http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/s ... 7831c.html

Daniel Weintraub: Open borders - and open economies - on both sides
By Daniel Weintraub -- Bee Columnist
Published 2:15 am PDT Thursday, May 4, 2006
One image that caught my eye in the coverage of pro-immigration demonstrations across the nation Monday was a picture of a large, colorful banner from a protest in Seattle. Its message was not particularly original. "Open the Borders," it declared. But then I looked at the smaller print that named the banner's sponsors, and that got me thinking.
They were identified as the Latino Liberation Movement, the Freedom Socialist Party, Radical Women and Colectivo Ixmucane.

Leftists all, obviously. But their dream - open borders - is one that is also shared by libertarians. And if the socialists and the libertarians, groups that span the ideological spectrum and probably agree on almost nothing else, can agree on one of the most contentious issues of our day, perhaps in that overlap of interests there lies a seed that could one day blossom into a consensus.

It might seem preposterous in this era of rising xenophobia to talk about open borders. But maybe the best way to end the immigration debate is to end immigration as we know it - and all the restrictions that go along with it.

The problem with the open borders argument until now is that it has always been one-way, a valve that allows people to travel north but not south. What if Mexico and the United States instead agreed not only to end restrictions on travel, but also to wipe out all current limits on what the people crossing those borders could do once they got where they were going?

Under this kind of arrangement, Mexicans and U.S. citizens would be free to live wherever they liked and to work for whomever they wanted. They could buy and sell property in either place, own businesses and invest.

From a position in support of individual liberty, it is difficult to accept the idea that a person born in Tijuana should be prohibited from living and working in San Diego if someone wants to rent or sell him a home and give him a job.

Easing restrictions on migration also would be good for the economy. As with trade and technology, freeing the movement of people and workers would make businesses more productive, helping just about everyone in the long term.

Open borders might lead to slightly lower wages for U.S. citizens now doing unskilled labor. But the greater economic growth would eventually lift all boats by creating more jobs. And opening up Mexico with more economic freedom - real Latino liberation, you might say - would also help improve the entire continent's economic prospects, reducing the motivation people have to migrate in the first place.

So what's the problem with the idea? Other than racism, which no one will cop to, and security, which would still have to be dealt with, the most salient issue is the welfare state. Many in the United States legitimately fear that our schools and social services would be overwhelmed by Mexicans moving here to take advantage of our system.

But that seems like an issue that could be finessed. Again, reciprocity might be the answer. We could make Mexican nationals eligible for benefits here at the same rate they could get them in their native land, or at the same level U.S. citizens could receive if they went south. Or, as part of the open borders agreement, both countries could commit to reimbursing the other for any documented net costs of health, education and welfare of the migrants who moved from one place to the other.

Besides, the social cost of immigration would be reduced if all immigrants could work legally. They would be less likely to work under the table because there would be no need to hide their presence.

Thus, they would be paying more taxes and be even more likely than today to pay their own way. The government could also save money by eliminating the Border Patrol, and those funds could be shifted, if need be, to pay for services.

Even if the concept of open borders is unacceptable to the political mainstream, the idea might still prove useful as a framework for moving the immigration debate forward. The principle of reciprocity - demanding that Mexico treat U.S. nationals there with the same respect Mexicans expect here, and give them the same rights - seems like a good place to start. Its fundamental fairness might help to break down the resistance on the political right to increased immigration.

Another idea would be a very liberal guest worker program with built-in provisions for special taxes that could be collected and set aside to improve benefits for U.S. citizens who are disadvantaged by the competition from foreign labor. The effect would be twofold, making the higher cost of U.S. workers more competitive while also compensating those whose wages might still be reduced by the increased size of the labor market.

Maybe the socialists and the libertarians are onto something here: The only way we are ever going to find a solution to the immigration issue is to change the way we think about the problem.


About the writer:
The Bee's Daniel Weintraub can be reached at (916) 321-1914 or at dweintraub@sacbee.com. Readers can see his daily Weblog at www.sacbee.com/insider