Next Up: Immigration Reform

With health reform all but passed, many are now advocating that Obama and Congress turn to immigration reform. Immigration reform was something discussed under the previous administration mostly as a way to drum up fears among their xenophobic base. Little to no substantive action was taken, other than the ill-conceived border fence. As I have discussed previously on this blog, immigration reform is necessary and long past due. Until we have a more coherent and humane immigration policy, we will continue to have undocumented workers toil in the shadows, exploited and neglected. These estimated 11 million people do many jobs we could not live without. While none of the proposed solutions are perfect, weighing the pros and cons of each of them and carrying out the best available one should be our focus now. Some sort of amnesty program that sets a cut-off date in the past and provides documentation seems to be one of the most reasonable approaches. Critics argue that a problem with this approach is that it neglects those who tried to immigrate legally. However, this can be rectified by granting visas to these people as well.

In order to properly address immigration reform, trade reform also has to be discussed. Many of the forces driving undocumented workers to the U.S. are a result of trade practices that allow subsidized American industries to dump products on countries at prices that unsubsidized local industries cannot compete with. This hurts the importing country in the long run by making it impossible to keep up the infrastructure that is required to run these industries. Grievances filed by these countries with the WTO, even if won, are often ignored by the United States. Also, the series of bilateral trade agreements negotiated in the past two decades have put most of our smaller trading partners at a significant disadvantage. U.S. negotiators were able to impose their influence on smaller countries that lacked the ability to push for more fair provisions. Often specific industries were given special benefits, while the overall agreement hurt far more producers in that country.

Fairness vs Injustice

Issues of race, gender, and ethnicity have been a hot issue in recent weeks. Many in the media are writing about whether the election of Barack Obama represents the beginning of a "post-racial" America. This notion, that race no longer defines a person's status and trajectory, is in theory interesting but in reality serves only to further marginalize those who suffer under the yoke of injustice. The very fact that it is such a big deal to elect an African American president speaks to the fact that we have not come as far as many seem to hope. 

Race and ethnicity have always been tricky and taboo subjects not only in the U.S. but around the world. Most people take race as a given category that people fit into, largely ignorant of the fact that races and ethnicities are socially constructed. By socially constructed I am referring to their origin in the historical context in which the categories are created and then changed over time. For example, in many countries in Latin America, race is viewed extremely differently. In some countries there are fifty or more gradations of perceived ethnicity on a spectrum of white, black, and indigenous. In many of these countries, while skin color is taken into account, other factors like wealth, dress, and social status serve to determine a person's "true" ethnicity.

We often lose sight that when we talk about someone being African-American or White, that these categories lack real meaning and are just the most current incarnation of labels. To try to homogenize such diverse groups of peoples into simple categories often leads to spurious assumptions. For example, the issue of hypertension in African Americans is often tied to a variety of things, from genetics to adaptive selection during slavery. However, these simple notions break apart when we understand that genetic differences between any two given African Americans are larger than between any given African American and a person of any other race. We know definitively that the genes that affect skin color have nothing to do with hypertension, particularly on the large scale that is proposed. However, social forces have been found to be the most likely candidate for being the reason for higher rates of hypertension. Feelings of stress/anxiety and perceptions of discrimination have been found to play a major role in creating higher rates of hypertension among almost all populations. This has been found to be particularly true among African Americans. I don't for a moment want to imply that just because these categories are socially created that they do not have power. They have real power in how people are treated, how they are perceived, and even how they perceive themselves. However, their overwhelming power does not mean that knowing they are socially constructed is fruitless. It allows for a better understanding of what can and must be done to bring about a more just and equitable system.  

I don't want any of the above to take away from the overwhelming happiness I feel about Barack Obama being elected President, but we have to keep in mind the vast inequities suffered by African Americans and other marginalized populations. There is much work to be done, and understanding where we stand is a good place to start.

Migration Myths, Journalistic Mistakes: How do Articles Like this Get Printed?

On the front page of MSN today was a link titled "What if All the Illegal Immigrants Went Home". It sounded like an interesting piece so I decided to check it out. Obviously the folks at MSN.com felt the actual title of the article, "What if we threw out all the illegal immigrants,"was not quite appropriate for the tagline. Once I saw the actual title and checked the credentials of the writer (Shirley Skeel, a "print and radio journalist based in Seattle who has written for Bloomberg News, The Seattle Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph in London. She has also produced radio features for National Public Radio and its affiliates"), I was not sure what I would find. I did a quick google search of Skeel's previous work and found some other less than complimentary commentaries about other Skeel articles here.

While shoddy journalism is nothing new at MSN Money, this articles takes lessons learned from an intro to economics course and attempts to apply them to the real world.

"The biggest losers would be middle-class families with two working parents, living in high-immigrant states such as California, Texas, Florida or New York."

What about the twelve million people forcibly displaced? Seems like being tossed back to a variety of countries in Latin America, Europe, and Asia would be more difficult. These workers left for a multitude of reasons (including discrimination), and being forcibly returned would be much worse than someone having to clean their own house. Not to mention that many of those that had to go back to low-income countries would now face extremely difficult circumstance as large numbers of former immigrants would now end up competing for the same jobs that caused them to leave their home country in the first place. Also, the families that would be destroyed by such an event would also be in a worse situation than the guy who has to mow his own lawn. Many families have some family members that are undocumented workers while other members have gained legal status. This could even mean couples being split up and parents separated from children. Skeel touches on the difficulties of deporting so many people, but only as an afterthought (though it seem like the whole article is more of an afterthought, than actual journalism).

Possibly the most insulting part of the article:

"Economists say if [American citizens] agreed to bone meat or install insulation, they could earn 6% to 10% more than the deported workers, as wages rose to lure new workers. That could mean $18,000 to $30,000 in pay a year."

Come on, what "economists" did you speak to? This sort of theoretical armchair economics is the reason most Americans understand so little about how global capital works. These two sentences are riddled with so many problematic and untrue assumptions that it would take more time than I am willing to invest to deconstruct them. However, I will focus on two key points: wage determinants and employment networks.

This statement (and the wider article) makes the fallacious assumption that the "illegal immigrants" are the reason for lower wages. While from a purely theoretical perspective this may seem plausible or even likely, any engagement with the actual literature on wage restructuring points to wider, more structural factors. Aviva Chomsky (2007) notes that wages across the U.S. have either stagnated or declined for low-skill workers, while profits have increased in many sectors. She argues that it is the businesses that target undocumented workers because of their marginal status, which allows companies to treat them abhorrently while not fearing repercussions. This is particularly true in many agricultural industries that rely heavily on undocumented labor. Were they to switch to documented workers with legal rights they would deeply cut into their profits and thus face the wrath of their short-term minded shareholders. This would likely push many companies either to increase their production of goods in other countries (which may not be as profitable as it used to be, due to the high costs of transportation due to higher gas prices) or by directly increasing the prices of goods (something that would create a serious backlash).

For employment networks, most social scientists recognize that it is not simply employment that determines where an individual lives. However, Skeel found someone intellectually lazy enough to believe so (however without evidence, like most researchers at the Heritage Foundation; Rector is a senior research fellow, though research is a strong word for what the Heritage Foundation does)

"Just how quickly would Americans fill the vacated jobs? And at what pay rate? Perryman points to Texas, where he says there are more than 1 million illegal workers, but only 450,000 unemployed residents. 'If you do the math, it just doesn't work,' he says. He doubts that many needy Virginians would move to Texas for often-grueling, low-paying jobs.

Rector disagrees. He says it would take time for 'Cousin Fred' in Texas to phone up his jobless mates in Virginia, but, 'There are a lot of people who work for less than $20,000 a year.' And they would move for a job."

While some people move to find employment, the vast majority of Americans would have no idea where and what types of jobs are available in their own town, even less so in places across the country. The idea put forth by Rector in the above quote relies on the economic ideology that individuals are rational choice robots that have perfect information and are able to weigh the costs and benefits of their decisions. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize winning economist, has studied informational asymmetries and notes that these naive assumptions of many economists simply are not supported by research. Calvó-Armengol and Jackson (2004) identify that the importance of social networks in determining opportunities for employment has been well-researched and is overwhelmingly supported. To assume that eight million American citizens (the number it would take to replace the employed undocumented workers, from Skeel's estimates) would pick up and move to take part in unskilled and nonunionized work is just ridiculous.

While such hypothetical articles allow us to think about the difficulties of immigration policy, when as poorly researched as this one, it is hard to see how it adds to the debate. Immigration is a complex issue without simple solutions (as can be seen in nearly all countries), however, using simplistic logic and ignoring previous empirical work will not get us any closer to a solution.

References:

Calvó-Armengol, Antoni, and Matthew O. Jackson. 2004. "The Effects of Social Networks on Employment and Inequality." The American Economic Review 94: 426-454.

Chomsky, A. 2007. They Take Our Jobs: And 20 Other Myths About Immigration. Boston: Beacon Press.

Misperception of Intent

When discussing undocumented workers many people on both sides of the argument make the claim that these workers end up in jobs "Americans don't want." However I think this argument places the decision making wrongly in the hands of the average American, who in this fantasy considers themselves too good for farm work or that it is too difficult work. It seems more likely that the reason these jobs are not taken by Americans is because the companies that hire these workers would be completely uncompetitive if they hired Americans (due to their ability to demand better pay and protection). Only through hiring marginalized workers with no formal rights are they able to remain competitive with goods produced much more cheaply elsewhere.

There are many jobs that are much more disgusting and backbreaking than field work but are done by Americans and some are even unionized. This is possible because these industries can remain competitive despite paying reasonable wages due to different competition structures than is present for agricultural work (e.g., copper mines). Many of these companies would have already moved production to another country if possible; but they are unable to, due to the type of product they produce.

While this argument leads some to push for new policies of protectionism, for me it indicates the need to structure trade in a fair way. Protectionism has done little to provide good long-term jobs for Americans. We must come to the point where the lowest cost is not separated from the factors from which the product are produced. Products from countries with substandard quality controls, unethical work practices, and terrible human rights records must be identified as such. By accepting these products despite these problems, we are just serving to reinforce the negative tendencies under which the goods were produced.

An Informed Discussion

As with much of American politics, the current immigration debate is filled mostly with polemics and demagoguery. It is often difficult to find a nuanced discussion of the issues and the wider context in which they exist. Luckily over the holiday break I was able to dive into two books on the subject, both of which provide a very contextualized account of central issues and controversies and where they reside in the course of debate.

The first one I read is They Take Our Jobs: And Twenty Other Myths About Immigration by Aviva Chomsky. It was a great book. Chomsky identifies key myths that are pushed about immigration from both pro and con positions. It places the immigration issue within the larger context of neoliberal reforms. While I wish some of the entries were longer, always good to leave the reader interested in finding out more, the book really stands out as a critically engaged account of the issues. One thing that particularly stood out was the role of marginalized labor and its place in the U.S. economy from the time of the American Revolution.

Ex Mex: From Migrants to Immigrants by Jorge Castañeda, a former foreign minister of Mexico, examines the historical context that situates the current debate. He also provides an excellent discussion of possible policies and the likely proponents and opponents to these policies. Examining the ways immigration from Mexico has changed, but also how it remains remarkably similar to previous decades, helps to identify that what we face is nothing new. Also noteworthy is that it provides a Mexican perspective on the issue, particularly from a person who has had a lot of influence and experience dealing with this issue at the highest levels of government.

While these are just two of many possible books that provide accounts of the current immigration debate, they are both very accessible and well-written. A proper discussion of immigration and its ramifications must start somewhere and these are good resources for that discussion.

Extreme Callousness as Foreign Policy

It is difficult to understand why Bush would choose to tour Latin America at a time when his approval rating is so low both here and abroad. He has little to no political capital to draw on for this visit. While many have cited the reason as an attempt to undermine the rise to power of Chavez, this seems ludicrous. A visit by one of the least popular presidents in history, whose administration has all but ignored Latin America except on issues of bi-lateral trade, seems like a poor public relations move. Bi-lateral trade deals place individual countries up against the U.S. These countries have little to no chance to bring measures to the table they want addressed. While the breakdown of the current trade round was celebrated by many(myself included), these bi-lateral trade regimes are an extremely negative consequence of this show of solidarity by the Global South.

Bush's claim that the U.S. is planning on helping out the poor in Latin America seem particularly hollow. He has continually demonstrated contempt for those measures instituted by Latin American countries that have actually improved the position of the poor. The Bush administration has berated countries that have implemented pro-poor policies. Steps such as nationalization of companies and redistribution of land ownership monopolies that have often been successful in raising the standard of living for the poor. While measures such as nationalization of companies are controversial, it is often forgotten that many of these industries, particularly those such as natural resources, were initially privatized without the consent of the people. The profits that used to go into budgets of Latin American countries instead began to flow out of the country through multi-national corporations that had no invested interest in sustainable development or stewardship.

It is also interesting to see how the rhetoric output by Bush doesn't match the aid that has been made available to those in Latin America. Venezuela has pledged nearly three times the amount of aid that has been given by the U.S. to the region. Also, important issues that would fundamentally increase the standard of living for Latin Americans, such as access to U.S. markets for agricultural products, have not even been addressed by Bush. The continued disconnect between the discussion of free trade and the lack implementation of policy based on it is apparent. Though fair trade is a better way of organizing the international marketplace, while free trade is hegemonic, the central players could at least learn to play by its rules.

Undocumented Workers

The current situation with immigration is not sustainable. American citizens, due to media propaganda, have a difficult time understanding how important undocumented workers have become in sustaining the American way of life(the very use of the term undocumented workers as opposed to illegal aliens belies much about what a person's stance is on the issue). There exist many arguments about what should be done and also what can be done. It is clear that deportation is not a viable option for the estimated 11-13 million undocumented workers. This is because both the logistics of removing millions of people to other countries and the effect on the American economy. The American economy rests on the backs of the cheap labor from Latin America. These people work for minimum wage or less and work longer and, by many accounts, harder than Americans would be willing to.

There are many that argue that these immigrants are soaking up our welfare and other social services while not paying taxes. This argument does not hold up to critical scrutiny. First is the issue of taxes. Most of these workers will not formally be filing income tax. This is a significant penalty for them as most would be able to get money back because they are making below poverty wages. Many immigrants work under false social security numbers and so they have regular taxes taken out of their checks each month. The fear is that if they file that they will be caught and deported. Also these workers have a host of other taxes that either they are responsible for paying or are payed on their behalf by those that exploit their labor. All of the taxes that are paid by these undocumented workers go to benefit the rest of American society but cannot be drawn upon by the workers due to the legal limbo in which they currently reside.

One significant tax that that these workers pay but receive no benefit from is is sales tax, the bane of poor people everywhere. This tax that is used extensively in 48 states is one of the most regressive that can be instituted. Most states have no provision for food exemptions and other important measures that reduce the negative effects of this tax. Another significant set of taxes are employer taxes. This includes a host of taxes that are paid by companies on the profit they make. This is extremely significant because we are talking about large amounts of money. This has been made particularly clear by the recent "Un Dia Sin Inmigrantes" . Large companies such as Tyson faced plant closures on the day of the protests. These large companies are paying significant taxes on revenue that is generated by workers that are unable to receive the social services that the rest of us take for granted.

For me the reason that this current system can't continue is one that I don't see discussed very widely. These workers are exploited and marginalized at every turn. By crossing the border illegally they lose all power to negotiate. The employers know this and exploit it to their full advantage. Things such as minimum wage, mandatory breaks, clean and safe facilities have no meaning when those who are marginalized have no legal rights. Any complaint by undocumented workers means being fired, again something from which they have no protection, and likely deported. It is difficult to imagine how undocumented workers can bring about such animosity from the general public. These workers face a deadly border crossing, made more deadly by changes to border surveillance that have pushed crossers to more treacherous terrain. Also upon entering, they face difficult exploitative labor that is difficult to envy in any way. Finally, they are often away from their families for months to years at a time. How could these people be seen as a threat to our way of life? In many ways they represent the dogged determination to create a better life that is characteristic of what most Americans subscribe to as "the American dream."

While no simple solution can be instituted to ameliorate the divergent interests that are affected by this issue. It will take time and critical reflection to create a policy that ensures that workers are treated fairly and that the deaths from crossing the border illegally cease to happen. For me what makes the most sense is an immigrant worker program that gives protections to workers and allows border crossing to be standardized. We need some sort of system that allows for different levels of workers, depending on what the worker wants. Individuals should at least be able to get into a track to either be a guest worker, or to work in the U.S. and be on a track toward immigration. Also necessary would be some sort program that allows workers (and presumably their families) who have been here to have an expedited process of immigration. These people are already working and living here and there is really no reason to force them to leave only to attempt to immigrate "legally." The specifics of these programs should be open to public debate as opposed to just being misinterpreted by American media that consistently takes the side of their corporate backers on matters such as this.