This site is best viewed using Firefox.
Writer Stephen Faris makes a compelling argument in Salon that it is "economically and morally wrong for the world's poor immigrants to be locked out of work in the richest countries."
I could not agree more. Economically, spreading prosperity is an investment in the future. Employing labor from poor countries and given them a decent wage is such an investment.
The reason the United States, Europe and Japan are so prosperous is because productivity and wealth have been spread deeply into the masses through public education, fair labor laws and progressive taxation. A better example still is the emergence of China as an economic power. In an unprecedented way, China has added to the world's wealth and economic output, pulling Japan out of recession and creating opportunity for hundreds of millions of workers in China and around the region. Moreover, its wealth has kept interest rates down, helping push the recovery in the United States.
Just because there are countries where governments do not have the foresight to make investment in their people as China and the first world countries have, doesn't mean that rich countries should not enrich immigrants from those countries to create customers and productive workers for the future. It just makes good economic sense. It's also a way to spread democracy, part of what I call "bucks not bombs." As people's basic financial needs become met, they start to demand better government. Additionally, by seeing the democratic process in America (an eroding one I admit but still better than Mexico), the higher the likelihood they will demand reforms in their home country, especially if they return.
The moral imperative is even easier to argue. The highest form of human achievement is one where the largest number of people benefit. Every religion would agree with that, as well as nearly all philosophies that have withstood the test of time. The rich helping the poor fits perfectly into this achievement.
Mexico is a perfect example of a country that could benefit tremendously from U.S. help, both in the form of direct investment, but in emulating American economic policies as well. Despite a hard working citizenry, tremendous natural resources and a 1,000-mile border with the richest country in the world, Mexico's economy is no better than its less lucky Latin cousins in South America. The root of the problem is corruption. Wealthy families that control the phone company, the media, most of the land, large retail outlets and nearly everything else control politicians with nearly an iron fist, and have accumulated nearly all the country's wealth. Needless to say, they refuse to give up any of their advantages, and as a result, the country suffers from a lack of competition. Even the petroleum company, which is government owned is a prime example of how not to run a public service.
So to enact policy regarding Mexican immigration without including the Mexican government is like the Israelis making decisions about the West Bank without involving the Palestinians. Mexico needs reform far more then it needs remittances from overseas workers. If impediments to growth such as expensive telecommunications and transportation were removed, the economy would grow at a rate much more commensurate with the country's potential, creating jobs and wealth that reduce the need to immigrant to the United States. The Mexican government should be at the table to hear this, and a comprehensive plan that includes deregulating their markets so that competition can reduce price should be woven into any agreement that includes a guest worker program.
Regarding the contraversy over a Spanish version of the American national Anthem, my response is "que bueno!" Actually, i don't really like either the English or Spanish version, but I don't see any problem in there BEING a Spanish version. And I don't know that I care whether people learn it in English or not. I sure don't know it. But i do agree it makes sense for people to learn English if they live in the United States, since Americans are stupid or too egocentric to learn other languages.
Jim Forbes
May 5 , 2006