Old Roads on Immigration

June 5, 2007

An international perspective on immigration might aid clear thinking. Listening to the current discussions one might be tempted to believe that our current predicament is due to a unique lack of political spine and get-tough policies. As is well known, European nations such as France and Germany have to deal with their own major immigration problems. We could add to them Australia, Kuwait, and even China (if we count the waves of internal migration to wealthy coastal cities). So the United States is simply one out of many international examples of a country that has to struggle with immigration.

Why has this become an issue that confronts nearly every wealthy country? That seems simple enough: modern economies have created huge disparities in wealth. Life in Britain is very different than life in Pakistan. But let's get a little closer to home: life in Tijuana is different than life in San Diego. These huge disparities create a nearly irresistible pull of poor people toward opportunities and wealth. That pull can be desperate.. and it has so far proven impossible for wealthy nations to keep out large numbers of immigrants. It is not at all clear to me that even a formidable obstruction like a concrete wall will manage to keep out determined immigrants.

The unspoken assumption of much anti-immigrant rhetoric is that the wealth and opportunities of our nation can be locked up behind walls.. something only for citizens.. and preferably ones who have been here since the Mayflower! As if the wealth of our nation could possibly keep rising and people in neighboring countries just be happy in their poverty. But just as nature does not abide a vacuum, so the international world will not abide a pocket of extreme wealth. Immigration is a step toward alleviating these inequalities. It doesn't matter if we like it or not, it will happen inexorably as long as there are huge disparities defined by national borders.

A trip to California is always a trip into immigration hysteria. This past weekend I was shown an article entitled: "Remittances from U.S. Sap Desire to Work: Guatemalans Spend Money Sent by Migrants, Wait to Head North" by the AP journalist Juan Carlos Llorca. The article delivers a rather oblique attack on immigration, charging that Guatemalans are avoiding work and school because of large remittances received from relatives working in the US. Such remittances have thrown the economy out of whack and have led to the destruction of traditional crafts. Ergo: stop immigration to the US.. for the good of Guatemala!

The article is fascinating, though, because with some careful attention to the details the reader can discern a different and more revealing story. Here is the basic background:

During the 1980s and part of the '90s, almost every household in Salcaja had at least one loom, and weaving the fabric use for traditional Mayan skirts was the first way young men earned their own money.

This traditional weaving industry has had to move to more remote areas where people will still work for the equivalent of $120 month. In explanation the author cites the owner of a mill: "The thing is that this work is really hard, and you earn very little... It's easier for a young person to sit back and receive money..."

Earlier in the article the author pointed out the way young men had taken to hanging out at video game salons or at pool halls. Ah, so there is the problem! These young people have gotten into the habit of playing video games and other non-industrious sorts of pursuits that a conservative can feel good about condemning.

So if we could just get rid of the remittances, then people would be willing to work "very hard" for $120 a month?? And willing to forget about those video games?? That seems absurd. The deeper problem here is one that is repeated over and over in the process of globalization (a process the US has championed for decades). A traditional economy fails to generate the kind of wealth that allows for its people to participate in the global economy. Meanwhile there are large numbers of young people who grow up wanting to play video games, watch television, and talk on cell phones. Things that $120 a month cannot support. That is the generator of the desperation that pushes people to head North.

I am not claiming that remittances cannot have a negative net effect on a local economy.. but they are a symptom of a problem: an economy that cannot generate the wealth that would allow for people to engage with the global economy.

Needless to say, Old Roads deplores the inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric that seems common out there on the airwaves. Our best guess is that the anger over immigration reflects anxiety about the gradual erosion of the economic security of average Americans. Instead of getting angry at the real source of this erosion—conservative economic policies that invariably favor corporations—, they set the blame on all these people who have crossed into our country to make a better life than they could find at home.