile to go back to India because both the Indian economy and technology have progressed enough to make it possible for him to be in Bangalore and still be part of the worldwide revolution in ICT. An Indian scientist fresh from one of India’s world class technology schools, on the other hand, no longer feels a need to go to the West to get a chance to maximize his potentials.

One wonders... what if Mexico, instead of China, cornered the bulk of WalMart’s (and America’s) imports of consumer goods and Mexico instead of China has this gargantuan trade surplus with America, would we be having all the emotional debate on the need to erect the Great Wall of America to keep the Mexicans out? The reason why Mexicans and other Hispanics in Latin America are ready to risk their lives to illegally cross the border is that their own economies give them no hope for the future.

Economics is key. Look at America and Canada. Because their economies are more or less on an even keel, it really makes little difference which side of Niagara Falls you are… unless you want cheaper prescription drugs. Of course it helps that the two countries are also more or less culturally attuned.

Hopes were expressed some years back that Nafta would pull Mexico up to the point that it would shed its Third World trappings and join the ranks of its economically progressive North American partners in the free trade area. While Nafta did help Mexico improve its economic performance somewhat, it is obvious it didn’t do enough to even out the disparities to the point that Mexicans would think twice before risking their lives trying to cross the border. In fact, the Mexicans can’t even compete with Chinese made goods entering the Mexican domestic market.

So the situation has become such that a significant sector of America’s population that traces its roots to European immigrants, are up in arms and are exerting political pressure to keep the Mexicans and other Hispanics out of the country. They even want to erect a Great Wall at the border and jail anyone who helps the illegal migrants, even if it was being done out of sheer humanitarian considerations. Is this a viable strategy?

Jagdish Bhagwati, a respected economist and senior fellow at the Council for Foreign Relations in New York doesn’t think this sheer law enforcement approach embodied in a House bill, is going to work. In fact, he doesn’t think the more tender approach of President Bush providing for guest workers and a clear road to eventual citizenship is going to work either. "Whether the legislation is tough or tender," Bhagwati wrote the Financial Times, "the phenomenon of illegal immigration is here to stay."

He explains why. "New inflows of illegal immigrants cannot be eliminated; nor can the numbers already in the United States be seriously dented by policy… Take new inflows. Tougher enforcement through fences and ditches and expanding border patrols have not worked to reduce the inflows in the past two decades.

"The tender approach of a guest worker programme such as that proposed initially by President Bush, or any of its variants in Congress, can reduce the illegals attempting to cross the border; but the annual numbers under any such programme will be capped at 400,000 at most, leaving many desperate to get into the US any way they can. As long as the borders are not thrown open, therefore, there will always be an illegal influx."

Bhagwati doesn’t think the draconian measures in the House bill, including expulsion of all illegals is politically workable. The Los Angeles Times reported most Americans, by a solid two to one margin, say the United States should confront the challenge of illegal immigration by both toughening border enforcement and creating a new guest worker program, instead of by cracking down on enforcement alone. "Some of those who rejected efforts to remove the illegal immigrants already here made clear in interviews that their opposition was based more on practical than philosophical objections."

This is why Bhagwati feels "there is no alternative to putting up with the illegals. But once this fact is confronted and digested, there is only one alternative before the American people: to treat the illegals with the humanity they deserve and which marks the traditional attitude to legal immigrants in a country built uniquely on immigration."

What does Bhawati propose? He proposes programs whose costs should be shared by Mexico when its nationals are involved, for teaching the mostly illegal illiterates the English language so they can integrate better. Labor protection should be extended to illegals so they are not exploited. And, America "should divert the anti terrorism expenditures away from harassment of the malnourished and uneducated illegals."

I might add, invest more money, to include that earmarked for building a wall, on helping Mexico improve the quality of life of those Mexicans most prone to run with the coyotes across the border. Obviously, direct assistance from Washington isn’t going to be enough. There must be some way of helping Mexico make full use of Nafta, or the proposed expanded Central American free trade zone to cover other current illegal Latino migrants, to improve their national economies through trade and investments. Hopefully, the economic benefits trickle down fast enough and generous enough to the people to make staying put in Mexico and other Central American republics, humanly possible.

In the end, it is all about economics. Flourishing economies south of the border that are able to spread the benefits over a large portion of its population, would keep its people within their borders better than any wall or draconian measure can. The same economic approach should prove viable for the other nationalities comprising the body of illegals, including the Philippines. No one really wants to leave home and face the unknown in a strange land if one can help it.

The message for America is simply, help those economies to prosper… or America will have this big problem with illegal immigrants forever.

Insanity

Another reader who wants to remain anonymous sent this one.

A doctor was interviewing a patient. "Has there been any insanity in your family?"

"Yes, doctor. My husband thinks he’s the boss."

Boo Chanco’s e-mail address is bchanco@gmail.com

http://www.philstar.com/philstar/NEWS200604170717.htm