Posted on 05/05/2006 1:54:20 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
Immigration issues are always ripe for demagoguery, particularly in an election year. But the solution to the very real problems along the U.S.-Mexican border can be found, ironically, in that other part of the world that American demagogues love to ridicule: old Europe.
Two years ago, the European Union admitted 10 new nations into their backyard. Like Mexico, all of these nations were poor, some of them fairly backward, corrupt and recently ravaged by war and communist dictatorship.
But the leaders of the European Union wisely created policies for fostering regional economic and political integration that make efforts like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) look timid and halfhearted by comparison.
Europe realized it had to prevent a "giant sucking sound" of businesses and jobs relocating from the 15 wealthier nations to the 10 poorer nations. It also had to foster prosperity and the spread of a middle class in these emerging economies, and prevent an influx of poor workers to the richer nations.
So for starters it gave the new states massive subsidies – billions of dollars – to help construct schools, roads, telecommunications and housing, making these nations more attractive for business investment. The idea was to raise up the emerging economies rather than drag down the advanced economies. It is expensive, but the result has turned out to be a larger economic union in which a rising tide floats all boats.
In return, the 10 poorer nations had to agree to raise their standards on the environment, labor laws, health and safety and more. The incentive of admission to the European club was used as the carrot to the poorer nations for acceptance of human rights and political democracy. There won't be any border maquiladoras in the European Union.
The flow of worker migration still is regulated. Immigrants will be carefully integrated so as to cause the least amount of disruption to the developed economies, with the goal of having open borders within a decade or two.
This bold yet carefully planned EU approach suggests the direction that policy between the U.S. and Mexico should go. Increasingly the demands of the global economy will push the North American regional integration out of the realm of a shadow economy and flawed free trade agreement. But what might such an American-Mexican union look like?
It would start with massive subsidies from the U.S. to Mexico, a Tex-Mex Marshall Plan, with the goal of decreasing disparities on the Mexican side of the border and fostering a climate riper for investment. This would create more jobs in Mexico and foster a middle class, homeownership and better schools, roads and healthcare. Fewer Mexicans would then desire to emigrate north, instead staying home, creating more consumers to buy U.S. products.
But Europe's union is not just an economic one; it also includes continent-wide political institutions for all 25 nations. As American-Mexican economic integration unfolds, regional political structures also make sense to allow better coordination and supervision of the regulatory regime and common goals. Canada, not wishing to be left out, would ask for inclusion.
And here's an even more intriguing possibility. We always assume that opening the border means hordes of Mexicans streaming north, but under this scenario, more Americans also would begin emigrating to Mexico. With the cost of living spiraling along the coasts and in cities, many Americans would find not only the cheaper prices but also the warm climate and palm trees of Mexico a more attractive alternative than relocating to the frigid tundras of South Dakota or Kansas.
Call it the Mexican safety valve, with American workers migrating to Mexico in search of jobs, homeownership, even to start businesses. In other words, they would chase the American dream in Mexico. Already we see the beginnings of this, with American expatriate communities springing up around cities such as Guadalajara.
The Census Bureau predicts that by 2050 the number of Latinos and Asians will triple in the U.S. and whites will make up only 50% of the nation's population. For many people, these changes are alarming, but economic disparities guarantee that poor Mexicans will continue seeking entry into El Norte, legally or illegally.
Given these demographic realities, gradual integration of the American and Mexican economies is the only sensible solution. Of course, U.S. politicians are reluctant to talk about this levelheaded approach, preferring to stick to bumper-sticker slogans and avoid the reality of border issues.
In the meantime, the U.S. is missing out on huge economic opportunities while the European Union has grown to the largest trading bloc in the world, poised for the 21st century. Old Europe is looking spry on its feet, while the U.S. is looking clumsy and stuck to the flypaper of old ideas.
And it's always comical when someone cites an absurd example of success.
Citing Europe as an example of economic and social success.
I also get a kick out of when people cite Bush as an example of political success. I believe it was political analyst Allan Hoffenblum that said Arnold Schwarzenegger should emulate George Bush in his outreach to Latinos- that was the way for Schwarzenegger to be politically successful.
Yeah, right, George W. Bush is the great model of how to be a successful politician.
bump for later
I think I prefer Randy Newman.
We give them money, but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful.
They don't respect us, so let's surprise them.
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them.
"They are the G8, the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF. They know exactly what they are doing."
Under the continual guidance of the CFR.
ping
I prefer to simply use the US military, roll over mexico and annex it as the 51st state. If that won't work, mine the border.
Yeh, worked real well in Denmark, Holland, France, and the UK, huh?
I wonder if the author of this piece realizes that the Germans are going nuts in northern germany because of all the Muslims from Turkey that moved to Berlin and are destroying the city.
USTDA funding last year was about $44million. Alot of money but not a huge amount considering. There are plenty of agencies in the government getting a couple $100 mil a year that we could do away with but dont make a hill of beans to our deficit.
The government is not authorized by the constitution to give away our tax money to improve the infrastructure of foreign countries so our businesses can outsource and offshore there. It is not authorized by the constitution to give away our tax money to negotiate FDI by shutting down domestic industry in exchange for businesses to be able to directly invest in foreign countries.
So it really doesn't matter if the money is small in comparison, its just plain WRONG.
Hm....I wonder if these 10 countries wanted to be part or the EU? Or if the people of the EU wanted these 10 countries to be part of their Union?
There's the problem, we don't use the metric system.
And, the government is not authorized to allow a fiat currency to exist, either.
This is what is just below the surface of the "immigration" debate.
I knew this was going to rear it's ugly head in conjunction with this issue.
The same pricks that want open borders just happen to want FTAA. They've gotten us in this f'n mess and now they have the perfect solution.
All those in favor, please take a long walk off a short pier.
...solution to the very real problems along the U.S.-Mexican border can be found, ironically, in that other part of the world that American demagogues love to ridicule: old Europe.
"Old Europe" continues to have one of the lowest economic growth rates in the developed world.
The average GDP growth rate for the EU, for the period 1994 to 2005 is a pathetic 1.9% for the "old" 15 members of the EU and 1.6% for the whole 25 EU members.
While the figures for the "new" 10 members would appear to drag down the whole (from 1.9% to 1.6%), the individual country figures tell a different story.
Every single one of the fastest growing economies in the EU are all new members and they all adopted flat taxes.
Estonia, avg GDP growth 1994-2005 6.72%
Latvia, avg GDP growth 1994-2005 6.9%
Lithuania, avg GDP growth 1994-2005 5.13%
Slovenia, avg GDP growth 1994-2005 4.07%
Slovokia, avg GDP growth 1994-2005 4.13%
Romania, avg GDP growth 1994-2005 3.53%
Average for the flat tax countries in the EU, 5.29%
Whereas the slowest performing economies in the EU (GDP growth rate 1994-2005) were all "old EU" nations with high tax rates:
Germany, 1.37%
Italy, 1.53%
France, 1.79%
Netherlands, 1.82%
Austria, 192%
Belgium, 1.99%
The fastest growing nation in the "old EU" is Ireland, with 6.13% (average GDP growth 1994-2005). But, it should be no surprise that Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rate in the "old EU", just 12.50%, which is less than half the average corporate tax rate for the "old EU" (28%).
The next fastest growing nations in the "old EU" are tiny Luxemburg (A: 3.43%) and Finland (B: 3.4%) and again no surprise, because they have the 6th lowest (A: 29.63%) and 4th lowest (B: 26%) corporate tax rates and the two lowest top individual tax rates (A: 38.95%, B: 32.5%).
In sum, it is not the "old EU" model, nor wealth transfers to the new EU that is "growing" anything in Europe, it is the rejection of the "old EU" tax model that is creating growth in the EU.
Meanwhile, those nations that accepted the line that iof they just transferred some of their wealth to others, that would stimulate growth and help them as well. Well, they are the worst economic performers in the EU as the table above shows.
The tables above come from data from:
http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=SDI_MAIN&root=SDI_MAIN/sdi/sdi_ed/sdi_ed_inv/sdi_ed1110
And: http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree
So, while the author says: "Immigration issues are always ripe for demagoguery, particularly in an election year." And goes on to add....." But the solution to the very real problems along the U.S.-Mexican border can be found, ironically, in that other part of the world that American demagogues love to ridicule: old Europe." We know exactly who is dealing in "demogoguery"
When the author says:
"So for starters it gave the new states massive subsidies – billions of dollars – to help construct schools, roads, telecommunications and housing, making these nations more attractive for business investment. The idea was to raise up the emerging economies rather than drag down the advanced economies."
We need only look at the EU nation that has received the most subsidies, which began before the latest 10 were added, and that's Portugal and it's average GDP growth rate , 1994-2005 is a paltry 2.26%, compared to the eastern Europe, low tax groups rate for the same period, of 3.93%.
The facts can not even support a claim by the author that the new 10 added nations growth is due to "subsidies", because they have been growin at rates higher than the "old EU", consistently since before they were added. But when its myths you want to make, why bother with facts.
And, its clear that the "larger economic union" has not become one in which "a rising tide floats all boats", because the only boats in the EU that are floating are those who are turing their backs on "old EU" policies.
The "bold" EU plan has demonstrated nothing worth emulating, and inspite of all the diplomatic blather about an "open" EU, they are as protectionist as ever, if its from outside the EU.
There will be no plan of "massive subsidies from the U.S. to Mexico" or any "Tex-Mex Marshall Plan". Mexico can reach a "goal of decreasing" its "disparities" with the U.S. by changing tax, investment, finance, business regulation laws to unlock the economic power of its citizens. And, make a war on its corruption and do some trust-busting with the monopolies of its crony-capitalists.
Those are the things that will foster a "climate riper for investment" and "create more jobs in Mexico", "foster a middle class, homeownership and better schools, roads and healthcare." Not massive subsidies.
Yes, we know about Europe's "continent-wide political institutions for all 25 nations." and we can thank God almighty that Americans are not in favor of limiting their sovereignty under such Marxist behemoths. There is nothing "better" about "larger". Individual nations can make mulitple bi-lateral agreements that are complimentary with subsuming their laws and regulations under a larger entity.
As to: "more Americans also would begin emigrating to Mexico"; if anyone thinks Americans want to go live, in large numbers, under the stifling, foreigner hating laws in Mexico, they are ignorant of the subject and their brain is in dreamland.
You know the author is in dreamland as they conclude with: "In the meantime, the U.S. is missing out on huge economic opportunities while the European Union has grown to the largest trading bloc in the world, poised for the 21st century." Again, it is really pathetic that that "largest trading bloc" of 25 nations has a GDP that is larger than the entire EU and that GDP is 153% larger than the EU on a per capita basis ($44,000/per-capita vs $28,100/per-capita).
In other words, the author does not know what they are talking about.
After all, they don't call it the Peoples Republic of Santa monica for nothing : )
Great, just great.
Bartender, make that a double.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.