Should the US allow unlimited immigration from Mexico and Central America?

The reason I am very pro-EU (from a British perspective) is that I like the freedom of movement that means anyone from any nation in the EU can migrate to live and work in any other nation, basically no questions ask. No need for a visa, just move. I am very pro-migration and think this is a good thing. However on this specific topic I suspect I am in a minority and freedom of movement looks like being one of the key arguments in the Out campaign (that I hope and expect will lose). This has led to high migration levels especially from ex-Communist developing states like Poland, Romania, Lithuania etc - and also means for example if a migrant from say Libya settles in Italy and is then granted an Italian passport they can then move on to anywhere too.

I don't want this to be a thread about the EU, especially since I personally view this as a good thing. Instead looking at an American perspective. I see many Americans reflexively say the UK should stay in the EU. I also see many Americans want a reduction in the amount of migration from Mexico, let alone allow completely unlimited immigration.

So for the Americans here, would you support completely unlimited migration where anyone from not just Mexico but other Central American nations so they could move to the US to live and work without a need to apply for a visa/green card etc?

Central America has over 40 million, a vast majority of whom want to move to the US. Mexico has over 120 million people, and something like a third to a half want to move to the US. If you remove restrictions tomorrow, the US is going to get at least 30 million people within a year or two. That's insane from an economic, but especially a political perspective.

That's the same argument made by those opposed to migration here, where the EU has over half a billion population (compared to our 64 million). Your numbers would mean a quarter of the population moving over which is the same argument made by UKIP here, I doubt it will happen though. Most people are stuck in their ways, actually moving is unlikely to happen in one go (for comparison net EU immigration to the UK has been running at about 100k per annum since expansion into Central Europe).

Do you really think a quarter of the population of those nations would move over instantly? And safe to say you're against that then I'm guessing from your use of the term insane?

No, UKIP's argument is that there shouldn't be immigration period. I'm saying immigration should be selective and gradual.

Why wouldn't they? The standard of living and quality of life here is substantially better. Would any sane person who lives in a shithole with an awful government, ridiculous murder rates, and a non-existent economy not move to the US if given the choice?

No the late BNP's argument was that there shouldn't be immigration period. UKIP's argument was there should be "an Australian style points system" for selective migration rather than unlimited migration for all Europeans (that phrase was about the only one they uttered during the election, about as repetitive as the Tories "long term economic plan").

Your second line applies to many Eastern European nations too which is why their population is declining but I can't think of any example of a quarter overnight. Most extreme case I can think of is Romania's population has fallen by 10% in the last decade. So I suppose at that rate you might get as an upper estimate of 16 million immigrants over a decade, assuming most extreme case matches all there. Proportionately that's equivalent to 300k per annum coming into the UK (we're getting roughly 200k per annum, 240k last year so that seems plausible).

If you were to be getting 1.6 million immigrants per year rather than 30 in a couple of years, does that change things for you or is it still insane?

EDIT: Added a poll. EDIT2: Damn, didn't put an uncertain option into it and can't think of a way to add that in.

The difference in quality of life between Guatemala and the US are about the same as you get between the UK and Moldova, and something like a third of Moldovans have fled their country despite not being in the EU. There are also far more language barriers (and thus barriers towards employment between someone who speaks Romanian and someone who speaks Spanish).

Guatemala is an extreme example but Serbia is quite close to Guatemala in GDP per capita. Many Latin American and Caribbean countries have a higher GDP per capita than quite a few EU nations. Mexico for example has a much higher GDP per capita than Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania or Serbia for example none of which have seen a quarter of their population move after unlimited and unconditional migration rights were granted.

As for Moldova, that's a tiny nation that has a population smaller than many cities.

Any Americans who would be keen for this here?

Incidentally Loki, the USA has a higher population than all of Mexico and Central America put together. Even in an extremely absurd scenario that every single citizen of those nations moved tomorrow to the US it would be equivalent to the UK taking the entire population of just a tiny fraction of Europe. To be fully equivalent to the UK having half a billion people entitled to live and work here, on a proportional level the USA would have to have open borders with 2.5 billion people.

I'm in favour of open borders and think migration is a good thing, but I'm guessing you'd view that as insane too?

The UK doesn't have a failed state on its border...you have the English Channel, and a few other States as a buffer. Imagine having Syria on your BORDER Rand, after decades of civil war, drug lords, and rampant violent crime.

Oh, and ask Mexico how it deals with its southern border...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

The UK doesn't have a failed state on its border...you have the English Channel, and a few other States as a buffer. Imagine having Syria on your BORDER Rand, after decades of civil war, drug lords, and rampant violent crime.

Oh, and ask Mexico how it deals with its southern border...

---

EU as a whole has a border with former Yugoslavia, which definitely fits the bill of brutal civil war, drug lords, and violent crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

The UK doesn't have a failed state on its border...you have the English Channel, and a few other States as a buffer. Imagine having Syria on your BORDER Rand, after decades of civil war, drug lords, and rampant violent crime.

Oh, and ask Mexico how it deals with its southern border...

---

The UK may not have a failed state on its border, but as Flixy says we have many nations which are worse on any number of metrics INSIDE the borders of the EU. We offer every single one of these unlimited and unrestricted rights of migration. If a Greek, Serb, Hungarian or Romanian etc want to move to the UK (or other Western European nations) all they need to do is arrange transport.

As for border states, we have many failed nations on or near the border of the EU. Syria is very close to Greece and Cyprus etc

Transport I'm sure you'd agree is a lot easier to arrange (especially if its legalised) than a green card is.

RB -

I think I am fundamentally confused by your question. Do you think that the relationship Mexico has with the United States (let alone the relationship the rest of Central America has with the US) is in any way representative of the relationship between the UK and poorer countries in the EU single market? It's quite possible for an American to support the concept of free movement of labor inside the EU while still finding it reasonable for the UK to restrict immigration from the Maghreb, Sahel, or Levant (which I would consider much more analogous to the US/Central America relationship).

The EU is an attempt to create a large and deeply integrated market along with some (currently modest) political union. Integration of a the EU single market is a fantastic way to raise growth in the continent, and it will probably help drive greater cultural and political connections between countries, which I believe to be one of the central reasons for the EU's creation (it's hard to imagine the UK declaring war on Germany). A single market is more than just lowering tariffs and harmonizing regulations. These help, of course, but what you really need is the free movement of labor - uncompetitive regions can shunt extra workers to other regions in need of employees. The highly mobile and flexible workforce in the US is one of our country's greatest strengths - the scale combined with regional variations in economic focus and state policies allows for a natural optimization of our workforce. And we see what happens when you don't have free movement of workers - for example, because of underwater homes, many economists speculate that unemployment and growth were hit harder in the latest slowdown in the US, because certain regions had people weighed down by housing debt and unable to move to more dynamic areas. You can just look at the disaster that is the Chinese hukou system to see what happens when internal migration is restricted.

Now, the EU faces significant challenges not faced by the US' single market. The biggest one is the language barrier, but there are also very substantial differences between the typical income and employment prospects from one country to another. This is exacerbated by wildly varying labor laws, fiscal policies, etc. - the political and economic diversity in the EU is probably quite larger than that of the US. Oh, sure, there are very poor places in the US (say, the Mississippi Delta), and there are obviously some state-to-state variations in how things work, but the federal system means much of those differences get smoothed out. In the absence of an EU federation, these differences are still going to be significant. That being said, I would imagine the free movement of labor - in addition to further harmonizing of labor and fiscal policies - will actually help spur greater homogenization through remittances and the like. Greater federal-style redistribution would probably help as well.

This is entirely different from asking whether a country (or group of countries) should allow the free movement of labor into their unified market from outside. Generally, it will get more and more challenging to justify this given the complete mismatch between source and destination countries on nearly every available metric. It's confusing to me why Costa Rica isn't considered rather more like Libya rather than Hungary in your eyes. Given the strong cultural, military, and economic ties between the US and Canada (and the few million citizens who live in the other country), it's reasonable to ask why Canada doesn't have a more integrated market with the US. NAFTA helped on trade barriers but didn't do much else. You might even argue that Mexico, despite having a very different culture, political system, and economy from the US, should move in the direction of a single market given the strong economic ties and substantial number of Mexican Americans. But Central America?

I think the US' current immigration policy is wrong-headed in a whole number of ways - on a daily basis I work with some of the brightest and most highly trained people from around the globe, and nearly every non-US citizen has a ridiculous hassle in staying in the country - even when they already have a job! In terms of skilled labor, I think the US should staple a green card to the diploma of anyone graduating from college with a STEM or other useful degree. Certainly advanced professional or graduate degrees should also be included. In terms of refugees, I think the US should accept more applications for asylum and/or refugee status (though we don't do too terribly on this measure, we could do much better). In terms of unskilled labor, I think the US needs to fix some inequities (breaking up families and deporting minors isn't really cool), face up to the reality that ~11m people can't be deported, and try to address the terrible conditions in the source countries of most in order to stem the flow. Some relaxed quotas for unskilled immigration would help as well. Things like changing our drug and gun policy, improving coordination with Mexican/Central American authorities to go after traffickers, investing to strengthen democratic institutions in those countries, etc. will all help. But under no circumstances do I think it's wise to just throw the doors open to anyone who wants to move.


It almost seems like you're not questioning US immigration policy so much as questioning the rapid accession of some poorer countries to the single market. That's a reasonable argument to have, but once they're in the single market it's very hard to justify picking and choosing.

Is it possible you've misunderstood Randy's question as rhetorical, wiggin? He's generally very pro-migration and open borders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Is it possible you've misunderstood Randy's question as rhetorical, wiggin? He's generally very pro-migration and open borders.

---

I'm aware he is pro-migration; I just don't understand how migration inside the EU is remotely connected to migrants coming from Central America into the US. It seems like rather poor rhetoric for a rhetorical question.

The US doesn't "allow" any "unlimited" anything. ;)

US policy does give preference to our land border neighbors in Mexico and Canada, but NAFTA has its limitations.

The US has a better future because it's an immigrant nation, and it attracts young people starting families in ways Europe or Asia can't/doesn't.

So, I think your initial question is awkward, and confusing.

As Steely said I'm very pro-migration and open borders. As I said in the OP this "European passport" is the best part of the EU in my eyes and is the prime reason I'd vote Yes to stay in, though I recognise (and regret) the fact that its the least popular part of my compatriots. The bemusing part to me is the number of Americans who suggest that it would be "crazy" for the UK to leave the EU and stand in Europe as an independent nation ... who would simultaneously consider a pan-American migration policy the EU epitomises to be equally "crazy".

I think that simply to dismiss it due to the Single Market is overly simplistic too. Yes its a key part of the Single Market but lets not overestimate just how significant the Single Market is. Trade barriers which the Single Market addressed are coming down globally through multiple mechanisms - not just the EU, but through the WTO as well as bilateral and multilateral agreements etc but that hasn't corresponded with a similar reduction in national barriers to eg migration. The US and EU are negotiating the TTIP (which I strongly support, unlike the left and UKIP here) to remove barriers and regulations preventing trade and investment. The US is also reducing international trade barriers with the TPP. However I don't believe its similarly reducing barriers to immigration - over half a million Poles had migrated to the UK at the time of the last census in 2011, it could be closer to a million now. I don't think even with TTIP the US will allow anywhere near that number. The EU has succeeded in removing barriers to trade and immigration, which is the main reason it is controversial to British racists/people who want less immigration ... most other agreements to lower trade barriers have not had similar reductions in barriers to migration.

To answer my own question I think I would be OK with pan-American open borders if I was an American. Even if say an extra 2 million migrants moved over per annum (which is more than I'd expect given our experience) then I'd think that could be absorbed and would be better than keeping them out.

You mention differences like languages. There are literally over a dozen official languages alone in the EU. Whereas across North and Central America to my knowledge the key languages are basically the US and Spanish (both of which are major languages in the USA). So it should be easier to integrate. Within a mile of my house there are shops in about half a dozen different languages (not all of which are European to be fair, I get my hair cut at an Arabic barbers). Some though like the Polish market at the bottom of my road is relatively new and due to it. My town has a below-average immigration rate, though my part of town probably is at or above average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

You mention differences like languages. There are literally over a dozen official languages alone in the EU. Whereas across North and Central America to my knowledge the key languages are basically the US and Spanish (both of which are major languages in the USA). So it should be easier to integrate. Within a mile of my house there are shops in about half a dozen different languages (not all of which are European to be fair, I get my hair cut at an Arabic barbers). Some though like the Polish market at the bottom of my road is relatively new and due to it. My town has a below-average immigration rate, though my part of town probably is at or above average.

---

You make it sound like the EU is integrated. :confused:

In the US we pursue an implicit goal of language assimilation. And large-scale migration has hampered that goal in some parts of the country, which is a legitimate concern. I'm pro-immigration, but I'm not sure the open border you envision is the wisest idea. Immigration policy should be a policy -- designed to attract a broad variety of people, ideally with some prioritization for people with specific contributions to make.

I'm not sure that is really addressed by either US policy or EU open-borders.

No I'm suggesting that open borders works here (IMO, not for those who want Exit) despite the EU not being integrated, not because it is. I'm suggesting that America could cope with open borders as well if not better than Europe can, especially on the language issue where if you're bilingual (English plus Spanish) you can speak to almost anyone in the Americas whereas here there's over a dozen languages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

As Steely said I'm very pro-migration and open borders. As I said in the OP this "European passport" is the best part of the EU in my eyes and is the prime reason I'd vote Yes to stay in, though I recognise (and regret) the fact that its the least popular part of my compatriots. The bemusing part to me is the number of Americans who suggest that it would be "crazy" for the UK to leave the EU and stand in Europe as an independent nation ... who would simultaneously consider a pan-American migration policy the EU epitomises to be equally "crazy".

---

Do you think that non-EU nations near the UK should have free migration into the UK? Libya? Iceland? Ukraine? Russia? Algeria? My point is that the two cases are not analogous. Countries inside the EU are far more similar to states inside the US than Central America vs. the US. Mere geographic proximity is a poor reason to allow for free migration IMO.

Quote:

---

I think that simply to dismiss it due to the Single Market is overly simplistic too. Yes its a key part of the Single Market but lets not overestimate just how significant the Single Market is. Trade barriers which the Single Market addressed are coming down globally through multiple mechanisms - not just the EU, but through the WTO as well as bilateral and multilateral agreements etc but that hasn't corresponded with a similar reduction in national barriers to eg migration. The US and EU are negotiating the TTIP (which I strongly support, unlike the left and UKIP here) to remove barriers and regulations preventing trade and investment. The US is also reducing international trade barriers with the TPP. However I don't believe its similarly reducing barriers to immigration - over half a million Poles had migrated to the UK at the time of the last census in 2011, it could be closer to a million now. I don't think even with TTIP the US will allow anywhere near that number. The EU has succeeded in removing barriers to trade and immigration, which is the main reason it is controversial to British racists/people who want less immigration ... most other agreements to lower trade barriers have not had similar reductions in barriers to migration.

---

Free migration of labor is critical to the functioning of a true single market, but you're right that it's possible to have free migration even without one. I just don't think that in the absence of shared culture, some level of political, fiscal, and monetary union, and common institutions that it's a good idea to have completely free migration. It is indeed possible to have too much immigration, though the US is far from that point... and a complete absence of border controls would almost certainly lead to 'too much immigration'. However, my real point is that immigration inside a tight unit like the EU - problems with integration aside - isn't really immigration at all, any more than someone moving from Dallas to Seattle is immigration.

Deeper and broader trade agreements do of course bring the US closer to this sort of political, economic, and cultural union with other countries similar to that of nations in the EU. However, mere trade liberalization stops far short of the kind of union envisaged for the EU (and what union already exists, albeit flawed). Given the strong connections with Canada, I think that free immigration from Canadian citizens sounds like a relatively sensible move. Given the much deeper differences between the US and its southern neighbors, it seems less apropos there.

There is a difference between 'reducing barriers' to immigration - which, in general, I support - and allowing free migration into the US for some arbitrarily designated grouping of countries.

Quote:

---

You mention differences like languages. There are literally over a dozen official languages alone in the EU. Whereas across North and Central America to my knowledge the key languages are basically the US and Spanish (both of which are major languages in the USA). So it should be easier to integrate. Within a mile of my house there are shops in about half a dozen different languages (not all of which are European to be fair, I get my hair cut at an Arabic barbers). Some though like the Polish market at the bottom of my road is relatively new and due to it. My town has a below-average immigration rate, though my part of town probably is at or above average.

---

Not my point at all. I mentioned languages to illustrate a problem with the EU single market and free migration zone in comparison to the benefits of relative cultural and linguistic homogeneity in the US. Internal migration in the US is relatively free and painless, allowing for deep integration and a very fluid labor market; the EU, despite lowered migration barriers, has a much less fluid market (and a much more heterogeneous culture) because of cultural and linguistic barriers. Despite the relative lack of linguistic diversity in the Americas, I still think that the deep cultural, economic, and political divide provides far more reasons to avoid free migration when compared to the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Do you think that non-EU nations near the UK should have free migration into the UK? Libya? Iceland? Ukraine? Russia? Algeria? My point is that the two cases are not analogous. Countries inside the EU are far more similar to states inside the US than Central America vs. the US. Mere geographic proximity is a poor reason to allow for free migration IMO.

---

Definitely no issue with Iceland. A few years ago you could have added Serbia, Poland, Hungary etc to that list and I supported expanding membership to each of them knowing this expanded the right to move to them. I'm in a minority in supporting expanding that to Turkey. You may have a point with Western Europe being more akin to the US States (though even in the west we're nothing like as similar) but that definitely isn't true with all of Eastern Europe.

Serbia has a GDP/capita of $6,123 in 2014 according to the IMF, which States in the US do you think are analogous to that? As far as I know the poorest State in the union is Mississippi which has roughly five times Serbia's GDP. I think you're seriously misconstruing Europe if you think it is similar to US States. We're not talking about just the UK, France and Germany here.

Quote:

---

Deeper and broader trade agreements do of course bring the US closer to this sort of political, economic, and cultural union with other countries similar to that of nations in the EU. However, mere trade liberalization stops far short of the kind of union envisaged for the EU (and what union already exists, albeit flawed). Given the strong connections with Canada, I think that free immigration from Canadian citizens sounds like a relatively sensible move. Given the much deeper differences between the US and its southern neighbors, it seems less apropos there.

---

I definitely think that Canada/USA should be no issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Definitely no issue with Iceland. A few years ago you could have added Serbia, Poland, Hungary etc to that list and I supported expanding membership to each of them knowing this expanded the right to move to them. I'm in a minority in supporting expanding that to Turkey. You may have a point with Western Europe being more akin to the US States (though even in the west we're nothing like as similar) but that definitely isn't true with all of Eastern Europe.

---

See, this is my point. You're okay with having Poland, Hungary, et al in the free migration zone now, just like you're okay with admitting Iceland now. But you're clearly uncomfortable with extending that to some countries in Eastern Europe or Northern Africa.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm guessing it's because those countries - even if they may be richer than some countries in the EU - are substantially different from EU norms. Being part of the single market in both goods and labor requires a lot of things from a country. Countries have to cut down on corruption, meet certain democratic norms, harmonize a whole lot of regulations, surrender some sovereignty on issues like fiscal policy (and 'ever closer union', not to mention the euro), etc. All of these things bind countries inside the single market (and their populace) together. That's what it means to be part of the EU - you're subsuming some of your national identity and institutions into a broader European one. And the deeper that integration, the more it makes sense to have free migration.

Iceland is an easy 'yes' for you because they're already mostly there - they have a deeply Western culture, excellent English skills, relatively clean and very democratic government, and is a long time member of the EEA (not to mention NATO). Of course you're fine with some proportion of their 300k-odd populace coming to the UK. But you (reasonably) balk at Ukraine, or Belarus, even though they are also at least nominally European. They have broken or nonexistent institutions, deeply corrupt politics with only a thin veneer of democracy, dysfunctional economies, etc.

Quote:

---

Serbia has a GDP/capita of $6,123 in 2014 according to the IMF, which States in the US do you think are analogous to that? As far as I know the poorest State in the union is Mississippi which has roughly five times Serbia's GDP. I think you're seriously misconstruing Europe if you think it is similar to US States. We're not talking about just the UK, France and Germany here.

---

I am not trying to say that the EU is in any way as deeply integrated as the United States. Even if Europe were to become a full federation, it would take a lot of time to turn into a 'United States of Europe'. As you mention, there are yawning gaps in economies and cultures. I'm arguing that even with these gaps, countries inside the EU's free migration zone are far more tightly knit on a variety of levels than countries outside the zone - just like countries in Central America are wildly different from the United States' liquid labor market.

I personally get why some people are concerned about the free movement of labor given the rapid accession of some countries to the EU without adequate preparation of their institutions or economies. This is a political decision that has little to do with what's good or bad from an economic perspective. But the reason why I think the UK should be generally open to this migration is because the tradeoff is worth it - EU membership is more or less an all-or-nothing commitment, even with some modest British carveouts. The good in EU membership far outweighs the bad IMO, and accepting a (relatively limited) number of economic migrants as part of that isn't such a bad thing. They tend to be better educated than other economic migrants (such as the well over 10 million illegal migrants in the US), aren't a significant fiscal hit (or may even be a nice boost), and help provide cheap labor for the British economy. Given the fundamentally limited size of this potential migration and the large size of the potential accepting nations, it's not a big threat. But that doesn't mean I think the US should throw open their borders, any more than I think the UK should.

I think there are really two problems here... which everyone already mentioned, mostly............

First, I think it's an open question as to whether immigration drives down wages, since in theory the global economy packages wages into goods prices.

I think the most important factor is that immigration strains public goods supply. And that I think is the crux of the matter. Why should someone have 6 kids in some godforsaken country then come to the US to have them all properly taken care of? I think Malthus is in play, until Bill Gates really gets the party started with this.