Securing the Southern Border
President George W. Bush addressed the Nation on immigration reform last night. As if by delaying episodes of "Prison Break" and "24" (Fox shows, no less) he would improve his approval ratings. In all seriousness, immigration is an important issue. It is one which will have a significant impact on North American society and the choice on the type of society we wish to have couldn't be clearer.
Some members of my party wish to establish a Fortress USA, one which would severely limit mobility across our borders. While I have to believe that they have the Nation's best interests at heart, implementing their policies will have a devastating impact on both the Nation and the hemisphere. It is interesting to note that many of the same individuals who advocate a hard border are also against NAFTA. However, this introduces an unworkable economic paradox which is not in our best interests. If we shut down our southern border completely, we confine a willing labor force to Mexico. If we were to also pull out of NAFTA, these workers would be forced to work for Mexican companies. Many of these companies are owned by the elite in Mexico's highly stratified society. The continued lack of a viable middle-class is socially unsustainable and creates conditions which are favorable for unrest. The possibility that a Mexican Hugo Chavez could tap into that resentment and gain power should give American security buffs pause.
There is a viable alternative to this path, however. It requires a respectful policy of engagement with Mexico. Most of us would argue that if we must have a border, it must be secured properly. To avoid wasting our resources on families who simply want a better life in our Nation, we should set up a system which allows the free and secure flow of people across our border. Instead of a wall, we should place one mobile immigration center every 5 km along our border, with signs every 100 m directing immigrants to the nearest one. These modified vans would be equipped with access to our customs database and could be used to document all who cross the border. Individuals who report would be issued proper identification and enjoy resident alien status. Those who do not, however, are clearly true security threats and would be deported immediately. Special treaties would need to be negotiated to ensure the timely repatriation of illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico.
These legal immigrants could then build a better life for themselves and demand fair compensation for their work, as they no longer fear the possibility of deportation. Better wages would mean that U. S. citizens could compete successfully for these same jobs, as they are no longer underbid by their Mexican counterparts. While the prices of our agricultural products would likely increase, the free-market would minimize this effect. Enhanced continental mobility would also mean that future generations of successful immigrants could have the option of moving back to Mexico to help build a prosperous middle class which would demand more just business practices (better wages, effective environmental stewardship, etc.) and a more accountable government. Over time, the incentives for Mexican immigration would be diminished as the quality-of-life in Mexico improves.
As any traditional conservative would affirm, an informed free-market is a powerful force for desirable change. It is time that we unleash that free-market to build a stronger and more humane North American society. This would send a strong message to leftists in other parts of the hemisphere that the United States rejects using the resentments of the disenfranchised for political gain and would rather give them the opportunity for full self-determination.
Some members of my party wish to establish a Fortress USA, one which would severely limit mobility across our borders. While I have to believe that they have the Nation's best interests at heart, implementing their policies will have a devastating impact on both the Nation and the hemisphere. It is interesting to note that many of the same individuals who advocate a hard border are also against NAFTA. However, this introduces an unworkable economic paradox which is not in our best interests. If we shut down our southern border completely, we confine a willing labor force to Mexico. If we were to also pull out of NAFTA, these workers would be forced to work for Mexican companies. Many of these companies are owned by the elite in Mexico's highly stratified society. The continued lack of a viable middle-class is socially unsustainable and creates conditions which are favorable for unrest. The possibility that a Mexican Hugo Chavez could tap into that resentment and gain power should give American security buffs pause.
There is a viable alternative to this path, however. It requires a respectful policy of engagement with Mexico. Most of us would argue that if we must have a border, it must be secured properly. To avoid wasting our resources on families who simply want a better life in our Nation, we should set up a system which allows the free and secure flow of people across our border. Instead of a wall, we should place one mobile immigration center every 5 km along our border, with signs every 100 m directing immigrants to the nearest one. These modified vans would be equipped with access to our customs database and could be used to document all who cross the border. Individuals who report would be issued proper identification and enjoy resident alien status. Those who do not, however, are clearly true security threats and would be deported immediately. Special treaties would need to be negotiated to ensure the timely repatriation of illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico.
These legal immigrants could then build a better life for themselves and demand fair compensation for their work, as they no longer fear the possibility of deportation. Better wages would mean that U. S. citizens could compete successfully for these same jobs, as they are no longer underbid by their Mexican counterparts. While the prices of our agricultural products would likely increase, the free-market would minimize this effect. Enhanced continental mobility would also mean that future generations of successful immigrants could have the option of moving back to Mexico to help build a prosperous middle class which would demand more just business practices (better wages, effective environmental stewardship, etc.) and a more accountable government. Over time, the incentives for Mexican immigration would be diminished as the quality-of-life in Mexico improves.
As any traditional conservative would affirm, an informed free-market is a powerful force for desirable change. It is time that we unleash that free-market to build a stronger and more humane North American society. This would send a strong message to leftists in other parts of the hemisphere that the United States rejects using the resentments of the disenfranchised for political gain and would rather give them the opportunity for full self-determination.
posted by E. J. Neafsey | 19:03
|
0 comments
