A Better Way to End Unauthorized Immigration

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Douglas Massey, Miller-McCune.com

Consider this scenario: A group of wealthy nations with well-established democracies is linked in a successful economic union that has dramatically increased trade, commerce and living standards. To the south, a much poorer nation is undergoing a transition to democracy after decades of authoritarian rule, at the same time moving to open its formerly closed economy to international investment and exchange. As part of its broader transformation, the southern nation asks to join the economic union to its north.

Many residents in the north are wary. After all, the southern country has just ended decades of one-party government, and its commitment to democracy is uncertain. Decades of protectionism have left it with a bloated and inefficient bureaucracy, a motley collection of money-losing state-owned enterprises, antiquated transportation and communication networks, an underdeveloped banking and monetary system, a legal structure of questionable integrity, and a welfare state that is far less generous than the safety nets prevailing to the north. Given these deficiencies, it is hardly surprising that income in the southern nation remains a small fraction of that in the north. And given the southern country's high fertility rates and young population, it's also unsurprising that the nation has historically sent large numbers of migrant workers northward.

Northern policymakers have a genuine dilemma.

On the one hand, admitting the southern nation as a full-fledged member will expand the size of the union's internal market, offer northern producers access to less expensive labor, create new opportunities for northern investors, and give residents of cold-weather climates new and sunny tourism and retirement options. Membership might also help to institutionalize democratic rule and economic reforms in the southern country.

On the other hand, granting full membership to their poor southern neighbor could, some fear, prompt a wave of factory closings and job losses, as northern firms establish new plants in the south to take advantage of lower labor costs. Other northerners fear that southern workers, suddenly free to cross borders, will migrate northward by the thousands in search of higher earnings. Some outline a doomsday scenario: Cities in the north would come to house self-contained enclaves of low-skill workers who resist assimilation into the host society.

The foregoing scenario is not hypothetical, of course. It was a concrete problem that policymakers faced during the last quarter of the 20th century in the United States -- and in Europe.

Spanish President-for-life Francisco Franco died in 1975, ending four decades of fascist rule and ushering in a shift to constitutional democracy and economic reform. As part of its bid to modernize, Spain applied to enter the European Union in July 1977, which led to a prolonged negotiation that culminated in the nation's admission on Jan. 1, 1986 (along with its neighbor Portugal).

In North America, meanwhile, a series of economic and political crises during the 1970s and 1980s led to a restructuring of Mexico's political economy and to the emergence of competitive elections that challenged the ruling party's monopoly. To institutionalize economic reforms and attract foreign investment, in 1989 Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari asked to join a free-trade agreement Canada and the United States had recently concluded. After several years of negotiations, on Jan. 1, 1994, Mexico joined the two countries in the North American Free Trade Agreement. Although the ruling party won the presidential election that year, voting was generally perceived to be open and fair, and in 2000, an opposition candidate won the presidency for the first time in six decades as the ruling party lost control of Congress, confirming Mexico's transition to democracy.

Despite real similarities in their situations, the paths taken to economic union by Spain and Mexico proved to be quite different -- and so did the results of those unions.

For Spain, the EU adopted full economic integration as the preferred goal, and substantial resources -- equivalent to tens of billions of U.S. dollars -- were made available to modernize Spanish institutions and infrastructure so they would harmonize with conditions in the north. As these investments were made, Spanish out-migration to the rest of Europe not only did not increase; it stopped, despite a continuing income gap between Spain and the rest of the EU.

In the U.S., in contrast, authorities chose not to pursue full economic integration, instead negotiating terms that were exploitive of Mexico and protective of the U.S. And since the signing of NAFTA, migration from Mexico to its northern neighbor has continued unabated as efforts to increase border enforcement have backfired, encouraging Mexican migrants in the U.S. to remain and actually increasing net undocumented migration.

Although you wouldn't guess it from the current U.S. immigration debate or presidential campaign, many authoritative studies of EU integration and NAFTA reveal a clear lesson: If the money devoted to U.S. border enforcement were instead channeled into structural adjustment in Mexico, as was done by the EU for Spain, unauthorized migration would likely disappear as a significant demographic and political issue in North America. This assertion is not a matter of ideological belief or airy theorizing; it is based on authoritative economic measurements and real-world experience.

more...

http://www.alternet.org/immigration/118048...ed_immigration/

[chri'stina 190]

Where have you been, Steven? Your God threads were massacred by people.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Where have you been, Steven? Your God threads were massacred by people.

I know...I bit my tongue so many times from reading the posts in those threads, it bleeds.

[chri'stina 190]

Where have you been, Steven? Your God threads were massacred by people.

I know...I bit my tongue so many times from reading the posts in those threads, it bleeds.

I hear you, man. Us God believers have the stick together!

Ok, sorry, to hijack your original article hehe.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Where have you been, Steven? Your God threads were massacred by people.

I know...I bit my tongue so many times from reading the posts in those threads, it bleeds.

I hear you, man. Us God believers have the stick together!

Ok, sorry, to hijack your original article hehe.

No worries.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It makes complete sense to me...although I know a few who get scared with such ideas.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Unauthorized immigration?

I'm all for illegal immigration, why the need to change the word?

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Unauthorized immigration?

I'm all for illegal immigration, why the need to change the word?

Oh shut up troll

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Unauthorized immigration?

I'm all for illegal immigration, why the need to change the word?

Oh shut up troll

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

It makes complete sense to me...although I know a few who get scared with such ideas.

Shhhh don't say names, we can be branded as unpatriotic shhhhh

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Unauthorized immigration?

I'm all for illegal immigration, why the need to change the word?

Isn't it obvious the author is trying to give it a positive spin? Illegal is a synonym for evil.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Illegal is a synonym for evil.

No it's not.

Illegal is a synonym for unlawful.

Plenty of laws from today and from the past, have been evil. Everyone knows that.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Look calling it illegal, undocumented or unauthorized won't change a thing, therefore I don't mind any of those words as long as Mexico, particularity, and the US fix this sh!t up

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Look calling it illegal, undocumented or unauthorized won't change a thing, therefore I don't mind any of those words as long as Mexico, particularity, and the US fix this sh!t up

There's nothing to fix. Let them in.