Global Migration: Tangential clarificatory observations
In a previous post, I advocated a sort of open market for migration. Perhaps now I should seek to clarify my points a little. As it happens, Korea provides two concrete examples of policies that conflict with my open migration proposal. It will be worth examining these two examples in order to figure out what my proposal means, in practice.
South Korea faces a similar if more pronounced version of the problems facing many developed countries: In my previous post, I mentioned the Filipino and Malay migrant workers in Korea, and the fact that they cannot get citizenship. According to the city of Seoul, the number of alien residents has been increasing rapidly in the past decade, especially those from China, India and Vietnam. So why aren't these aliens becoming citizens? I'd chalk that up to two factors: supposed Korean ethnic homogeneity and amazing population density (which I have had occasion to mention before). The Korean idea of Koreanness includes ethnic Koreans, even those who live abroad, and excludes "foreigners," even those who live in Korea. In addition to this, it is simply hard to be a supporter of immigration when your country is already overcrowded.
But that's what Koreans should do. They have a great infrastructure and their unemployment is low. The system can absorb more people. And business, especially blue-collar business, can too. In the past thirty years, Korea has made the leap from developing to developed, from third-world to industrialized. Now, the population is completing the complimentary shift from laborers to educated professionals. A whopping 75% of the younger generation graduate college. (Compare this to 25% in the U.S.) This leaves a lot of vacant spots in the old labor industries--including especially construction and manufacturing--which remain vital to the economy.
It is true that college grads have a hard time landing a first job, but this makes the job market seem tighter than it is. College-educated jobs are in short supply; blue-collar work is still readily available. This is an imbalance that cannot be corrected, and may even be exacerbated, by limiting migrant workers. In fact, a large part of the reason that professional jobs are hard to find is that women are getting more education and are working a lot more than they used to. Korea's workforce today is holding steady now only because women are joining it. This, however, has lowered birthrates even further, and the future decline in the workforce can only be corrected by bringing in outside help.
Few Koreans are likely to dispute this conclusion. But here's the point I am making, and that I was making in my earlier post: this outside help that the Koreans are bringing in needs to be treated fairly--i.e. they need to be given a chance for citizenship. Strict immigration laws are not really meant to protect average working Koreans, but to protect some notion of Koreanness. This is a notion that, along with nationalisms all over the world, I think we can do without.
(Let me dwell on this point for a second. Has everyone really forgotten that the idea of national membership by no means predates the existence of nations? Koreans consider themselves to be a distinct race as well as country (or two countries), but the history is much more complicated. There is a band of Korean-speaking Chinese nationals living in the provinces of China that boarder North Korea. Most Koreans consider these people to be Korean, but their "race" is certainly mixed, with Mongols over the past millennium and Chinese more recently. But, wait: why do we consider "Chinese" to be a race? Or, for that matter, "white"?)
The topic of nationalism provides a nice segue to North Korea, my promised second example. I'm not going to make policy suggestions for Kim Jong Il; that seems a bit presumptuous. Instead, North Korea provides an example of how open migration, if supported and implemented globally, can weaken a poorly run, "rogue" state. The idea is this: there are many North Koreans who would love to leave the country. If all of them left, Kim Jong Il and his cronies would be out of the laborers they need to grow rice and pick ginsing and fight in the army. This would be nothing but good for the global community. Rather than confront a tyrant like Kim Jong Il directly, we would simply open the gates and let his citizens, his life-blood, drain away. There is not much point being a totalitarian without a bunch of people to oppress. A similar tactic could drain all of the warriors--and civilians--out of war zones.
North Korea does it's part to prevent its citizens from fleeing, but they can only do so much. If other countries granted amnesty to North Koreans, it would be much easier for them to escape. Of course, the countries that actually boarder North Korea will be the most important. South Korea happily (if warily, because of spies) accepts North Korean defectors, and it certainly shares a boarder with North Korea. The problem is, this border is guarded by something like a half-a-million troops and there is a big wall there. Most North Koreans who make it to the south do so via boat from China. (Cf. Aquariums of Pyongyang)
So that leaves China and Russia. If these countries started making it easier for North Koreans to escape, the regime would feel it immediately. Check out this post, from way back in 2006, about an op. ed. that foretold the imminent collapse of Kim Jong Il simply because China recognized a couple North Korean defectors as refugees. If China were to give North Koreans asylum, North Korea would collapse in days, I imagine. This is a large part of the reason why China is unlikely to pursue this strategy, as I wrote about elsewhere.
Leaving aside geopolitics, if North Koreans could escape North Korea, that would be nothing but good for the North Koreans. This is the humanitarian aspect of immigration. So, open immigration, in my view, can accomplish two things: it can support ageing economies, like in the West and in developed Asia--and I think that this should be done fairly, by offering citizenship--and it can aid people trapped in war zones or other bad situations. So, what the U.S. should do is simply set the example. Open our own boarders, and encourage others to do the same. Accept refugees. Give citizenship to migrant workers. Simple as that.
South Korea faces a similar if more pronounced version of the problems facing many developed countries: In my previous post, I mentioned the Filipino and Malay migrant workers in Korea, and the fact that they cannot get citizenship. According to the city of Seoul, the number of alien residents has been increasing rapidly in the past decade, especially those from China, India and Vietnam. So why aren't these aliens becoming citizens? I'd chalk that up to two factors: supposed Korean ethnic homogeneity and amazing population density (which I have had occasion to mention before). The Korean idea of Koreanness includes ethnic Koreans, even those who live abroad, and excludes "foreigners," even those who live in Korea. In addition to this, it is simply hard to be a supporter of immigration when your country is already overcrowded.
But that's what Koreans should do. They have a great infrastructure and their unemployment is low. The system can absorb more people. And business, especially blue-collar business, can too. In the past thirty years, Korea has made the leap from developing to developed, from third-world to industrialized. Now, the population is completing the complimentary shift from laborers to educated professionals. A whopping 75% of the younger generation graduate college. (Compare this to 25% in the U.S.) This leaves a lot of vacant spots in the old labor industries--including especially construction and manufacturing--which remain vital to the economy.
It is true that college grads have a hard time landing a first job, but this makes the job market seem tighter than it is. College-educated jobs are in short supply; blue-collar work is still readily available. This is an imbalance that cannot be corrected, and may even be exacerbated, by limiting migrant workers. In fact, a large part of the reason that professional jobs are hard to find is that women are getting more education and are working a lot more than they used to. Korea's workforce today is holding steady now only because women are joining it. This, however, has lowered birthrates even further, and the future decline in the workforce can only be corrected by bringing in outside help.
Few Koreans are likely to dispute this conclusion. But here's the point I am making, and that I was making in my earlier post: this outside help that the Koreans are bringing in needs to be treated fairly--i.e. they need to be given a chance for citizenship. Strict immigration laws are not really meant to protect average working Koreans, but to protect some notion of Koreanness. This is a notion that, along with nationalisms all over the world, I think we can do without.
(Let me dwell on this point for a second. Has everyone really forgotten that the idea of national membership by no means predates the existence of nations? Koreans consider themselves to be a distinct race as well as country (or two countries), but the history is much more complicated. There is a band of Korean-speaking Chinese nationals living in the provinces of China that boarder North Korea. Most Koreans consider these people to be Korean, but their "race" is certainly mixed, with Mongols over the past millennium and Chinese more recently. But, wait: why do we consider "Chinese" to be a race? Or, for that matter, "white"?)
The topic of nationalism provides a nice segue to North Korea, my promised second example. I'm not going to make policy suggestions for Kim Jong Il; that seems a bit presumptuous. Instead, North Korea provides an example of how open migration, if supported and implemented globally, can weaken a poorly run, "rogue" state. The idea is this: there are many North Koreans who would love to leave the country. If all of them left, Kim Jong Il and his cronies would be out of the laborers they need to grow rice and pick ginsing and fight in the army. This would be nothing but good for the global community. Rather than confront a tyrant like Kim Jong Il directly, we would simply open the gates and let his citizens, his life-blood, drain away. There is not much point being a totalitarian without a bunch of people to oppress. A similar tactic could drain all of the warriors--and civilians--out of war zones.
North Korea does it's part to prevent its citizens from fleeing, but they can only do so much. If other countries granted amnesty to North Koreans, it would be much easier for them to escape. Of course, the countries that actually boarder North Korea will be the most important. South Korea happily (if warily, because of spies) accepts North Korean defectors, and it certainly shares a boarder with North Korea. The problem is, this border is guarded by something like a half-a-million troops and there is a big wall there. Most North Koreans who make it to the south do so via boat from China. (Cf. Aquariums of Pyongyang)
So that leaves China and Russia. If these countries started making it easier for North Koreans to escape, the regime would feel it immediately. Check out this post, from way back in 2006, about an op. ed. that foretold the imminent collapse of Kim Jong Il simply because China recognized a couple North Korean defectors as refugees. If China were to give North Koreans asylum, North Korea would collapse in days, I imagine. This is a large part of the reason why China is unlikely to pursue this strategy, as I wrote about elsewhere.
Leaving aside geopolitics, if North Koreans could escape North Korea, that would be nothing but good for the North Koreans. This is the humanitarian aspect of immigration. So, open immigration, in my view, can accomplish two things: it can support ageing economies, like in the West and in developed Asia--and I think that this should be done fairly, by offering citizenship--and it can aid people trapped in war zones or other bad situations. So, what the U.S. should do is simply set the example. Open our own boarders, and encourage others to do the same. Accept refugees. Give citizenship to migrant workers. Simple as that.
Labels: Korea, migration, North Korea, policy
posted by Brian at 10:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home