Alternatives to a Wall
Inviting Immigrants Out of the Shadows
NAFTA, poverty, and migration: the untold story of the immigration debate
Mother of Exiles
The year 2006 may go down in the history books as the year when immigrants came out of the shadows to demand a place of respect in American society. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants, documented and undocumented, have marched in the streets of cities across the country. Thousands of students walked out of class to join them.
The direct focus of these demonstrations has been proposed legislation that would turn every man, woman, and child who is in the country without authorization into a criminal and turn people who give even humanitarian assistance to unauthorized foreigners into felons. Perhaps most extreme, it would authorize construction of a 700-mile wall along the U.S. southern border.
Whatever the outcome of this legislative battle, the protests have sparked a long-overdue debate on immigration issues. If we are to lay the foundation for more sensible policies, the debate must be broadened to recognize the links between U.S. policies and the conditions that drive migration in the first place.
Why people migrate
The massive influx of migrants in the past several decades, particularly from Mexico and Central America, cannot be traced to a single cause. However, economic globalization policies supported by the U.S. government are significant factors. NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) almost certainly contributed to the sharp increase in the number of Mexicans living in the U.S. without authorization, from 2 million in 1990 to an estimated 6.2 million in 2005.
With barriers to agricultural imports lifted, Mexican farmers have found themselves competing with an influx of cheap, heavily subsidized U.S. agricultural commodities. Facing dire poverty in the Mexican countryside, millions have made the wrenching decision to leave behind families and communities and head northward.
Despite NAFTA’s record, Congress approved a similar agreement with Central America last summer that is expected to have similarly devastating effects on small farmers in those countries. Throughout the developing world, farmers are particularly vulnerable to import competition because of World Bank- and IMF-promoted cuts to support for small-scale agriculture.
Migration has also been stimulated by natural disasters both acute—like hurricanes — and chronic — like soil erosion and aquifer depletion. Put bluntly, most people who die in hurricanes do so because poverty has forced them onto marginal lands, because they live in substandard housing, and because unfettered development has eroded the natural environmental defenses that protect vulnerable areas. Rather than addressing these problems, most developing-country governments are pressured by international financial institutions to slash spending for social and environmental protections, look the other way when foreign investors damage the environment, and devote scarce resources to pay interest on external debts.
If we fail to recognize the connections between migration and globalization, our policies will provide a temporary Band-Aid solution at best. And yet U.S. politicians have not only failed to recognize these global links, they have also scapegoated immigrants for domestic policy failures.
There is a growing segment of U.S. society that has not benefited from the country’s overall economic growth — the 45 million who lack health insurance, the hundreds of thousands who have had their retirement benefits cut, the tens of thousands who have lost wellpaying manufacturing or technology jobs in just the past few years. As in developing countries, workers in the United States have suffered from trade and globalization policies that encourage corporations to pit workers and communities against each other in a global race to the bottom in wages and benefits. The deep sense of insecurity caused by these changes leaves many people looking for someone to blame. Foreigners make an easy, albeit mistaken, target.
Building transnational alliances
Over the past several years, anti-immigrant extremists have succeeded in polarizing the public debate. What we need now is a real exercise in democratic accountability, one that acknowledges the transnational nature of the challenges we face. We need to listen to the wise and solution-oriented voices of the local elected officials, law enforcement officers, and the business, religious, and immigrant community leaders who truly care about these matters and who are often misrepresented by those who claim to speak for them.
There are common-sense alternatives to building a wall around our country (see Inviting Immigrants Out of the Shadows). The American people need to reject the fortress mentality and take back the issue of migration from those who want us to embrace fear and hate. This proud nation of immigrants needs its citizens to reclaim the best traditions of our nation and to build a better world for all.
Oscar A. Chacón is the director and Amy Shannon is the associate director of Enlaces América, a support center for Latino and Caribbean immigrant organizations based in Chicago. Sarah Anderson, of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC, is the co-author of Field Guide to the Global Economy and “Debt Boomerang 2006.”
That means, we rely on support from our readers.
Independent. Nonprofit. Subscriber-supported.