Unintended consequences.

On November 24, 2006 ABC News did a special based on an article (Quinones, 2006) about the devastating effects of closing the Mexican border to migrant crop workers in California. Thanks to increased security along the Mexican border, thousands of migrant workers who harvest the nation’s fruits and vegetables never showed up for work last season. With no one to pick them, bumper crops ripened and then just fell off the tree. Jack King of the California Farm Bureau stated: “We couldn’t get by without foreign workers in California. We employ some 450,000 workers.” What he did not say is that few, if any, farmers ask for proof of citizenship or a valid visa. They know better.

Business and borders:

One of the trends that main-stream news commentary seems to misunderstand is that the ongoing (for about the last 500 years) globalization of business, culture, communication and ideology is a non-interruptible process. The new millennium brings such technological momentum and consistency, even communist and dictatorial governments, that were once staunch isolationists, are becoming dependant on global markets.

Bank of America does business in over 100 countries. If an account holder has an address and ID (e.g. SSN) for that country why ask for a passport, proof of citizenship, etc.? It’s a free world out there now. Banks – as well as other global business – rarely worry about borders anymore. And you know what – they really should not have too. Not if human society is going to take the next evolutionary step and become a global society. If a person has valid documentation from their country of origin, or their host country, they should be afforded the same business services as anyone else. That’s the way global business competes these days. And this process will become more prevalent each and every day.

The issue is that global government policy has not followed the global economy. We lament over the poor state of communication and data sharing within our various U.S. government agencies, but we are seamless and integrated in comparison to global governance communication and cooperation between countries.

“Aliens” from border countries.

Then there is the issue of Border States. In a very true sense most neighboring countries (with the obvious exclusion of the likes of Israel, the Balkans, et al) have developed homogenized laws – regulations, treaties, and so on – to facilitate the free flow of goods, services and citizens across borders. From NAFTA to the EU, this practice is in step with the overall globalization of business, culture and democratic reform. In my opinion it will continue and accelerate. But these types of treaties and laws traditionally focus on business facilitation – not mutual security or governance commonalities.

The recent terrorist attacks on the U.S. triggered an isolationist response. While that is an understandable reaction, it is not, and never will be, a “solutionist” reaction. Solutions begin with root cause analysis and go forward. A good firefighter will tell you, when extinguishing a blaze you put water on the source of the fire not the top of the fire. The same is true of this present crisis. Immigrants are not the problem – they are the symptom of a problem – A different problem, by the way, than terrorism. Linking the two is just convenient for the isolationists it has little, if anything, to do with the terror threat. However, using terrorism policy to address border immigration could lead to a conflict of a higher order – Once again, showing America’s propensity to solve one problem by creating several others.

Radical proposal

You want a solution? Open up our southern border all the way. No restrictions – either way. U.S. citizens and U.S. corporations can move into Mexico with no appreciable difference in law, taxes, regulations – nor any added burden for business formation or establishing individual residency. A true ‘open border’ policy that invites U.S. interests into Mexico, and Mexican interests into the U.S.

The affect? The flow would reverse itself almost overnight, with U.S. residents and business flooding into Mexico to take advantage of low taxes, cheap land, inexpensive labor, you name it. A complete ‘Americanization’ of northern Mexico could be the result in as little as 10 years. And we would build modern highways, utility delivery systems and other infrastructure along the way,

The kicker? Mexican Law and social infrastructure issues.

Why is Canada so much like the U.S.? You hardly know you have crossed a border. It’s the Law. It’s the social policy. The same British Law System that influenced our constitution influenced theirs, so the two legal structures (from business to individual law) are nearly the same. And the laws are ENFORCED. The social values, common law and federated approach to states and provinces balances the equation.

Mexico has a completely different foundation for law. It was, after all, a dictatorship for many years after being a Spanish “conquest”. Democratic doctrine is poorly defined, government corruption is commonplace – both federal and regional – and the country’s basic infrastructure and social policies reflect this lack of a “We the People” type legacy. What law there is, is enforceable only to the extent that it supports the status quo. No wonder so many people want to leave.

This particular area – the Mexican rule of Law and Social Policy – must be the focal point of our efforts to stop illegal immigration across this border. NAFTA is a patchwork of business welfare policies. It does little to address the true causes of economic imbalance between the U.S. and Mexico.

Mexicans in America

But this debate is a much deeper one that the superficial media pundits seem to understand. Mexicans do not flood over our borders to terrorize or to degrade the U.S. economy in any way. In many ways they are coming to this country for the same reasons refugees and immigrants have fled to this nation for 400 years. Our rule of law, its equitable enforcement, and our political system, while not perfect, allows for some of the highest levels of personal freedom and accomplishment anyone can find anywhere. But there is a stark difference between Mexican immigration and that of any other nationality. It must be realized that the southwestern U.S. was once Mexico. Comparing Mexican immigration to European or Asian immigration is a gross distortion of the underlying cultural issue. In many ways Mexicans consider themselves, by-and-large, having Native American heritage. I thoroughly understand their frustration with the “illegal alien” handle. While semantically correct, it is not culturally correct.

Now I have a serious aversion to “PCness”. I can be the most non-Politically Correct person I know. But this issue transcends politics. It goes much deeper and is truly a different issue than traditional Illegal Immigration policy can address. If you want to stop immigration from, say, Turkey, you can do so by simply restricting visas and screening ports of entry. Restricting flow from a Border State takes a more holistic policy. Either you build fences and position armies at your borders – like Israel – or you attempt to influence your neighbors economic, political and social convergence with your own.

I vote for option 2.

JB

Quinones, J. (2006) Pear Crop Rots as Field Hands Kept from Crossing Border, ABC News. Retrieved November, 2006 from: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/US/story?id=2677661&page=1

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.