Open Borders?

The highly-publicized raids of large U.S. meatpacking companies last week that hired undocumented workers  raises a number of questions. Why do these companies (and those in other U.S. industries) rely on such workers? Is it strictly for better profits? Should we be upset about this phenomenon, and if so, what should we be upset about? And why are undocumented Mexican workers so willing to take these low-paying jobs? Those are questions for which we all likely have strong views. In my opinion, we have to start thinking outside the box on the issues of labor needs in the U.S. and the relationship with undocumented migration. One could say that President Bush’s 3-year-old guestworker plan represented relevant thinking on the topic along with the myriad of other proposals that we have all followed the last year. But given the big mistake in NAFTA to leave out an agreement on labor migration, we may want to think anew about the open border concept, at least between Mexico, the U.S. and Canada.

My colleague and fellow blogster, Kevin Johnson, made an excellent case for re-thinking immigration policies and considering open borders in the era of globilization in his 2003 article that is worth reviewing: Open Borders?, 51 UCLA L.Rev. 193 (2003):

“[We need] a far-reaching immigration response to the changing world. Open borders would mark a true revolution in current U.S. immigration law, and would create an admissions system in which migration effectively approximated demand. The fundamental premise of the U.S. immigration laws is that exclusion of immigrants is the norm and admission of noncitizens is the exception to the rule. This need not be. [We must] shift the debate over immigration to consider the possibility of making the United States’ borders more permeable to people, as well as to goods, services, and capital.

“No coherent intellectual justification for immigration restrictions like those enforced by the United States has emerged. More importantly, the U.S. elimination of border controls would offer many benefits. Elimination of border controls would end the brutality inherent in enforcement of the current immigration controls, which result in physical abuse, promote racial discrimination, and relegate certain groups of U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants to second-class status. Rampant civil rights deprivations have resulted. Such consequences render U.S. immigration enforcement immoral.

“Moreover, the nation stands to reap economic benefits from free labor migration in a globalizing world economy. As a matter of economic theory, international trade with Mexico and much of the world, which the United States has eagerly embraced, differs little from labor migration. A utilitarian argument would allow for labor migration and add the benefits of a low-wage labor force to the national economy.

“Last but not least, strong policy arguments exist for the abolition of border controls. Experience demonstrates that, at least within modern sensibilities, border controls cannot be enforced. Undocumented immigration is not viewed as criminal by most law-abiding Americans, nor is the employment of undocumented immigrants. Abolition of border controls would recognize the economic and social reality of immigration, including the fact that millions of undocumented immigrants make valuable contributions to the U.S. economy but are forced to live on the margins of society and, subject to exploitation because of their uncertain immigration status, work in poor conditions for substandard wages. Foreign policy benefits also would accrue from a system in which the nationals of other societies were in fact welcomed rather than labeled a public menace, barred from entry, and treated as pariahs in our midst.”

bh