Is it right to allow free-flowing capital to cross all borders, while damming back the free flow of human beings at the same borders? Is it even practical?
A world without economic borders is, of course, an impossible dream as long as national borders dam back people. For all its bureaucratic flaws (and there are many), Bush's immigration bill gets that much right. It tacitly acknowledges inherent imbalances in globalization--a word that's been a sort of mantra of the past three administrations.
Globalization has transformed the face of Mexico, for example, by moving capital around in such a way that many factories that once located there from America and elsewhere in pursuit of cheap labor have moved on to places like India in pursuit of even cheaper labor.
The result? More cheap goods from India. And more Mexicans heading north for a better life. How do we reconcile the free flow of capital across national borders with ancient impulses to dam back human beings not of our tribe? How do we manage economic tensions that result in resource wars, environmental decline and loss of human dignity?
These are defining questions of our age. We'd better get the answers right if we're to bequeath a world worth having to the next generation.
Of course increased trade and development offer obvious benefits, but they've always spawned dark consequences. Rat-infested ships of Europe's many harbors--freshly filled with spices and other bounties--incubated Black Plague many times over, infecting Europe with diseases for which its people had no defense.
It's estimated that at least a third of the population of Europe was wiped out in the 14th Century alone. A far greater percentage died in the Americas a couple centuries later when smallpox brought here by Europeans decimated Native Americans.
If you want to slow illegal immigration from Mexico, global warming, runaway diseases, environmental decline, the death of native cultures everywhere, then gently apply the brakes to the headlong rush toward a global economy. Insist on equitable sharing of wealth, production standards, a clean environment, and accommodating the flow of displaced humanity.
Specifically, if illegal immigrants infuriate you, then slow their influx by fining or jailing the fat cats who hire them. I have my doubts the problem's as bad as many claim. But unless we find ways to accommodate those seeking better lives, then our only reasonable and humane choice is to dull the magnetic pull of money that draws them here, and dull the forces that drive them out of, say, Mexico.
It's the height of hypocrisy to allow the free flow of capital, which results in a booming economy for many, while damming back those chasing that boom across artificial borders created centuries past. That's nothing short of injustice, given the outsourcing that's led to so many empty factories in Mexico as well as Michigan, Illinois and Ohio. Many in my own family moved from Tennessee to such industrial states decades ago seeking better lives. Now the flow is reversing, as many move south from the rust belt. Such mobility is an essential right in places where today's boomtown is too often tomorrow's slum. Should Mexicans be forced to stew in cauldrons of poverty, or should they be allowed to chase the dreams promised by the global economy?
Increasingly, we have an oligarchy in America--government run for the benefit of the wealthy. It supports cheap labor by socializing costs while privatizing profits. So let's stop blaming the Mexicans. Our ire should be against a system that exploits cheap labor and natural resources the world over for the benefit of a few, without worrying about the plight of the poor, environmental degradation, or the shape of the future.