"The American left seems to think that to even raise the issue of immigration and border control is tantamount to racism. That leaves us very vulnerable."
Jim Stodder, Economist
Brexit was a vote about sovereignty, about European regulation, about Britishness. But most of all, it was about immigration.
Brexit was the means to taking back control.
Economist Jim Stodder's Guest Post shares a view familiar to readers of this blog, that Democrats need a message of immigration and border control. I am pro-immigration. We can have robust immigration to America and Democrats can gain majorities in the Congress and win the White House. This is only possible, though, if the public is clear that immigration is well regulated and serves the interests of existing citizens. Clear controls are the price of robust immigration.
Jim Stodder teaches international economics and securities regulation at Boston University, with recent research on how carbon taxes and rebates can be both income equalizing and green. He was a college classmate, then received a Ph.D. from Yale in economics. His website: www.jimstodder.com
Jim Stodder teaches international economics and securities regulation at Boston University, with recent research on how carbon taxes and rebates can be both income equalizing and green. He was a college classmate, then received a Ph.D. from Yale in economics. His website: www.jimstodder.com
 |
| Jim Stodder |
Guest Post by Jim Stodder
Much US commentary on the UK Labour defeat has been on how Corbyn was a uniquely bad candidate--and he surely was--and how different the UK is from the US.
However, we should note the way mold-breaking candidates in one county set up a similar shakeup in the other: Thatcher for Reagan; Clinton for Blair; and now Donald Trump for Boris Johnson. This is a warning.
The similarity I am most worried about is immigration as the deciding issue for voters. A recent article from Public Opinion Quarterly (POQ) shows negative attitudes toward racial minorities and immigration are the best predictors of Obama-to-Trump vote-switching for white voters, and especially the "white working class." Obama-to-Trump switchers were 13% of Trump's total Click: Race Mattered and Click: 13%
In the UK, "concern about immigration [was] by far the biggest driver of how people voted in the Referendum" on Brexit in 2016 Click: Immigration mattered
So what do we do?
Let's start by positing that US Democrats cannot give an inch on anti-immigrant hate-speech or racism. But can we not also agree that there be some limit for any community, anywhere in the world, on the number of culturally distinct outsiders it can willingly absorb, and that there be some enforcement of rules on entry and residence? If we agree on the second point, and recognize the challenge to the UK and US left, then the Democrats lack of a coherent immigration policy begins to look ostrich-like.
Let's start by positing that US Democrats cannot give an inch on anti-immigrant hate-speech or racism. But can we not also agree that there be some limit for any community, anywhere in the world, on the number of culturally distinct outsiders it can willingly absorb, and that there be some enforcement of rules on entry and residence? If we agree on the second point, and recognize the challenge to the UK and US left, then the Democrats lack of a coherent immigration policy begins to look ostrich-like.
Why has no candidate in the US Democratic field put forward a Canadian or Australian-style immigration policy, one based on national economic interest? These are two major democracies with a broad pro-immigration consensus; they are also the only two where right nationalist parties are not in ascendance. Canada combines its policy with fairly generous terms on asylum. In relation to population, Canada grants four times the number as does the US, relative to its population.
 |
| Status Quo |
Couldn't a wonky Pete Buttigieg or an unconventional candidate like Andrew Yang at least dare to open up the debate, perhaps to suggest an economic 'points' system for immigrants? Our political left seems to feel that even to raise the issue is tantamount to racism. That stops all debate. The result is that Democrats are locked out of proposing a coherent immigration system, one that might actually be popular with voters and one that would allow significant immigration to continue, legally, and with predictability for immigrants, something now lacking.
Here is a closing thought from David Frum, the smartest guy I know on immigration. He says that if liberals cannot deliver controlled immigration, then the fascists will be more than happy to step up. Like it or not, most people want a government that can exert such control.
Republicans will want to do it in the worst possible way and use it to exacerbate nativism. The left will say that any immigration restriction is racist, and therefore succumb to morally superior electoral defeat. I hope this won't happen, but we have set the stage for it.
We can be better than that.
Republicans will want to do it in the worst possible way and use it to exacerbate nativism. The left will say that any immigration restriction is racist, and therefore succumb to morally superior electoral defeat. I hope this won't happen, but we have set the stage for it.
We can be better than that.
6 comments:
How about Canadian immigration and health care for Christmas, eh? What amazes me is that, in the face of extremism, Ds can’t even efficaciously stay on point with balanced proposals. Instead, we get Joe mimicking stuttering and calling it empathy.
The Republic is collapsing! Ds: look, a Russian chicken!
Please wake up, woke ones.
Crank back your lazy-boy and try to visualize living in a country with a corrupt oppressive government, democracy is a sham, violent crime, including widespread drug cartels, extortion and rape, is rampant, in extreme poverty and with no hope for yourself or your children.
What would you do?
There are 42 million people living in Central America, 30 million in Venezuela, 50 million in Columbia and a whopping 130 million in Mexico. Their 1% are just like ours; for the most part don't give a damn about anyone but themselves, so things aren't going to improve anytime soon.
People are fleeing. They are willing to risk their lives for the chance to get to the US and have some chance at survival. That's the reality we are facing. No wall will not stop it, never mind the fact that the majority of people here illegally enter on visas and never leave:
"...people who overstayed their visas accounted for 62 percent of the newly undocumented, while 38 percent had crossed a border illegally." (NPR)
So how do we assimilate a million or more people every year? People we can not stop from coming?
Money. Lots of money. Lots and lots of Money...
While the US became an economic success, particularly in the last 50 years it has ignored the rest of the continent except to exploit it with the result being that we are now a magnet for migration.
Until we can visualize Bogota looking like Boston and San Salvador like San Diego the United States will be a "sanctuary country".
Accepting this reality is the only rational policy, lest we sink into a dystopian nightmare ourselves.
Simple: annex Mexico. Now half as much border to defend: 1,000 vs. 2,000 miles. And 3,000 miles of buffer between Guatemala and Texas. C’mon people, think strategically.
Canada has a 'beep-in, beep-out' system, with computer readers scanning passports of foreign entries, noting the number of days allotted for their visa, and instantly notifying authorities if the person does not beep-out on schedule. A warrant is issued for their arrest, and all law enforcement agencies in the country will execute that warrant if they come across the foreign overstayer.
Such a simple, effective system of immigration enforcement is beyond the capabilities of America, The Can't Do It Country. Hence so many newly-undocumented came in on visas. No matter if the president is R, D, or Trump, enforcing the immigration and labor laws is too hard for America.
It's true that America has had a heavy hand in creating the misery so many people are fleeing, worldwide. But America admitting 1 million suffering people does not help the hundreds of millions left behind. To truly help them, we must help them in their own countries. Simply bringing America's troops home and leaving foreign countries alone would be a good start.
The current system of war and exploitation serves the oligarchs, then the fleeing people become cheap exploitable servants for the US oligarchs and upper middle class, keeping wages low and rents high for the American working poor. It's not a system liberals and progressives should be supporting and facilitating.
Rick Millward asks: "So how do we assimilate a million or more people every year? People we can not stop from coming?"
My response: Perfect control is impossible, but the US could do much more to control immigration. Canadian enforcement of illegal immigration is much tougher. I haven't been able to find any recent estimates of illegal immigrants living there, but estimates from a decade ago put the # at a few hundred thousand. 5 hundred thousand, the highest estimate I've seen, would scale up to 5 million, given that the US has 10 times the population. That's a lot less than the 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants who were living in the US.
So we could be a lot tougher, but at the same time, a lot kinder. I've noted that Canada grants more than 4 times as many asylum applications as the US, relative to their populations. Richerd M. asks us to imagine ourselves hoping to flee dictatorships, death squads, and collapsing economies in Latin America, and to get into the US any way we can. I've lived and worked in many of the Latin countries he mentions, and couldn't empathize more.
BUT, we won't help those people by supporting an "open borders" policy that (a) is politically impossible, and (b) is certain to be defeated by much crueler Trumpian policies. "Kids-in-Cages" is not a bug of Trump's policy, it's a *feature.* It's designed to suppress asylum claims, and it is working. The Canadian alternative isn't perfect, but we can vastly improve the lives of people in our hemisphere by addoptinmg something similar.
Great commentary, Mr Stodder.
But observe, you have a tough audience.
"Our political left seems to feel that even to raise the issue is tantamount to racism. That stops all debate."
I have watched this since the 80s.
Post a Comment