 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Free movement of labour |
New poll |  |  |
| Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Bazu                  Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by John Kenneth Galbraith If we are going to have free trade, meaning free movement of goods and services and finance and capital across borders, in order to take advantage of comprative advantage and so forth, then this should be extended to free movement of labour as well. Things like borders and passports and visas and immigration controls actually constitute barriers to free trade just like tarrifs and currency controls. They are also a barrier on human freedom... as a British economist named Philippe Legrain puts it: “Immigrants are not an invading army, they come in search of a better life. They are no different to someone who moves from Manchester to London, or Oklahoma to California, because that is where the jobs are. Except that a border lies in the way.” It's pointless and counterproductive to advocate free trade if you're not willing to open your borders to workers from other countries as well. Then you just get a situation where companies and investors can cherry-pick where they want to operate, and move across borders easily, but the people, the workers, remain trapped in whatever stretch of dirt they happen to have ben born in, hypocritically barred from reaping the benefits of free movement even as they're offered to other economic players. The result is that the losers of economic globalisation remain trapped where they are, unable to go to where the growth and jobs and higher productivity is. Open borders can benefit both origin and destination countries. Skilled migrants, of course, bring economic benefits and the argument for that is clear, but even those at the lower end bring benefits. Migrants spend money and create jobs, same as anyone... their consumption fuels economic growth. And, their impact on wages at the bottom end of the economy has repeatedly been shown to be no more than a few percent loss, and even then, only in certain industries where they're dirctly competing with natives. As with other areas of globalisation, there are some groups of losers who must be borne in mind, but they're not the whole story. And the benefits for the origin countries are massive, too. In the Philipines for example, according to their government: "Overseas employment has built more homes, sent more children of the poor to college and established more business enterprises than all the other programmes of the government put together." In order for free trade to truly exist, there must be open borders and free movement of labor. Good luck convincing "pro free trade" governments of this, however. (edited by Arwon on 02-06-07 12:44 AM) |
|||
Koryo Keese   Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| No country in the world has truly "open" borders (for that matter, neither do they have truly "free" trade), so you're really not going to make progress here. But, I'll entertain the idea in a hypothetical sense.
The US-Mexico border is obviously the biggest immigration concern for Americans right now. Since I'm an American, that's what I'm going to talk about. If you think that makes me ethnocentirc, then you are free to start talking about some other contested border in some other country and I will respond to it. Skilled immigrant do indeed benefit the US, and I want them to come here, of course. Now, how many skilled immigrants do we get from Mexico? We could bicker about the definition of "skilled" immigrants, but this much is true: most illegal Mexican immigrants are less educated than the average American (and that's saying something, because American education has been slipping of late, unfortunately). You say that the consumption of an unskilled or low skilled immigrant still creates economic activity, but that level of consumption is about as minimal as a human can possibly have in the US. Illegal immigrants are often payed even less than the Federal minimum wage, which means that their ability to consume is severely diminished. Also subtract from that the amount of money they send back to their relatives in Mexico, and they are generating only the smallest possible level of economic activity by way of their consumption. You say they create jobs, but they also drive down the wages of citizens and legal immigrants. There is also the matter that some (more than a few) Mexican immigrants exhibit hostility to the US. I'm sure you've heard of La Raza. There are some illegal immigrants from Mexico who have no desire to participate in any sort of American dream, but instead feel that they should annex (conquer by demographics, if you will) certain southern parts of the US. There's also the matter of less assimilation. 10+ million people who speak the same language (which is not the language of the host country) are going to have a hard time assimilating and thus, rather than traveling from Mexico to America, they will simply be taking Mexico north with them. If illegal Mexican immigrants reach, say, a 70% majority in a region, say south Texas, that region will have more in common in an economic sense with Mexico than with the US. I'm not opposed to Mexican immigration, nor Mexicans, but I am opposed to floods of people coming here illegally, which means they already have demonstrated a lack of respect for our laws, messing with the equilibrium wages of US citizens, and not assimilating. For the record, I am not an English-supremest. I think the US should speak the same language. I don't care what that language is, but it should be the same. I took a year of Spanish in college and freely admit that Spanish is an easier language to learn than English. But, 250++ million Americans speak English, while less than 20 million Americans speak Spanish. Should the majority lean the language of the minority? No. If I immigrate to Germany, I would learn German. I would not expect the entire population to learn English just so they can speak to me, nor would I expect them to print all street signs, restaurant menus, and product labels in my native language to facilitate me. Again, I admit that English is a difficult language, and if the original American Revolution had been Spanish speaking colonies fighting against Spain, rather than English speaking colonies fighting against Great Britain, then we would speak Spanish today. But it didn't happen that way, and you can't change history, nor can you expect the majority to change for the minority. As it is, Spanish is the most common second language of Americans, and we print all our product labels in English and Spanish. What more can you expect? I don't believe in any American "race", but I do believe in an American culture. I want as many immigrants to come here as possible, provided they respect the country and its laws, and are actually coming to work and participate, not just to absorb welfare benefits. As we continue to increase welfare benefits, I'm sure more and more illegal immigrants will come to get some. Again, there is nothing wrong with the Mexican people. They are unfortunately disliked as a race in many cases because they are the majority of illegal immigrants. But, if the US had a border with Vietnam, Iraq, or North Korea, then we would have illegal immigrants from those countries. I don't want a border fence, but I do want more border patrol. I want more immigrants, but I want less illegal immigrants, and I certainly don't want hostile illegal immigrants. I would also happily accept people seeking an asylum of sorts. I would accept almost any Cuban, because they have a legitimate thing to run from (Castro), and I am ashamed that the US didn't deal with Castro years ago. I feel in a way responsible for the plight of the Cubans. The Mexicans, though, could do more to improve their own country. There are 100 million Mexicans (which is more than the population of most countries). They have land and even oil. They also have a mostly democratic system. Mexico could be an industrialized country on par with the US and Canada. Cubans, on the other hand, have no hope of improving their country as long as Castro is at the helm. That said, once again, no country has completely open borders or completely free trade. No country could keep track of people for legal or financial purposes if people could migrate freely between countries as they do between the individual American states. So you won't have any luck arguing this point to any national government. I could go on about illegal immigrants, but I'm sure you've stopped reading. You're probably assuming that I've said every racist cliche you can think of, and are preparing to hit me with some accusations of bigotry, racism, jingoism, nationalism, Nazism, classism, hate-mongering, fear-mongering, insensitivity, closed mindedness, and any other "ism", "ness", or "ity" that I forgot to mention. Go ahead, I'll take it like a man.  (edited by Koryo on 02-06-07 11:50 PM) |
|||
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Might I ask a few questions, Arwon? What do you believe the purpose of government should be in the absence of meaningful barriers? How does it know who are its citizens?
And if I may be so blunt, what would result if such changes were to be wrought? |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| Well quite plainly, chaos. I'm surprised I'm siding with you, SamuraiX (unless you're just playing devil's advocate), but I guess I must. With completely open borders, governments as we know them today would simply not be. The government couldn't tax people, because people could skip across the non existent border every April 15th (that's tax day here in America, for the rest of you). A government couldn't catch criminals, because they could flee across that same border or lack of a border. There would be incredible friction between these non existent governments, because one non existent government would have trouble proving when another non existent government overstepped its bounds and infringed on national sovereignty by operating beyond a non existent border.
But I don't think Arwon really means any of it. I think he's just trying to play a sort of aggressive form of devil's advocate, and trying to stick it to free-trade proponents by putting them in a position that he thinks makes them look hypocritical. (edited by Koryo on 02-07-07 03:14 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Well I don't literally believe all this is achievable, it's a hypothetical debate. I am, however, broadly in favour of free trade, though not to a fundamentalist extent. Things like the infant industry argument are strong exceptions.
I do think we need much more open borders, and much freer movement between them. Work permit programs should be aggressively expanded to allow more normalised movement across borders (wouldn't it be better for everyone if Mexicans could come and go without having to hide and be marginalised?) More later, I need to finish work and go home now. --------------- EDIT. Apparently I can't double post. How annoying. Now, the main concerns exp Economics is pretty straight-forward, really. The ONLY really negative effect that stands up to even mild scrutiny is the concern over downward pressure on wages at the bottom end of the labour market. But even this is dodgy and possibly spurious, mostly because actual evidence suggests the impact isn't all that big, and one can argue that we can accept some economic losers in the name of greater economic prosperity over all--you know, the same argument that's made in favour of globalised free trade? As I said previously, most estimates place the impact on low-end wages at something like 4%, which is obviously an issue, but it's hardly catastrophic. Moreover, even then, evidence is scanty. For example, when you consider that there's no demonstrable correlation between unskilled wage-levels in different cities with very different levels of immigration (say, Los Angeles vs Indianapolis) you have to wonder whether the presence or absence of illegal immigrants is making an appreciable difference to wage levels (link to a paper with the evidence that this is the case") or is it simply more a case of there being low wages in certain areas and immigrants filling those positions. Further, it can be argued that as long as immigrants and natives dominate different sectors, there may not be any impact at all. These dudes from Bologna and UC Davis argue that since, for example, most Mexican workers are in gardening, housework and construction, while low-skilled natives are in other fields, they're not really competing and the impact on wages has only been about -0.4%. These studies probably aren't perfect but overall, they present a quantified level of impact which isn't particularly huge... the big seemingly obvious idea that immigrants drag down wages doesn't bear out all that easily. Nor do they remain an underclass. I'm going to rip this bit from an Economist article because, well, it saves me paraphrasing a succinct argument. The upshot is that Mexicans are socially mobile and that by the second-generation they're doing quite well.
To me, blaming immigrants for labour problems with sluggish wage growth smacks of easy scapegoating and distraction--if I were a good Marxist I might call it "mystification" c(:. It's so easy. Blame the foreigners for all the problems and maybe you'll stop labour from organising more effectively and demanding better conditions and stronger legal protections. The fact is, conditions for American labour have been getting worse and more unequal for several decades (real wages have barely risen at the bottom end since the 70s) and it's important not to overstate the impact of immigration relative to other factors. And to, of course, see the benefits too. Cheaper stuff to buy, for everyone, even the poor! How do people think they get a 10 dollar pizza delivered, for example? Worry about the impacts of immigration seem, basically, similar to worries about globalisation... economic uncertainty with an unequal distribution of winners and losers and the benefits more diffuse and harder to see than the costs Now. KULTUR. This is the main ballgame, let's be honest. Opposition to Immigration is mostly not an economic issue. It doesn't matter how much economic evidence you amass to the contrary, regarding second-generation assimilation and social mobility, "Mexicans are lazy, don't assimilate, and steal welfare benefits" is a perception that persists regardless of evidence that they work hard, do assimilate (or their children do) and go where the jobs, not welfare benefits, are. Farbeit for anyone who thinks this to present evidence about, say, illegal immigrant Mexican employment rates and unemployment benefits versus the general population. Countering these gut-instinct cultural arguments is difficult because long-winded econometrics aren't as compelling as easy rhetoric. Let us not forget, however, that there was a time that the same or similar arguments have been levelled against everyone from the Irish to the Jews to the Japanese the Italians. The Irish are stupid and violent, the Japanese don't assimilate, the Italians bring their dangerous anarchist ideology with them. I find Koryo's argument about language interesting, as I do most questions of language policy. Why is a monolingual country so massively desirable versus una nación bilingüe? Isn't that just fussy and pedantic? Why shouldn't governments recognise basic reality? One in 10 people in America speak Spanish (30 million out of 300)... that's practically on par with Canada and French, certainly higher than the proportion of speakers of many official languages any number of bilingual or multilingual countries in Europe. Language policy should follow social reality, not try to lead it... since it can't lead, anyway. People DO learn English, the language is NOT under threat. Virtually every second-generation migrant in America speaks English and this has always been the case, there's no assimilation problem in that regard. But Spanish is going to co-exist with that as a language of a growing portion of the population. Don't forget, it's really, really easy for children in a bilingual environment to be bilingual. 70 percent of the world is bilingual. They do it without thinking. English and Spanish can, do, and will, co-exist comfortably just as multiple languages coexist comfortably in a majority of the world's countries. Combine this with the evidence that Latinos do in fact have intergenerational social mobility and do in fact assimilate like all other groups always have, and I'm not seeing a problem here. Unless we're going to actually ban the language or just stop Spanish-speakers from coming, which no serious person would suggest, that's unavoidable. The "monolingual country" horse probably bolted when y'all took the southwest from Mexico. Why pretend otherwise? I don't see how the mere presence of hispanohablantes is this big affront or imposition on English-speakers, especialy since, as stated above, by the second generation, everyone speaks English too. America's ability to have an identity rooted in institutions and ideals rather than ethnic or cultural identity markers (freedom and economic opportunity as core aspects of American identity rather than, say, English, Christianity and whiteness) has always been a great strength versus other places like Europe, where the debate over immigration is a lot more neutoric and obsessed with cultural ephemera (see also: headscarves controversies). Spanish-speakers can be Americans very easily, and they can do it without ceasing to identify with their heritage and place of origin. This is a great strength and I wish Americans were better at recognising this. It makes their immigration debates notably less racist and xenophobic than elsewhere. Concern (okay, outrage and fury) over immigration is often very selective. Perception is EVERYTHING, evidence counts for distressingly little. In places like Australia and England, where fury towards immigration is as strong as in America (and very unfortunately conflated with refugee and asylum issues as well), the majority of illegal immigrants are actually students and tourists who overstay their visas. Yet angry redneck Australians aren't telling all those Europeans to GO HOME. Compared to hysteria over Muslims and other Asians, Britain hardly noticed half-a-million East Europeans that've arrived in the last few years. In Spain, a country which has something like 600 000 illegal immigrants, the much-publicised boat-arrivals from Africa into the Canary Islands makes up just 20 000--the VAST majority are actually Latin Americans who come via plane and walk straight into jobs. Surely, then, border policy shouldn't be rooted solely in the manifestly wrong-headed notions people hold about immigration levels and their impact, any more than governments should institute counterproductive protectionist policies to assuage populist sentiment? You'll note that I'm not really making much distinction between legal and illegal immigration. This is because that's largely a matter of border policies and inadequate bureaucracies. If there's a lot of illegal immigrants, that means there's economic reasons for them and it's too difficult to get things like work visas and so forth, and that's worse for everyone. America and Mexico are a prime example here... America NEEDS immigrant labour and legal immigration is either too low or too difficult to meet those needs. So you get illegality from this inadequate and politicized bureaucratic infrastructure. This makes the immigrants more exploitable and less secure, gives them no incentive to pay tax (yet despite this, 2 thirds of illegal immigrants in the United State pay income tax) and less incentive to seek a secure life and eventually assimilate. It makes it harder to maintain links back home, harder to send remittances that might help spur economic growth back home (economic growth which would, over time, reduce the push factors driving so many people abroad). In short, more legal immigration would be better. The principle should be "as open as possible". And the vast majority of first world countries fall well short in the current fad for "Fortress" polkicies. Australia, for example, is so hysterical over immigration that we imprison refugees on pokey little islands and don't even have temporary work permit programs with our Pacific neighbours. So, more open borders means, in practice, largely means making sure there's paths to legal residency, citizenship, access of rights, and general normality. This also means periodic amnesties as part of this normalisation. And of course, it means actively working to end to the idea that "Them" is some big threat, and appreciate that immigration is valuable and beneficial to both origin and recipient countries. Even if it's got that scary bogey-word "illegal" attached to it. (edited by Arwon on 02-07-07 06:03 AM) (edited by Arwon on 02-07-07 11:03 PM) (edited by Arwon on 02-07-07 11:14 PM) (edited by Arwon on 02-07-07 11:24 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
Alright. Your argument was calm and logical, and you didn't even call me a Nazi once. I'll agree with/ concede/ admit to most of that.
And would the Quebec separatist movement be as strong if Quebec wasn't "French Canada"? If, for instance, the majority language in New Mexico was Spanish, there is a strong chance that we will see the same thing. 10% Spanish speakers spread out evenly over the entire country would not be a problem, but a concentrated area would be.
Though those migrant groups came legally, and none of them were particularly hostile to the US, as La Raza is, for instance. There are a few Mexican immigrants (who showed up in large protests recently) who are getting caught up with the anti - "American Imperialism" crowd. Now, if a Mexican immigrant comes here, gets a job, and raises children who learn English and get better jobs, then I am happy to have them. If, however, a pregnant Mexican woman comes over and has her baby (thus making it an automatic citizen) and she then gets money from the government, and lives in a Spanish speaking community and never learns English, I am unhappy, though it would be hard for me to be heartless enough to want to kick her out. You have presented some evidence to suggest that the former is the rule. I think the later probably happens more often that occasionally, but I doubt I'd find any hard statistics on the subject, so I'll concede the point. By the way, how would you feel about US schools teaching in Spanish for the first 5 years? People could argue that it will be hard for kids from a Spanish speaking home to succeed in school if the teacher is speaking a "foreign" language, but not teaching English to kids in these critical early years would not be a good idea, IMHO. Here are some bottom lines. I like the Spanish language, but the majority of Americans speak English, and I think all Americans should have a common language. Language is one of the most powerful factors when nationalist and separatist feelings spring up. I don't want a Quebec situation in America. I agree that immigrants are good for the economy, and that America was build by immigrants (and that is a large part of what made us so successful). And if those immigrants are socially mobile and learn English, then I welcome them. I also don't want hostile immigrants, such as La Raza. La Raza and the like are of course a minority of Mexican immigrants, but there are no violent Belgians coming here. At there very least, I want to know who is coming to America, even if we allow far more legal immigrants, and that means securing the border (but not with a wall).
Edit: Every illegal Mexican immigrant I've met has been nice, but I live about as far away from our southern border as you can get. There is a bit more immigrant related crime in the states that border Mexico, and some of the most violent gangs in the US migrated from Latin America. (edited by Koryo on 02-08-07 12:32 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Well I'm very very in favour of schools teaching a compulsory second language from a very young age, as a general principle. Obviously in most of the US Spanish is the way to go, both in terms of available teachers and utility. Unfortunately, though, learning a language in school doesnt guarantee skill with it... ultimately that comes down to the individual students and their environment, language aptitude and so forth.
FWIW most white Americans who speak a bit of Spanish seem to speak with GOD-AWFUL accents, but that's probably just my bias. I'm sure Australian accented Spanish sounds pretty absurd too. As for teaching in first-language Spanish. Bilingual education is probably the best bet in environments where there's a bilingual environment outside the classroom. I guess the main point is, they shouldn't not teach in Spanish just on misguided nativist principle. I don't know enough about educational and linguistic theory to know whether kids aged 5-10 can comfortably juggle two languages, but I suspect they're good enough that it isn't a zero-sum English OR Spanish game. |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon I'm in favor of schools teaching a lot of things, but it doesn't mean they can actually do them. It seems nice in theory, but it seems extreme in reality. If so many people can't even handle English, they're not going to learn English and another language. I'd agree with you to the extent that the secondary language education system in the U.S. is absolute crap though. Spanish shouldn't be the compulsory language learned, either. But there's something I don't agree with. Although I would agree that it is a zero-sum game with two languages, it's far better to know one language solidly than have a less-than-solid understanding of two languages. And if one is not fluent in a language and apt to use it often, it becomes more of a novelty than anything. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but that there are an exceedingly small number of people I know who are fluently bilingual, and that's because they speak both languages at home, and have to take cram school. I don't know if they exist, but I haven't seen any Mexican-Spanish cram schools. Really, the people who are bilingual have parents who either don't speak English, or primarily use another language except English at home. It's not so easy to just learn a language at the drop of a hat, as Arwon makes it seem. At least not for the majority of people. Simply, it's a lot easier for a minority of people to learn what the majority speaks, and not the other way around. Racist as it sounds, it's just logical. Unless there are a lot of resources that are in need of wasting. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Where do you live, incidentally? I think we're talking about two different things at the same time here: Teaching Spanish as a foreign language to kids with no outside exposure to the language is one thing, and using Spanish as a language of instruction among those who can understand it, is another. I'm in favour of the former because I'm in favour of aggressively teaching second languages as a general principle and because it's sensible to give kids a bit of grounding in a useful language, should they decide to go further with it (and out of a feel-good sense of multiculturalism and mutual respect if nothing else).
However, I'm more talking about the latter because the issue raised was teaching in Spanish to people for whom Spanish is their first language, or at least one they're fluent with. Believe me, I'm aware that languages are difficult to learn from school alone (I'm two years into Spanish at uni now, but I find it really difficult to follow any spoken Spanish and forget most of it a month after semester finishes... hopefully my year studying in Spain will get me close to fluent), but in a country which is 10% Spanish-speaking, there's kids who're exposed to a lot of the language in the first ten or so years of life, and they'll tend to pick it up to virtually native fluency. It's here that it's viable and effective to encourage bilingualism by teaching in both languages. You said "it's far better to know one language solidly than have a less-than-solid understanding of two languages" but hat's not how bilingualism (from a young age) works, as demonstrated in most parts of the world where even without much education, people can speak two languages quite comfortably if they're in a situation where they've been raised with both. This situation is becoming a reality in many parts of America, is a reality in some, and I don't think there's really anything wrong with that. It really doesn't threaten the primacy of English as people seem to worry. In such areas which are pretty bilingual anyway, schools should be strongly encouraged to make available classes where the language of instruction is Spanish (alongside English language classes of course). Bilingualism should be encouraged and it's here where I don't think any sort of zero-sum game applies. KORYO: By "La Raza" I assume you mean the National Council of La Raza organisation? I ask because they're a frequent bugbear of all the anti-immigration sites and any number of pundits, whose views are a bit skewed and whose opinions you obviously need to take with a bit of a grain of salt. All I'm saying is that calling a major national advocacy and anti-discrimination group with a history of fighting for the civil rights of Mexican-Americans and other Latinos "hostile" is a big claim. (edited by Arwon on 02-08-07 05:59 AM) (edited by Arwon on 02-08-07 06:03 AM) (edited by Arwon on 02-08-07 06:10 AM) |
|||
MathOnNapkins  1100  In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
| ^ I assumed he meant the streetgang "La Raza", or maybe he was referring to Latino streetgangs in general, as that's certainly plausible. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Perhaps. "La Raza" is a pretty generalised term though, hard to tell since it's sort of mostly an analogue for terms like "Latino". |
| Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Free movement of labour |
| |
