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.
Here are excerpts from one of the 2000 speeches about Latin America.
Anyone who knows what happened as far as implementing any of these ideas, please inform us.
September, 2000, George W. Bush.
"The health of a democracy depends on real economic gains for average citizens. And this requires Latin American governments to act for themselves: to lift the barriers of bureaucracy and over-regulation that prevent the poor from creating legal small businesses. To give more priority and funding to universal education -- because no nation can afford to squander the talent of its people.
Our nation can be an ally in these efforts. The future of this hemisphere lies with the creation of millions of small businesses among the poor - the surest path out of poverty. But the poor in Latin America often have no access to small amounts of working capital -- to credit cards or bank loans -- that would help them buy something as simple as an oven to bake and sell bread. So I support what are called "microloans" -- small, no-collateral loans allowing the poor to build a business and employ their neighbors. As president, I will ask Congress for $100 million dollars to help microcredit organizations that are working in Latin America. And I will ask the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank to add to this investment. We will apply the power of markets to the needs of the poor.
In addition, we must recognize and promote the important role of American charities and churches and relief organizations in Latin America -- organizations which build housing, health clinics and schools. Groups like Amigos De Las Americas, which trains young people to be community health workers in the region. These are practical and effective ways for the wealth and compassion of America to help all the Americas -- and introduce many of our own people to their nation's neighborhood.
I recently proposed extending the charitable tax deduction to every American, which will encourage both giving and outreach. And we can be charitable beyond our borders, so I will encourage American churches and congregations to adopt Latin American churches -- meeting their people and helping in their work. I will challenge American businesses to do their part -- for example, by having their employees volunteer their help with development projects. And I will instruct our embassies to serve and help these non-profits, as they now help businesses, with a counselor appointed specifically for that purpose. Good relations among governments are strengthened by millions of friendships among our people.
America must recognize that not only can our neighbors learn from us, but we can learn from them.
Let me give you one example. Back in 1980, Chile faced problems with its retirement system. They decided to convert the pay-as-you-go system into a system of personal retirement accounts -- in which contributions are invested in a safe portfolio of bonds and shares. The idea was to empower the common man -- with something to own and pass along to their children. And the reforms didn't just benefit individuals, but the Chilean economy as a whole.
The Chilean economists who originally designed these reforms studied here in the United States -- at Harvard and the University of Chicago. They learned here and now it is time for us to learn from them. No question, our solutions for Social Security will be different, but we can learn from their experience with reform.
We will respect those who respect the rights of their citizens. In our hemisphere, there is one clear example where this does not happen. The leadership of Cuba has not even begun the journey to that goal. Until it frees political prisoners, and holds free elections and allows free speech, I will keep the sanctions in place.
I will support the forces of democracy, and revive the voice of Radio and TV Marti."
If you remove the world from anybody's GDP, I expect they won't do as well.
Which country in the world do you think has a better economy?
You don't seem to get it. We as a nation overall are the right. Our majority is right. We are 75% Christian capitalists.
The West has to counter leftist influences (socialism)on a global scope. If we make it through the WOT, the final war will be with China and it will be based on economics and shear numbers of people.
I understand the need to bring our nations numbers up. I don't think it is something that anyone really wants to do. It's just a necessity for what is to come.
Do you ever get the sense that the Dems are so far gone that it is just plain surreal? Yes..many on the left work hand in glove with the right. It's a psych global war as well.
Am I my brother's keeper?
It is our responsibility because it is in our own self-interest for neighboring countries to raise out of poverty and thus be lesser prey for communist agitators and be less inclined to send their unemployed here.
Tell me that Chavez in Venezuela isn't a threat to our economy.
Tell me that unemployed people coming illegally over our borders to find work don't cause you any concern.
One can dork along in the U.S. and not be involved in the world while communists and socialists are busy making chess moves to undermine our very existence, or we can be smarter than that and be a player in the geopolitical game.
What country in the world has a better economy?
Welcome to the New Economy. Regional economic and political integration will end all that notion of "country" and what it implies. You may have meant FTAA?
You have stated that our country has stagnant or declining growth if we adjust out certain factors.
I want to know what country is doing better as you have dumped on the President, claiming he is using smoke and mirrors to make our economic growth seem good with these factors.
Who isn't doing this? Who has good growth and a good economy?
Um, no kidding.
Obviously, the idea was to get the economic development going BEFORE a Chavez could prey on the poverty and get into power.
My whole initial point was that 9/11 co-opted things we were going to do in this country and for other countries to make things better for us and for them (in our own self-interest).
Thus some problems have been left to fester and get worse because the money is going to fight the WOT instead.
This is a representative democracy. We are all asked every couple years. Our representatives then pass laws and measures that support or don't support these programs.
Your assertion that nobody has a say in this is ridiculous.
You may have a quarrel with majority rule in this country, but your complaint seems to be that the people you would prefer to represent you don't seem to know how to get elected.
I think ideas_over_party would called that "an orthogonal-to-the-discussion comment."
Do you have knowledge of a country with a better economy than ours?
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.