Global Migration: Am I a post-American?
Mark Krikorian, head of the Center for Immigration Studies, a "pro-immigrant, low-immigration" think-tank, introduced the term 'post-American' to refer to someone who has renounced the sanctity of the American nationality, and supports throwing open our doors to immigrants. His writings (here and here, for instance) have mostly to do with the debate about whether or not to offer amnesty to illegal immigrants--a debate that, oddly enough, seems to be happening mostly within the Republican party (correct me if I'm wrong here), and seems to hinge fundamentally on the question of whether or not Latino voters can be conned into voting Republican.
I'm not here going to write about what to do about illegal immigrants who are in the U.S. right now. I agree that simply opening our fences seems impractical, and that "rewarding" law-breakers we might set an unwieldy precedent, etc. Since, thankfully, no one has yet entrusted me with the responsibility of drafting policy, I am going to focus only on the abstract issue of immigration in general. I'm going to throw my ideas out there, and I hope that, if anyone out there actually reads this blog, and I have reason to believe that someone, at some time did, you will put in your two cents as well.
Here's my idea: the world needs to have an open migration market. Just as liberal economists argue that the world needs an open financial markets, in order to allow money to flow to where it is needed, so should the world open its boarders to emigration and immigration. We need to move beyond national identity. Nations should become mere record keepers, tax collectors, service providers. Global citizens should be as free to move from country to country as they currently can from city to city. Imagine!
Well, it's not too hard to imagine. This is essentially already the case in the EU. (In the EU you can live and work wherever you want, although you do not change citizenship.) But even outside of the EU, there is already a mobile class of global citizens, people who are able to live and work in a wide variety of places because they possess skills that they are willing to sell at marketable prices. This class includes not only finance managers, scientists, engineers and academics, but also skilled and unskilled laborers--from oil-rig workers to produce pickers.
Given that this sort of world is at least possible, I'll give a few arguments why it might be desirable. First of all, it is worth pointing out that on the current system, highly educated or skilled workers are usually able to secure citizenship if they should so desire. It is the unskilled migrant workers who get the short shrift. This is true in the U.S. certainly--most of the illegal immigrants are the low-skilled ones, ones who are nonetheless necessary for the economy--but it is also true, for instance, in Korea. There is a whole segregated class of Filipino and Malay construction workers who are certainly necessary but who are never granted citizenship, even when they do come legally. Opening migration would be beneficial primarily, and most obviously, to these sort of migrant workers.
But more generally, it seems to me that an open migration system would reward good governance. Just as a free capital market rewards a well-run company with profit, an open migration "market" would reward well-governed countries with immigrants. Immigrants should be seen as capital inflows, as increased production potential. A net outflow of migrants would punish a government for incorrect policy; a net inflow would reward good governance.
Wouldn't people from poor countries simply flood the rich ones, you might ask, overflowing all public services and entitlements. Certainly there is a limit to how many citizens a county can ever support, but ideally, migration would level out at about the point at which the country/government could no longer absorb more immigrants. If we are really to a point in the U.S. where another citizen cost the country more than he put into it, then we really are in trouble. Immigrants are, anyway, cheaper than home-grown citizens, because we don't have to educate them or pay for their childhood medical care.
Nevertheless, I agree that people from poor countries would mostly move to richer ones. There might be some concern that a world with open migration policies, as I am suggesting, would simply cement the current geopolitical order, with rich countries on top and poor countries on the bottom. What I am proposing is one giant brain- and muscle-drain. On the other hand, if we are serious about ending global poverty, open migration would be the most efficient way to redistribute global wealth. Rather than try to reform and prop up bad governments around the world, we would simply allow their citizens entry into our country, if they should so choose.
There would be some practical limit to this, as immigration itself cost money, and cannot be afforded by everyone, but I'll leave these sort of merely practical concerns out of this post. The idea, in theory, would be that citizens of a failed state could at first emigrate to neighboring countries safely, and from there spread out further. In the meantime, the complete loss of population--and, crucially, international support--would hopefully have undermined the bad government.
Would this be a return to the Middle Ages, with roving bands of outlaws and refugees? Would there be much more Darfur-like violence or terrorist safe-zones, ungoverned space opened up by weakened national governments. Steps would have to be taken to ensure some level of global law and order. We have found ways of doing this when it comes to global finance; I see no reason why we cannot find ways to regulate and police the movements of global citizens as well.
Finally, in the world I'm imagining, it seems like there would basically never be any need for war. War could be in the interest of governments who are trying to secure resources so as to secure immigration. But who would fight it? If a county's citizens can move about freely, then why would they commit to attack--or, for that matter, defend--another country? If everyone just decided to leave the vicinity, the war would dissolve pretty quickly.
Perhaps this fact should set off alarms in our heads, since historically any political system that promised the end to war was doomed to fail. But, anyway, I'm just theorizing here. I welcome any vitriol-filled comments you may have.
I'm not here going to write about what to do about illegal immigrants who are in the U.S. right now. I agree that simply opening our fences seems impractical, and that "rewarding" law-breakers we might set an unwieldy precedent, etc. Since, thankfully, no one has yet entrusted me with the responsibility of drafting policy, I am going to focus only on the abstract issue of immigration in general. I'm going to throw my ideas out there, and I hope that, if anyone out there actually reads this blog, and I have reason to believe that someone, at some time did, you will put in your two cents as well.
Here's my idea: the world needs to have an open migration market. Just as liberal economists argue that the world needs an open financial markets, in order to allow money to flow to where it is needed, so should the world open its boarders to emigration and immigration. We need to move beyond national identity. Nations should become mere record keepers, tax collectors, service providers. Global citizens should be as free to move from country to country as they currently can from city to city. Imagine!
Well, it's not too hard to imagine. This is essentially already the case in the EU. (In the EU you can live and work wherever you want, although you do not change citizenship.) But even outside of the EU, there is already a mobile class of global citizens, people who are able to live and work in a wide variety of places because they possess skills that they are willing to sell at marketable prices. This class includes not only finance managers, scientists, engineers and academics, but also skilled and unskilled laborers--from oil-rig workers to produce pickers.
Given that this sort of world is at least possible, I'll give a few arguments why it might be desirable. First of all, it is worth pointing out that on the current system, highly educated or skilled workers are usually able to secure citizenship if they should so desire. It is the unskilled migrant workers who get the short shrift. This is true in the U.S. certainly--most of the illegal immigrants are the low-skilled ones, ones who are nonetheless necessary for the economy--but it is also true, for instance, in Korea. There is a whole segregated class of Filipino and Malay construction workers who are certainly necessary but who are never granted citizenship, even when they do come legally. Opening migration would be beneficial primarily, and most obviously, to these sort of migrant workers.
But more generally, it seems to me that an open migration system would reward good governance. Just as a free capital market rewards a well-run company with profit, an open migration "market" would reward well-governed countries with immigrants. Immigrants should be seen as capital inflows, as increased production potential. A net outflow of migrants would punish a government for incorrect policy; a net inflow would reward good governance.
Wouldn't people from poor countries simply flood the rich ones, you might ask, overflowing all public services and entitlements. Certainly there is a limit to how many citizens a county can ever support, but ideally, migration would level out at about the point at which the country/government could no longer absorb more immigrants. If we are really to a point in the U.S. where another citizen cost the country more than he put into it, then we really are in trouble. Immigrants are, anyway, cheaper than home-grown citizens, because we don't have to educate them or pay for their childhood medical care.
Nevertheless, I agree that people from poor countries would mostly move to richer ones. There might be some concern that a world with open migration policies, as I am suggesting, would simply cement the current geopolitical order, with rich countries on top and poor countries on the bottom. What I am proposing is one giant brain- and muscle-drain. On the other hand, if we are serious about ending global poverty, open migration would be the most efficient way to redistribute global wealth. Rather than try to reform and prop up bad governments around the world, we would simply allow their citizens entry into our country, if they should so choose.
There would be some practical limit to this, as immigration itself cost money, and cannot be afforded by everyone, but I'll leave these sort of merely practical concerns out of this post. The idea, in theory, would be that citizens of a failed state could at first emigrate to neighboring countries safely, and from there spread out further. In the meantime, the complete loss of population--and, crucially, international support--would hopefully have undermined the bad government.
Would this be a return to the Middle Ages, with roving bands of outlaws and refugees? Would there be much more Darfur-like violence or terrorist safe-zones, ungoverned space opened up by weakened national governments. Steps would have to be taken to ensure some level of global law and order. We have found ways of doing this when it comes to global finance; I see no reason why we cannot find ways to regulate and police the movements of global citizens as well.
Finally, in the world I'm imagining, it seems like there would basically never be any need for war. War could be in the interest of governments who are trying to secure resources so as to secure immigration. But who would fight it? If a county's citizens can move about freely, then why would they commit to attack--or, for that matter, defend--another country? If everyone just decided to leave the vicinity, the war would dissolve pretty quickly.
Perhaps this fact should set off alarms in our heads, since historically any political system that promised the end to war was doomed to fail. But, anyway, I'm just theorizing here. I welcome any vitriol-filled comments you may have.
posted by Brian at 11:43 AM
4 Comments:
Your post on migration seemed to ignore the threat of terrorism. Fear of terrorist attacks surely explains part of the United State's and other countries reticence toward free flowing immigration. I don't think opening up the borders would fix this problem. Possibly in the long term, immigration would break down the nationalistic identities that encourage terrorism, but for the short term is the threat of increased terrorist presence in the U.S. one we are willing to accept?
And someone does read your blog.
You make a good point. Here's what I think:
Crime, and I think we can call terrorism a form of crime, will most assuredly still exist on my imagined system. So, there will be a continued need for laws and law enforcement. On the one hand, I imagine that a system like I described would give rise to a body of international law with more scope and efficacy. Whether this would include an international law enforcement agency, or whether enforcement would be handled by individual nations, I'm not sure. Whatever the case, I think that law enforcement with global jurisdiction could be effective in preventing known terrorists before they strike. There could be the risk, here, of creating a too-powerful, coercive global government, which I don't think would be a good thing, but let's leave that concern aside for the moment.
On the other hand, regardless of the state of international law, I would still expect countries to screen and keep records on immigrants. I am not imagining a totally open system. My analogy was the global financial system, which is open, though rules and regulations still apply. If someone is a known terrorist, or criminal of another sort, of course you don't have to let him/her into your country.
But the real concern, I think, that your question raises, is with previously unknown terrorists, such as the 9-11 terrorists. This is a problem that is hard to find a solution to. How can we keep out people who are terrorists or criminals but we don't know it? But, as 9-11 demonstrated, our current methods are not very good at doing this either. The only obvious solution, other than better intelligence-gathering, seems to be profiling--i.e. refusing to let in anyone of a certain type. I am not in favor of profiling because I think that is a case of using a blunt instrument when a precision one is required. And, ironically, it isolates and angers just the demographic of people who statistically tend to be drawn to extremism if they are isolated and angered.
So, I don't think that the current immigration system does a much better job of handling terrorists than mine does. I think that the fact that the 9-11 terrorists were immigrants simply confuses the issues. Terrorism should be a law-enforcement issue, not an immigration issue.
***
I just thought of Israel, which presents a harder case that the U.S. I'm not sure how my system would play out there, although I can at least safely say that the current system is not working very well either.
I should note that, if all I'm suggesting really happened, the geopolitical landscape would be totally shaken up. National identity, and in many cases, national boarders, would become largely irrelevant. Countries built on nationalism would have a hard time of it. I'm not anti-Israel at all, but I'm afraid that the country might be in the cross hairs of history, so to speak...
But let me clarify one more thing: if you support my plan, that doesn't mean you have to force all countries to agree with us. The idea is that this is the way to get your country in sync with the world, just like liberalizing markets. It might not be the right thing for every country right away; it is an ideal.
I like the answer.
In bringing up the Canadian border, do you mean to point out that open borders pose a greater risk of allowing terrorists and weapons into a country than closed borders? If so, then I certainly agree with this. As I said in my reply to the comment on terrorism above, I think that terrorism should be a law enforcement issue and not an immigration issue. I certainly think that new immigrants should be screened and that known terrorists or criminals should not be let in. In supporting an open immigration policy I am not suggesting that anyone can just waltz into a country unannounced, bringing whatever they want with them. Open migration does not simply mean open borders.
As for your second point, I know of no one who claims that all immigrants are illegal. The question is how many should be allowed legally, and what to do with those who come illegally. My point is that we should allow a nearly unlimited number of immigrants into our country legally--and that they should be offered not only resident alien status but citizenship.
Post a Comment
<< Home