Containing Democracy

Protectionists, nativists, xenophobes and racists affirm that immigration is mainly negative. They purport hostile and defensive policies on restricting or completely eliminating the movement of people into their country. Most supporters of a greater free market call for more open borders. Nearly all economically developed countries have restrictive or exclusionary immigration policies which erode the principles of democracy.

Currently the United States’ policy has been growing more restrictive. President Clinton signed NAFTA in 1994, allowing for unprecedented capital and goods to be moved across the North American borders. Almost simultaneously, the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Border Patrol launched Operation Gatekeeper in California, Operation Hold the Line in Texas, and Operation Safeguard in Arizona—all implemented to prevent the movement of actual people [1]. It also dangerously militarized the border under the rubric of the war on drugs, allowing military and police not trained or structured to deal with immigration on a daily basis, to intervene. Around 2.5 million Mexican farmers have lost their jobs to agriculture corporations subsidized in the U.S. and Canada and over half of Mexico’s population plummeted into poverty [2]. This created a surge of immigrants pouring across the border searching for sustenance. After 9/11, the militarization of the Mexican border was strengthened under the war on terrorism. Many visa and asylum programs were limited, including the H1-B visas which allow U.S. companies and universities to hire foreign professionals.

France, like many other countries, encouraged migration during the post-World War II period. Many immigrants arrived from former French colonies, many being Muslims. However during the 1970s, economic stagnation and creeping unemployment created an anti-immigration sentiment. French right and left wing parties vying for working class votes passed waves of laws heavily restricting immigration. Unlike the U.S., where organized business and ethnic interests have lobbied for expansive immigration legislation, France has none pushing for greater immigration. Also dissimilar to the U.S., the number of foreigners is actually decreasing [3]. However, most suburbs are filled by immigrants and their families. Similar to the U.S., many politicians scapegoat crime, unemployment, dwindling traditional values and subversion of their culture on immigrants. Today over 50% of those imprisoned are Muslims, while they only constitute 10% of the nation’s population, comparable to the high incarceration rate of minorities in the U.S. [4].

Throughout history, Japan was the quintessential protectionist state. Many traditions still linger after Commodore Perry forced the opening of Japan in 1854. However, Japan faces a shrinking workforce (mostly cheap or unskilled labor) due to an aging population and low fertility rates, which possibly may equate to a decline of 22 million by 2050 [5]. Clinging to their homogenous culture, stringent immigration laws have been modified for those only with Japanese parents or ancestry. Scapegoating crime on foreigners by officials and the media is common, as well as racial profiling [6] [7].

An option rarely considered or discussed is dealing with root causes of why mass populations need to immigrate. Lesser developed countries mainly encompass the southern regions of the globe. If economically developed countries worked towards eliminating the inequality between the north and south, incentives to immigrate would cease. While aid is becoming more widespread, it always has political intentions and overwhelming entails military and arms. Many countries, like Israel--the number one receipt of U.S. aid at $3.4 billion a year, do not need assistance and are already developed [8]. The primary channels through which aid is given, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, are controlled by developed countries. They usually entail cookie-cutter plans for development and rarely cater to specific needs of countries. Eliminating expenditures to encourage growth is the method hailed by these international institutions, but was widely abandoned by the developed countries during the Great Depression [9].

Free trade agreements that favor business and include no protections for laborers like NAFTA create more inequality. NAFTA needs reform and the U.S.-Mexican border opened. Deportations, exclusion and disenfranchisement of minorities which many anti-immigration supports propose hinder democratic politics. While majority rule results in imposing their will over minorities and the status quo of immigration policies, a principle of democracy is the inclusion of all groups.

1. Global Security http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/gatekeeper.htm

2. Economic Policy Institute http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_nafta_legacy_at10

3. Eurostat http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat

4. New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/international/europe/19CONV.html

5. United Nations Economic & Social Development http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/japan.pdf

6. Japan Times http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fl20040518zg.htm

7. Electric New Paper http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/top/story/0,4136,65031,00.html

8. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

9. John T. Rourke and Mark A. Boyer. International Politics on the World State pg. 351