Read this fantastic post over at Salon’s How the World Works

One year ago, in the run-up to the French referendum on a proposed
constitution of the European Union, much was made of the “specter” of “the Polish plumber.” In a Europe with ever-fewer restrictions on worker movement, so the theory went, a horde of cheap Polish plumbers would descend upon France (or England, or Germany) and wreak havoc on existing wage structures.

This is one reason that after the accession of the so-called A8 central and eastern European countries in 2004, only three “old E.U.” nations, the U.K., Ireland, and Sweden, placed no restrictions at all on worker migration from the new E.U. members. But last week, four more, Greece, Finland, Spain and Portugal, possibly convinced by a fleet of studies opining that the economies of the U.K. and Ireland had benefited from the influx of new workers, if there was any visible effect at all, opened up their borders. Germany and Austria, which, not coincidentally, have historically been the most popular destinations for workers from eastern Europe, are still keeping a tight grip on inward migration.

For us, NAFTA and similar trade agreements we supposed to help us compete against the EU- whose population and GDP are quickly outpacing us. But NAFTA is only trade, not labor or social policy.

The main argument for both sides is that, historically speaking, every previous expansion of the E.U. has not resulted in an overwhelming rush of workers from poor to rich countries, because the benefits of membership have helped to boost
the economies of the new entrants so much that people find it more attractive to
stay home.

So maybe our real solution to immigration is to create a real alliance between Canada, Mexico and the US that includes immigration and social policy. Mexico would be required to create a less corrupt bureaucracy, the US would have to institute universal healthcare, and Canada could increase it’s population and tax base. I know I’m about to say something heretical- but maybe we should be the United States of North America. Each country would still retain it’s national identity (I think we can all acknowledge that the UK is not France) yet would benefit from a huge population and resource base. Mexico would increase its standard of living, which would increase the number of people who can afford to buy our products and decrease the number of people who need to come to this country to support their families.