Trade, Migration, Compassion
By Greg Matney on 27 January 2006
While traversing Arizona’s rugged desert terrain, a migrant Mexican family may encounter two radically different groups of people. If they meet members of the faith-based group No More Deaths out on a routine “Samaritan Patrol,” the family will be provided with water and food. However, if the family is spotted by the Minuteman Project, the authorities will be notified and the family will likely be deported.
No More Deaths and the Minuteman Project are both, in their minds, pursuing justice. Yet both treat symptoms without clearly diagnosing the condition. These groups, while operating at the far ends of the ideological spectrum, exemplify the widespread failure of Americans on the left and right to address the underlying causes of mass immigration from Mexico and South America.
Current US immigration policy fails to consider “push factors” that cause individuals to leave their homeland, and “pull factors” that draw them to the United States. While asymmetrical trade agreements and harsh economic conditions (“push”) have influenced emigration, the prospect of American jobs (“pull”) has brought millions of immigrants to the US. Failure to hold corporations responsible for hiring illegal immigrants allows the exodus to continue.
The terms “free trade” and “immigration reform” are not commonly heard in the same conversation. On October 6, the American Friends and Services Committee (AFSC) hosted a gathering of specialists on issues of trade and migration in an effort to establish the linkage between the two fields. Many advocacy groups believe this collaboration was necessitated by US policies that liberalize movement of goods while restricting the movement of people.
In the economic development community, international migration has recently joined trade agreements as a pressing concern. Despite the emerging recognition of the interrelationship of trade and migration, the worlds of public opinion, advocacy, and legislation have thus far failed to relate them in practice. The task is daunting, but thoughtfully considered legislation could lead to trade agreements that recognize workers displaced by unattainable market wages.
Economists have historically viewed trade and migration as substitutes. Either country A buys its goods from country B, or the workers of country B migrate and produce goods in country A. Competitive advantage in either inexpensive labor or specialized technology most often determines the nature of a country’s economy. The US advantage of both specialized technology and cheap labor, due to large-scale illegal immigration, creates what many consider to be an unfair advantage. Although a nation has a right to work towards its own self-interest, it must enforce its own labor and immigration laws. Developing nations can gain no ground in the global economy when both technology and labor are competitive advantages for developed economies.
After the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) established a trade bloc among the United States, Mexico, and Canada, economists came to realize that trade and migration are not substitutes but rather positive correlates. While the reasons that liberalizing trade agreements heightens emigration are complex, it reveals a basic interconnectedness among economic development issues. Over one million Mexican farmers were left without work as a result of unattainable production levels created by NAFTA. It should not be a surprise that many of these farmers emigrated to the US. Global responsibility should be assumed by developed economies through the formation of just and comprehensive trade policies.
An individual’s decision to migrate involves an amalgam of economic, political, cultural, familial, and personal considerations. The question germane to this discussion is not whether one chooses to migrate, but whether the structural economic inequality between the trading countries somehow “causes” the migration.
Just a decade since the implementation of NAFTA, the United States has now ventured into Central America to form their next regional trading bloc—CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement). Unmet long-term expectations in Mexican employment opportunities have created uncertainty regarding CAFTA’s implications for employment in Central America. Experts are divided on whether the incessant flow of legal and illegal migration to the US under NAFTA will be reproduced by CAFTA. Some suggest the NAFTA phenomenon is simply a short-term “migration hump,” that will level out in the years to come. With the United States moving forward in trade agreements, the issue of displaced people requires immediate, substantial attention.
In large part to proactively counter China’s growing economic influence in Latian America, President Bush has expedited the passage of trade legislation by granting Congress the authority to “fast track” trade agreements, requiring a mere “yes or no” vote. CAFTA was approved in the House by just two votes. Differing agendas and tactics stirred conflict among policymakers and also among trade/migration advocacy groups. The inability of advocacy groups to expand beyond their narrow area of interest disconnects what are in fact interconnected issues.
In order to effect change, grassroots movements must collaborate. Obstacles are encountered in contrasting objectives among both trade and migration groups. Migration groups focus primarily on short-term, getting-food-on-the-table issues, while trade groups often deal only with long-term objectives. Also, the dissension among idealists and realists hurts the movement, and its ability to develop a powerful policy platform. If a single vision could be developed, the product would indubitably prove more effective than the sum of the parts. The aforementioned AFSC meeting was the first move toward the creation of an effective coalition that will address issues of worker rights and trade negotiations.
Those that are committed to the trade and migration linkage want to educate the public and advocate their fervent concern for the free movement of goods and people. Their concern stems from understanding foreign workers as individual members of families and communities—not just faceless laborers.
Developing nations must be given the ability to decide what is best for them. If free trade agreements are implemented, immigration ought to be accordingly liberalized to enable migrant workers the opportunity to support their families.
We must come to better understand the enormous global implications of free trade agreements. Proactive, thorough, and compassionate responses to the issues of trade and migration will foster the democratization and development of impoverished countries.
Last updated 12 January 2009