Re: Bhagwati on Immigration

[Julio Huato <juliohuato@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Devine wrote:

> BTW, what is the leftist position on immigration reform?

I'm going to babble a bunch of obvious (or silly) things at the risk
of giving Carrol Cox (and others similarly tolerant) a fit.  Here's
the way I'd frame Jim's question:

What's best, in the short and long run, to help the workers unite? 
Clearly, the long-term goal is to lift all legal barriers to
immigration.  The recent historical experience in the European Union,
where countries with some variance in development level removed those
barriers, highlights both the practical feasibility (the sky doesn't
fall) of and its immediate political obstacles (for some it feels as
if it the sky does fall).

The main ideological challenge is to demonstrate that the gated-nation
mentality is a total loser.  A lot of regular working people fall
almost instinctively for this.  No surprise: the ruling ideology is
the ideology of the ruling class.  But it can be shown that the
gated-nation approach doesn't protect the U.S. from terrorism, doesn't
prevent U.S. jobs from leaving, doesn't help improve the U.S. workers'
living and working conditions, and doesn't help them get organized and
united to lead the country -- as they should.  It doesn't contribute
to build a world where people from all nations can cooperate and live
in peace.

Regarding policy, the common belief is that the "American citizens"
have the right to control immigration.  Depending on the political
philosophy of whoever holds this view, this may mean to give people in
other poor areas of the world (e.g., Africa or Asia or South America)
a "fair" chance of migrating to the U.S., as opposed to (mostly)
Mexicans, to prevent standards of living from going down, or -- in the
extreme -- to prevent or slow down the darkening of the U.S.
population.

When large demographic movements of are involved, I think the
God-given "right" to control immigration is not that different from
the God-given right to control solar storms.  But these arguments
cannot just be dismissed by opposing the notion of international
fraternity, world socialism, etc., because most people's current
ideological horizon doesn't reach that far.  Moreover, they reflect
prejudices, fears, and other base emotions that cannot be entirely
addressed with logical or factual arguments.  But arguments we do need
-- and arguments calibrated to deal with these objections in their own
terms.

>From the point of view of the capitalists represented in the editorial
section of the Wall Street Journal, the immediate obstacle to lifting
all legal barriers to immigration in the southern border is the
development gap between Mexico (and Central America) and the U.S. --
much larger than the gaps among European countries.  I think these
fears -- assuming they are legitimate (which they are not entirely so)
-- are exaggerated.  Considering that Mexico's demographic transition
is already at an advanced stage, it is very likely that the migration
flows will slow down significantly in two or three decades, if not
before.  This is going to happen precisely when -- under usual
assumptions -- the aging of the boomers is going to require young
blood to sustain pensions.  Oh well...

It is from the point of view of U.S. workers, that the matter becomes
more delicate, because U.S. workers come in so many flavors and, thus,
their interests vary -- or, to put it differently, the immediate
impact of freer immigration from the South is different on different
segments of the labor market.  In principle, if we're serious about
the unity of the working people, we should always put forth the
interests of the most oppressed, poor, and vulnerable sectors of the
class.  Nothing breaks the unity and the morale of a group as much as
denying support to those who are at a disadvantage.  And vice versa:
nothing improves the moral of a group as much as taking care of those
who are at a disadvantage.

So, the objections that controlling immigration is required to prevent
the deterioration of the U.S. workers' living and working conditions
are misguided.  In principle, it is unjustifiable to keep poorer
workers poor only because in the short run, the living and working
conditions of the better-off workers may be affected.  The right
approach is rather for both groups of workers to unite and conquer
mutual gains at the expense of the bosses.

There's so much that can be done in this regard, but the usual
presumption is that, since workers have been passive until now,
they'll remain passive.  Paul Krugman, for example, in his last
article, cannot contemplate the possibility of immigrant and native
workers joining forces.  That doesn't surprise me much.  What
surprises me is that he seems unable to imagine his hypothetical
well-managed U.S. economy as capable of helping with a modicum of
generosity those who come to this country to help.  He seems to view
the safety net as a zero sum game played by native and immigrant
workers.  He has argued that publicly provided social programs -- say,
in health care -- translate into efficiencies for society as a whole. 
Why doesn't this argument hold for immigrants, who are here to stay
anyway?

But let me emphasize that these arguments are only good "in
principle."  In practice, whatever gets people moving roughly in the
direction of the gradient works for me.  And, in order to assess the
tactical questions more adequately, PEN-L-type economists should try
and clarify the effect of immigration on the different segments of the
labor market.  In my opinion (although this is not a matter of
opinion, but of measurement), the adverse impact on wages by *new*
immigrants in the low end of the labor market has been exaggerated. 
If so, then the indirect impact on the other segments of the labor
market -- impact that has been alleged by economists who oppose
immigration -- must be negligible.

Why?  We don't need to accept Samuelson's Factor Price Equalization
theorem as a dogma to note that some of the effect of international
wage differences is already sneaking into the domestic labor markets
via trade.  On average, China's labor costs are significantly lower
than Mexico's.  A wall wouldn't prevent that phenomenon, because -- as
Marx and Engels once wrote -- low prices are the heavy artillery with
which the bourgeoisie demolishes obstacles bigger than the Chinese
Wall.  (Marx and Engels didn't seem to have envisioned the heavy fire
of low prices coming precisely from China towards Europe and its
offshots, but that's another discussion....)

But, if my opinion is correct, why do some bosses are so adamant and
willing to spend energy on the Bush bill?  Abstracting from the
political reasons, because some particular regions and industries do
benefit from such a program, particularly in the format they have in
mind, with so many legal conditions, ifs and buts, that the program
entails a de-facto re-enactment of indentured slavery in the U.S. 
Bosses cannot resist freebies.

That's them.  How about us?  The left in this country should aim
higher.  IMHO, it has a very good shot if it puts forth something
*much better* than these two pieces of crap -- the Sensenbrenner and
the Bush bills.  The ferment is there.  It needs organization.

By the way, does anybody hear know anything about the Saturday march
in New York City?  Juan González mentioned it in his NY Daily News
column.

> massive financial aid for Mexico?

Is Mexico demanding this?

> an effort to stop neo-liberal "reform" that
> drives Mexican peasants off the land and to the U.S.?

No. The agenda of Mexican workers is not for the left in the U.S. to
decide.  The U.S. left will do good by focusing on helping the workers
in their country unite.

Julio