I listened to Senator Edwards fielding questions from the Town Hall audience in Iowa yesterday with keen attention. For the most part, he did a really good job of providing thoughtful and spontaneous, almost conversational at times, responses. There were some topics that he was obviously more comfortable talking about than others, but his answers/discussion on a wide array of complex issues was encouraging and impressive.
There was one issue, however, that I thought he could have addressed more effectively. This issue was immigration. I wasn’t able to hear the entire question from the audience member, but I think its essence was what was his solution to the immigration problem. His response was sort of rambling as he touched on many of the myriad factors that contribute to and exacerbate the problem of mass illegal immigration of citizens from countries south of the Mexican border into America. Granted, the issue is extremely complex, and the contributing factors are multiple, but the debate/suggested solutions seem to center around tactical responses to the problem; such as fence building, border security, deportation, and amnesty.
Tactical approaches can only have limited effect. A more comprehensie, strategic approach is required. An approach that deals with the more fundamental causes of the problem: Why are all of these people from south of the border leaving their homes and families by the millions to work at seasonal, low-paying (by US standards - and this is a significant fact) jobs in the US? The answer is, of course, simple, these people are living in extreme poverty because of governmental corruption and critically depressed economies, and they are willing to risk their lives to find jobs so that they can feed their families.
So, what is the solution? What can the US do to contribute to a constructive, comprehensive, and sustainable action plan for alleviating the poverty and suffering that is resulting in this mass migration? I believe the answer lies in changing US and international trade policies. We have seen the results of Free Trade policies (mass migration). Isn’t it time to seriously look at Fair Trade as an alternative? The statistics regarding the success of free trade are summarized in several research reports and briefs that can be found on the MakeTradeFair.org site. These statistics indicate that free trade agreements are eroding the economies of poor coutries and fueling governmental corruption, rather than improving these contributing factors.
There is a wealth of excellent information and research on this site that anyone who is concerned about poverty or immigration should take some time to analyze. I have selectively extracted some content from the Executive Summary of the comprehensive trade report: Rigged Rules and Double Standards: trade, globilisation, and the fight against poverty, Oxfam 2002, to share with you in the hopes that it will inspire you to look into this very important issue more deeply.
Trade is one of the most powerful forces linking our lives, and a source of unprecedented wealth. Yet millions of the world’s poorest people are being left behind. Increased prosperity has gone hand in hand with mass poverty. Already obscene inequalities between rich and poor are widening.
World trade could be a powerful motor to reduce poverty, and support economic growth, but that potential is being lost. The problem is not that international trade is inherently opposed to the needs and interests of the poor, but that the rules that govern it are rigged in favour of the rich.
If Africa, East Asia, South Asia, and Latin America were each to increase their share of world exports by one per cent, the resulting gains in income could lift 128 million people out of poverty. In Africa alone, this would generate $70bn - approximately five times what the continent receives in aid.
In their rhetoric, governments of rich countries constantly stress their commitment to poverty reduction. Yet in practice rigged rules and double standards lock poor people out of the benefits of trade, closing the door to an escape route from poverty. For example:
Rich countries spend $1bn every day on agricultural subsidies. The resulting surpluses are dumped on world markets, undermining the livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers in poor countries.
When developing countries export to rich-country markets, they face tariff barriers that are four times higher than those encountered by rich countries. Those barriers cost them $100bn a year - twice as much as they receive in aid.
Reform of world trade is only one of the requirements for ending the deep social injustices that pervade globalisation. Action is also needed to reduce inequalities in health, education, and the distribution of income and opportunity, including those inequalities that exist between women and men. However, world trade rules are a key part of the poverty problem; fundamental reforms are needed to make them part of the solution.
The existing trade system is indefensible and unsustainable. No civilised community should be willing to tolerate the extremes of prosperity and poverty that are generated by current trade practices.
Large parts of the developing world are becoming enclaves of despair, increasingly marginalised and cut off from the rising wealth generated through trade. Shared prosperity cannot be built on such foundations. Like the economic forces that drive globalisation, the anger and social tensions that accompany vast inequalities in wealth and opportunity will not respect national borders. The instability that they will generate threatens us all. In today’s globalised world, our lives are more inextricably linked than ever before, and so is our prosperity. As a global community, we sink or swim together.
It seems so clear and logical to me how poverty, immigration, and trade policies are directly interrlated, and how, if not addressed in a more strategic, forward-looking manner, we here in Texas and the greater US will be looking at millions more immigrants pouring over our borders.
Discussion
Comments for “Immigration, Poverty, and International Trade Policies”