AmericanIllusion.org

What causes illegal immigration?  Is it the lack of a wall?  When examining our immigration system, many will argue: “we need to secure our borders as the first step, then move on to fix the rest of the system.”  Those who hold this view tend to use analogies such as: “first we need to stop the bleeding.”  Analogies are nice because they can be used to illustrate complex problems.  However, they unfortunately lose many vital components of the complex problem in translation.  While “first we need to stop the bleeding” may make a nice sound-bite for the nightly news, or a nice slogan for a political campaign, it doesn’t really hold much weight if we take a closer look.  Simply stated, national borders and labor flows are very different from the skin on your arm and the blood in your veins.

Our nation is established on an economic system of capitalism, whereby markets are not planned, but are determined by unseen forces–by the “invisible hand” of the economy. This invisible hand determines which products will be produced, and how many employees will be needed to produce them. In our system—in any capitalist system—the strongest forces at play are the forces of supply and demand. These forces will find a way to express themselves.

The implementation of NAFTA allowed US-based corporations to increase trade with Mexico.  Subsidized US corn—which was mass produced by US agri-business—flooded the Mexican market, putting approximately 1.3 million campesinos out of work in Mexico.  Translated literally, campesino means “person of the country.”  These “people of the country” lived in rural Mexico and engaged in a diverse array of livelihood strategies, including farming small plots by traditional methods.  The wave of US-grown corn imposed upon the Mexican market is directly linked to the loss of the livelihood of 1.3 million campesinos. (1)  However, these 1.3 million are not the only Mexican workers who’s lives have been disrupted by the implementation of NAFTA.

Many of these 1.3 million, after being displaced by the increased corn imports, traveled to assembly-line factories known as maquiladoras.  These maquiladoras are foreign-owned—predominantly by US-based corporations—and primarily built along the US-Mexico border in towns such as Tijuana and Juarez.  In 1993, accounting for 465,261 jobs, there were 2,025 maquiladoras operating in Mexico, 80% of which were located along the US-Mexico border. (2)  After the implementation of NAFTA, the maquiladora industry rapidly expanded, more than doubling it’s work force by 2002 to roughly 1.1 million, still with around 80% of these plants along the border. (3)

The function of a maquiladora is to use component parts, imported from the US, to assemble finished products for export, back to the US.  Here, the source of raw materials, and the market for the finished products, both lie within the US.  The profits from production are also accrued in the US.  “Maquiladoras main point of contact with the Mexican economy is through hiring labor. They purchase few inputs in Mexico, beyond packing materials and the water and power needed to keep factories running, and sell virtually none of their output domestically.” (3) In this relationship, Mexico is missing out on all the positive attributes of the capitalist system, while being subjected to various exploitative labor practices which have long been outlawed in the US.  NAFTA rapidly fueled the growth of the maquiladora industry, displacing millions of Mexican workers to border towns.  This led to extreme congestion in these cities, which lacked adequate housing, infrastructure, and basic public services. (3)  Those who found themselves in these border towns were not only subjected to dismal living conditions, but were also only a stones throw from the United States, and the promise of a better life.

In the 90′s, the Clinton administration invested billions of dollars in improving border security in an attempt to reduce illegal immigration (illegal immigration which was caused in large part to the trade policies which they pursued).  However, they never addressed the strongest of forces, supply and demand.  As a result, Mexican migrants, displaced by NAFTA and following the magnetic pull of our economy’s demand for labor, were drawn in on alternative paths.  The heightened border security has forced Mexican migrants to cross vast deserts, and has increased the risk of apprehension.  One consequence of this increased risk was an increase in the demand for the services that smugglers offer, and hence an increase in the cost of that service.  Human smugglers were profiting more than ever, both obtaining more customers, and charging a steeper price.  These smuggling organizations, which are profiting off of our immigration policy, often are involved in the trafficking of drugs and arms as well. (4) This profit translates into power, and we can see the legacy of the power of criminal syndicates with the increase in mafia-related violence on the Mexican side of the national border.

When we look at the actual dynamic of our immigration system, we can clearly see that the analogy “first stop the bleeding” is not representative of this system in the least; we can see that it doesn’t account for the varied elements comprising this complex system.  Because it doesn’t account for these varied elements, any conclusion drawn from this analogy is implicitly invalid.  A glaringly obvious, fundamental flaw with this analogy, is that the bleeding of a wound—bleeding that we would presumably try to stop—is flowing out into the world where it ceases to have any affect on our vascular system.  The US economy is deeply linked with the Mexican economy, and therefore the flow of labor, capital, and goods between these two economies would be better represented by the relationship that one’s finger has to their hand; with blood flowing between the two members, regulated by a heart-beat, which could be viewed as the force of supply and demand.  But even this analogy is already getting too abstract and difficult to follow, and we haven’t even attempted to represent all the components of our immigration system.  Rather than trying to represent all these components within the bounds of an analogy, we would be better served in understanding them for what they are in reality.

Instead of resorting to simplistic analogies or slogans, we must examine the myriad components of our immigration system, and come up with substantial solutions for the various socially detrimental consequences of our current policy. Only from a comprehensive perspective, taking into account all the various components of this circumstance, can we rationally consider appropriate measures to correct our aged immigration system.  When examining our immigration system, we must factor in: the US economy’s demand for labor; the effects of NAFTA’s implementation; the maquiladora industry; US trade policy, particularly with Mexico; the retirement of the baby boomers; human smuggling organizations (which are being fueled by US demand for labor coupled with increased border security); and drug cartels (which are being fueled by a US demand for drugs coupled with a US war on drugs).

From this perspective, here is a solution to consider:
– increase the number of work visas and permanent visas issued each year
– provide a path to permanent residency for the 12 million here
– streamline the legal immigration process
– reduce the cost of legal immigration
– secure the national border (notice this is done in conjunction with the rest)
– reform our trade agreements (aiming to improve Mexican and American working conditions)
– legalize marijuana (reduce power of drug cartels and reduce costs of law enforcement)
– after all above are implemented:
      – increase penalties on employers who hire unauthorized immigrants

Immigrants aren’t coming here arbitrarily, and they aren’t coming here for “handouts,” as some would purport.  They’re being pulled here by the forces of capitalism.  The increasing poverty of Mexico’s people, coupled with America’s demand for labor—demand that couldn’t be met by an American-born workforce—has drawn our immigrants (documented and otherwise) into our economy.  “Border security first” was already tried and failed in the 90s. (2)  It would be utterly inefficient, fiscally, to continue dumping money into border security without addressing the root causes of illegal immigration.  The root cause of illegal immigration is not a “porous border.”  The reason we have so many undocumented immigrants is because our immigration policy is itself porous (filled with holes and irrational defects).  Our undocumented immigrants are here because our economy, in conjunction with our immigration system, has required their undocumented presence.

The primary complaint with the communist model was that it was centrally planned, arbitrary, and inflexible, and therefore couldn’t respond to the needs of the market. Our immigration policy does precisely the same thing—it hasn’t been substantially updated in nearly 50 years, and is not reflective of the conditions of supply and demand, and therefore is an arbitrary restriction that cannot possibly be adhered to.  If it were, our economy would really be in the pits, because we wouldn’t have the needed labor pool to sustain it.

Keep in mind, over the course of the next 20 years, the US Bureau of Labor has projected that for the first time in US history, our workforce will not grow. (5)  This is due largely to the retirement of the baby-boomers. Where will we find the labor to meet the needs of our growing economy?  Granted, our economy isn’t growing now, it’s in recession, but the capitalist model is a model of growth, and our economy will grow again, and we will need to find a source of labor to meet it’s increasing demand.  This situation is important to bear in mind when making any judgments on public policy that will influence our economic system or labor pool, including immigration reform.

While a bandage alone would be well suited to “stop the bleeding” from a wound on your arm, a wall alone is not well suited to regulate the flow of labor between the US and Mexico.  If we first try securing the border, as some will advocate—if we “first stop the bleeding”—then we completely ignore the forces of supply and demand, and are setting ourselves up for defeat, as Clinton did in the 90′s.  Simple analogies and simple solutions, like “border security first,” simply won’t do.  Border security alone, or first, is not going to solve our problems; it will only increase federal spending at a time when our national debt is at an all time high.  We need comprehensive immigration reform.

Citations
(1) Campesinos and the Crisis of Modernization in Latin America
(2) The Impact of NAFTA on Border Maquiladora and Industrial Activity
(3) The Role of Maquiladoras in Mexico’s Export Boom
(4) The Escalation of U.S. Immigration Control in the Post-NAFTA Era
(5) Baby Boomers in Retirement: Implications for the Workforce

Why have they come here illegally, many will ask? Why didn’t they follow the rules in place for legal migration? A brief examination of the economic situation of the United States and Mexico will reveal the cause of their entry. Three conditions led to this result. First, the American economy, over the past 30 years, has had a demand for unskilled labor which could not be met by an American-born workforce. Second, our immigration system did not allow enough legal immigrants to meet this labor demand. Third, the North American Free Trade Agreement has drastically increased poverty levels in Mexico, encouraging many Mexican-born people to look for better opportunities north of the national border.

What we’ve seen in the United States’ recent history is a trend towards more and more citizens completing higher and higher levels of education. What this means is that more and more Americans are overqualified for unskilled labor. For example, picking lettuce, mowing grass, and motel housekeeping positions are not careers which most Americans strive for, and indeed, fewer and fewer Americans take such positions. This situation has resulted in a decreased supply of unskilled labor from American citizens. This void in the supply of unskilled labor has been met by immigrants, primarily undocumented, and primarily from Mexico. Our immigrants came here because their presence was required by our economy. While it may be convenient to demonize immigrants now that our economy is in recession, it is not a logical approach to our economic problems. The deregulation of our banking system is what led to our current economic crisis, not the flow of immigrant labor that came here according to basic principles of Capitalism.

The simple fact is, our economy demands the labor of millions of immigrants to function in a healthy manner. And indeed, that demand is met. However, official acknowledgment is only given to a fraction of these immigrants, and the rest are stigmatized as illegal, and denied civil rights. Over the past 30 years, our immigration system did not allow enough “legal” immigrants into this country to meet the demand of our economy. However, as any economic conservative would agree, the principles of supply and demand will prevail regardless of attempts to trump them; the demand for migrant labor trumped the official restrictions upon that migration. When a system relies upon the labor of a certain demographic of people, but denies them civil rights, we have a blatant example of institutionalized racism… right here in the “land of the free.”

In 1994 NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) was signed by the US, Canada, and Mexico. NAFTA was sold to the people of America and Mexico as a trade agreement which would raise the standard of living of the average worker in both countries. Unfortunately, the complete opposite has come to pass. While trans-national corporations have increased their profits, the wages of American workers and Mexican workers have steadily declined since NAFTA’s implementation.

Essentially, what NAFTA did, was remove Mexico’s tariffs on imports, paving the way for US agri-business to put Mexico’s small farmers out of business. For centuries, corn has been a basic staple of Mexico’s people, and it’s cultivation an integral part of their culture. Now, with government-subsidized, mass-produced corn from the United States flooding Mexico’s market at low prices which the traditional farmers are unable to compete with, approximately 1.3 million have been forced to abandon their farms. Mexico’s agricultural industry has been directly degraded as a result of NAFTA, reducing farm employment by 30% since 1994.

Another aspect of NAFTA, which has been detrimental for the Mexican people, is the numerous manufacturing plants which have opened shop, capitalizing on the fact that Mexico doesn’t enforce it’s labor laws or environmental regulations. These manufacturing plants not only exploit Mexican workers, paying them as little as 7 dollars a day in some cases–but they also pollute Mexico’s ground water with toxic chemicals, causing birth defects and chronic diseases among Mexico’s population. These manufacturing plants, which used to operate in the United States, having to pay American wages and comply with American environmental regulations, now are free to exploit the Mexican workforce and poison Mexico’s environment. While the profits have been increasing for US-based trans-national corporations, those profits have not “trickled down” to the rest of society; NAFTA was a mere illusion… in fact, the quality of life, and wages, have been decreasing for Mexico’s people and America’s people since its implementation.

You would think that there would be one benefit from this nasty trade agreement; you would think that the price of corn would have decreased for Mexican consumers. However, the exact opposite is the case. Since NAFTA, despite massive corn imports, perhaps due to the increasing use of corn for ethanol production, corn prices have steadily climbed. Under NAFTA, tortilla prices have risen 126% from 1994 to 2007. So, while we have decreasing wages, we concurrently see the price of Mexico’s staple food, corn, rising. Now that we have an understanding of why these immigrants have come to America, let’s take a quick look at Arizona’s recent immigration policy, SB1070.

As we all are well aware, our immigration system is broken. Republicans recognize that, Democrats recognize that, Independents recognize that; in short, everybody agrees that our system is in dire need of reform. Until reform occurs on a national level, we will continue to see hair-brained legislation such as SB1070, Arizona’s recent law which condones racial profiling. Supporters of SB1070 claim that it isn’t in violation of the constitution and doesn’t condone racial profiling; they assert that it merely enforces the rules of our immigration system. They also agree that our current immigration system is broken. However, these two views, which supporters of SB1070 hold, are contradictory. Given the fact that our immigration system is broken, as we all agree, it is illogical to enforce these broken rules. Even if SB1070 wasn’t in violation of the constitution, which it is, it still would be an illogical approach.

Aside from the illogical approach of this law, it should be ignored because of it’s injustice. Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Rosa Parks, and Henry David Thoreau all would agree with disobeying this law because of it’s inherent injustice. And quite frankly, characters don’t really get much more American than Henry David Thoreau… Mark Twain and Walt Whitman may be his only competition in that regard.

If we had a street sweeper that was tearing holes in the pavement, would we allow it to continue destroying our streets? Of course not; we would send it back for repairs. Similarly, we need to send our immigration policy back for repairs, rather than letting it tear apart families…. we need comprehensive reform.

In the words of Nietzsche: “Whatever is shaky should be pushed over.” SB1070 is established on a shaky foundation… it will be pushed over.