Though I know that what’s listed below is a pipedream, but I copied the best parts (Washington Post) for your review. Seems I am not the only one with these ideas:
Two years ago, the European Union admitted 10 new members. Like Mexico, all of these nations were poor, some of them fairly backward and most recently ravaged by war and communist dictatorship.
To deal with the situation, the leaders of the European Union wisely created policies for fostering regional economic and political integration that make efforts such as the North American Free Trade Agreement “look timid and halfhearted by comparison,” according to Bernd Westphal, consul general of Germany.
Europe realized it had to prevent a “giant sucking sound” of businesses and jobs relocating from the 15 wealthier nations to the 10 poorer ones. It also had to foster prosperity and the spread of a middle class in these emerging economies and prevent an influx of poor workers to the richer nations.
So for starters it gave the new states massive subsidies — billions of dollars’ worth — to help construct schools, roads, telecommunications and housing, thus making these nations more attractive for business investment. The idea was to raise up the emerging economies rather than let the advanced economies be dragged down. It was expensive, but the result has been a larger economic union in which a rising tide floats all boats.
In return the 10 poorer nations had to agree to raise their standards on the environment, labor law, health and safety — and more. The incentive of admission to the European club was used as a carrot to pull the poorer nations toward acceptance of human rights and political democracy. There won’t be any border maquiladoras in the European Union.
Worker migration still is regulated. Immigrants will be carefully integrated so as to cause the least amount of disruption to the developed economies, with the goal of having open borders within a decade or two.
This bold yet carefully planned E.U. approach suggests the direction that policy between the United States and Mexico should take. Increasingly the demands of the global economy will push North American regional integration out of the realm of a shadow economy and flawed free trade agreement. But what might such an American-Mexican union look like?
It would start with massive subsidies from the United States to Mexico, a Tex-Mex Marshall Plan, with the goal of decreasing disparities on the Mexican side of the border and fostering a climate riper for investment. This would create more jobs in Mexico and foster a middle class, homeownership and better schools, roads and health care. Fewer Mexicans would then want to emigrate north. Instead, they’d stay home, becoming consumers of U.S. products.
Not trying to criticize the whole idea, just 2 concerns:
1. Would you want to have a single country of US-Mexico? Because, that’s what EU is about.
2. A similar plan history between Eastern and Western Germany has a 15 year history. It is not very successful – German economy is in bad shape. Former Eastern Germany has a 20%+ unemployment, etc., in spite of excellent autobahns, fastest possible communication lines and so on.
My point – one has to be really careful with subsidies.
The Mexican government will never go for it because the remitances sent home by migrants in the US far outstrip the aid we do (and could) provide the country.
Mexico is MUCH harsher on illegals than we are (la policia shaken down people from central america is common- so is sexual assualt by the police of female migrants. And they are considered felons in mexico.
Maybe what we should do is make Mexico have immigration law parity with ours. Then Mexico can take illegals from central america while we take them from mexico. Think about it- if you had to go somewhere to work- wouldn’t you rather go to a country where the language and basic culture was the same.
The EU offer came with economic and social strings attached. The EU could demand these because (as dilettante has commented), the deal was political, not just economic, union.
If the Mexican government and its elites would consent to running a cleansing firehose through several levels of Mexican society (letting the detritus flow downhill from the top), I would be fine sending tax dollars as well as the balance of payments damaging remittances already being sent by the immigrants.
Unfortunately, the issue is largely academic, as illegal emmigration from Mexico to the US offers a nice escape valve for an otherwise disaffected populace that could learn from Chiapas and cause problems if they were forced to stay home. Also academic is the (lack of) availability of any US foreign aid when our own cupboard is bare, thanks to reckless mismanagement by the current “deciders”.
As far as subsidies: we pay them already in the funds (paid through taxes) that go to immigrants, illegal or not. but the way we do it now is less controlled, more of a fashion that encourgages illegal activities
RQ:
This is the point from jump! We are not likely to be able to contain immigration, but I don’t think we should accept Mexico’s problems if they are unwilling to deal with theirs.
I think that soon more light will be shined on Mexico’s role in our immigration pas de duex.
Ironically, doing nothing is the worst possible solution. Sitting on our hands and deciding not to decide has turned an annoyance into a major issue. Holding the present line only invites further escalation.
so we can push for regime change, b/c we MIGHT get control of Iraq’s oil. But when it comes to reducing the impact poor management of a neighboring country has on us, we just sit on our hands.
I think most Americans don’t realize what Mexico does in regard to immigration. If they did, the outcry would be much different.
Believe me, if we had politicians with cahonhes (or ovaries) we could pressure those to the south of our border to reform. But, alas both ruling elite are in bed with one another!
I know its academic, but it should at least change perspective