Solution to America's Economic Woes Is Immigration?
By Staff News & Analysis - May 13, 2011

The low-hanging fruit across the border … President Obama (left) visited America's border with Mexico to remind us all that there are plenty of growth opportunities out there waiting to be plucked. The president is, at long last, renewing his call for immigration reform, including creation of a path to citizenship for the country's undocumented immigrants … The case is strong on the merits. – The Economist

Dominant Social Theme: It a simple and logical formula. America has many empty houses and office buildings and Mexico has plenty of people that would fill them. Open up the borders! Problem solved!

Free-Market Analysis: The Economist magazine has finally reached the nadir of its unnecessary existence. In a column entitled "Economics/Free Exchange" the newspaper of the power elite actually suggests that "at a time when America is concerned about excess housing supply … it is madness that so many willing immigrants find it impossible to gain permission to work in the country on a stable, long term basis." We had to read the sentence twice because the first time it seemed like something of out of a high-school sophomore's economic book report.

The statement is ludicrous in its simplicity and naïve in its assumption. It seems to postulate – hell it flatly states – that America's housing glut can be cured by letting Mexicans (the implied "immigrants) flood across the border to help the US "innovate" its way back to a healthy economic situation.

How this is to be accomplished isn't clear but the article is hazily optimistic that "there are huge potential utility gains to letting more willing workers enter rich economies."

Notice the buzz word "utility." Somewhere, lurking in the background like "Nellie" the Loch Ness monster is some sort of strange Keynesian analysis. Actually, this isn't the only paragraph where it rears its terrible head. The article has many other incoherent sentiments to suggest. Here's another: "We should support free immigration to the greatest extent possible based on liberal principles alone. People should be free to move and choose their own destiny. Governments shouldn't interfere with the right to immigrate any more than is necessary and certainly not to satisfy the nativist demands of unhappy citizens."

"Liberal principles?" The anonymous author doesn't make clear whether it is "classical" liberal sentiments being referred to or modern democratic liberal ones. And then this: "Nativist" demands of citizens. What snooty language. So being protective of one's property and national boundaries is "nativist." It sounds a bit like a swear word in this context, but we're not sure that's so.

In fact, if one follows libertarian logic through to its sensible conclusions (and avoids Georgist arguments), those that live on the land and work it should own it or at least occupy it. This leaves little room for immigrants unless they either have a bankroll and can live without working or have a prospective business or employer that will allow them to earn a living wage. The article doesn't really deal with these points, though it makes other somewhat strange arguments. Here's some more:

The lump of labour fallacy is seductive, and in times of economic hardship it becomes very difficult to convince people that more competition for scarce jobs will make their lives better. Here again it is clear that weak labour markets are the enemy of liberalism, and those concerned for the future of free markets should do what they can to alleviate that weakness. But immigrants are people and they deserve a chance to move to maximise the return to their skills.

When an immigrant moves to a rich country, that increases his or her welfare and boosts the productive potential of that country, which is good for everyone. Historically, relatively open immigration rules have been both a sign of and a source of national strength. If America can return to a more open past, the prospects for its economy will be considerably enhanced.

This fine blather is exactly why the Economist is unnecessary. Masquerading as free-market vehicle, it trots out all the Adamite arguments about the invisible hand, etc., while ignoring the most inconvenient and important economic fact of all: the modern economy is a central banking one that runs on fiat money.

America is not ruined because it has ceased to innovate or because it does not have enough immigrants "innovating." America is ruined (and it is) because its central banking system has turned a vital economy into a centralized one, full of rigid regulations and a boom-bust cycle that regularly destroys the small businesses of its entrepreneurs.

First the monetary system has to be fixed. Arguing that open borders are morally correct and economically imperative simply ignores the larger problems of the US's sclerotic financial system – the regulations, taxes and fiat money surges that have undermined what was once the world's leading economy, post World War II.

It is an impressive take down. It only took the Anglo-American elites a half century to turn the breadbasket of the world into a basket case. Why would they want to do so? Because these elites are fanatically focused on installing global governance and having prosperous and healthy nation states (Western or otherwise) is not in their best interest. The bigger and more powerful the economy, the more they seek to undermine it.

It is an ambition, we surmise, which has its nexus in the City of London and its main allies in Israel and America. And ironically while Israel struggles to maintain its "Jewish" identity, America is being encouraged to open its borders by elite mouthpieces such as the Economist. The argument is dishonest not only because it does not acknowledge the real problems America is facing but because it does not mention the North American Union that has been so controversial in the States.

The North American Union – long denied by the elites like everything else including their desire for a global currency – is a planned union between the US, Mexico and Canada. The political planning for the union goes back to Ronald Reagan but it was most aggressively pursued by George W. Bush who signed a number of startling "cooperative" agreements with Canada and Mexico.

As a final parting gift (as if he had not done enough to ruin the country) Bush tried to ram through an immigration policy that would basically have set up a guest worker program in the US. His base deserted him and Bush ended up taking the stance of an injured "prophet before his time." He was no such thing of course. He was just another manipulated pooh-bah (albeit a warmongering sociopath) helping to implement a variety of policies intended to lubricate the path for world government.

Enter President Barack Obama who spent his first two years further bankrupting the US with a variety of "stimulus" packages and a socialist health care bill that the US government is preparing to enforce by arming IRS agents. Fresh from his legislative "victories," Obama has turned his attention to immigration and – surprise – has picked up where his predecessor has left off, advocating open borders and a general recognition of Mexican workers as quasi-American citizens.

The Economist article argues for open borders and open immigration as a boon to economic vitality. But the problems America faces have nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with the ruinous economic system that its elites have foisted upon it. Additionally, immigration is not being promoted for free-market reasons but to further vitiate American democracy and to pave the way for a North American Union that will create a further stepping-stone to world government in much the same manner as the European Union.

After Thoughts

In fact, The Economist has it right: A Libertarian world would see far freer immigration, so long as immigrants could afford to pay their way. But as with almost everything else the Economist publishes, the article leaves out the deeper salient points that make its points meretricious in the extreme. By leaving out so much, the article ends up as a kind of elite promotion – of a dominant social theme that will further weaken what is left of American culture – rather than a serious or logical argument. What else would you expect from the Round Table crowd?