While both immigration and trade agreements have been regular topics in the mainstream media for some time now, the connections between them are seldom discussed or made explicit. I have previously described why the so-called “free trade agreements” are in actuality special interest trade agreements that serve powerful economic interests.

     The real reasons for the proposed changes to U.S. immigration policies also do not match the rhetoric. The current proposals to “reform” U.S. immigration policies have little to do with securing our borders. They have much more to do with maximizing financial gain for certain very powerful economic interests.

     Consider first the way that the debate over immigration reform has been framed in Congress. On the one hand there are proposals to “seal the border” and to make felons out of all undocumented persons in the U.S. On the other hand, there are proposals to allow those without documentation to work for years under some provisional status, constantly under threat of deportation, in the hopes that they will eventually be granted permanent residency or citizenship.

     While these two alternative approaches do have some differences, they are fundamentally just two different flavors of the same basic philosophy.

     Both of these approaches punish the immigrants to a greater or lesser degree, and benefit the employers who supply the jobs that attract the immigrants here in the first place. Under both of these proposals, undocumented workers are more vulnerable to exploitative employers. Neither of these proposals includes an effective system for controlling or punishing the employers who hire undocumented workers.

     The main difference between the two proposals is that one kicks a larger number of people out of the country, but leaves the rest with zero legal rights so they are completely vulnerable, while the other leaves larger numbers of undocumented workers in the country, but allows them a thin veneer of legal protections which can easily be wiped out.

     Either way, the employers are sitting fat and happy and the workers are hurt.

     While the drafters of NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT and the other special interest trade agreements like to claim that barriers to trade are bad for the economy, their actions do not match their rhetoric. Instead, they write into the trade agreements special protections for favored economic interests. When it comes to the interests of working people, however, these trade agreements provide no protections at all.

     Undocumented workers are subjected to arrest and deportation with few legal rights, while documented workers have their wages depressed through movement of factories overseas and competition from undocumented workers.

     The nation state is inherently a barrier to trade. It has borders, it has laws and regulations intended to protect its citizens. Historically, one of the primary functions of a nation state has been to promote the interests of its citizens over the interests of other peoples. There is an inherent contradiction between the idea of completely unregulated “free trade” which provides no protections for anyone, and the idea of a nation state which is suppose to protect its citizens.

     Historical experience tells us that completely unregulated trade does not work well. It leads over time to monopolies, extreme concentrations of wealth and power, and an unjust society. This is why the opponents of the special interest trade agreements advocate fair trade instead of free trade.

     Properly designed government regulation of economic activity is important to a prosperous and just society. The same type of approach needs to be applied to the issue of immigration.

     Instead of focusing on punishing the immigrants after they are here, we need to focus on eliminating their incentives for coming here in the first place. If employers were effectively regulated, they would only be hiring citizens and legal residents. It is not that difficult to design a system that will effectively accomplish that goal. The word will quickly spread that only citizens and legal residents can work here, and there will be no incentive for others to come.

     There is a reason why this approach is not being implemented in Congress. The result would be higher wages for U.S. citizens and legal residents, and lower profit margins for the employers. When employers argue that there are not enough workers, what they really mean is that supply and demand are causing wages to rise above the level that the employer wants to pay. So the employers lobby Congress to make sure that additional labor is available to keep wages depressed.

     Congress is not adopting effective enforcement against employers, because the employers want access to the low cost and vulnerable workers. As a result, the only debate in Congress focuses on ineffectual and punitive measures that hurt workers and benefit employers.

---