❇️TRUMP’S ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PLAN: OPENING GAMBIT IN A TOUGH NEGOTIATION? ✨

❇️ TRUMP's ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PLAN:
OPENING GAMBIT IN A TOUGH NEGOTIATION? ✨




On Sunday, August 16, 2015, the author of the "Art of the Deal," Donald J. Trump, placed upon the table, his proposal to deal with the chaos illegal immigration has become in the United States. 

No surprise, it instantly became one of the leading topics in the media. Also no surprise, it has unleashed a lot of sentiment and resentment - some of it quite visceral - and has been dismissed out-of-hand as impractical by many.

Tough Proposal, Opening Gambit?

No question about it. It is certainly a very, very tough, tough proposal. So tough, it begs to be treated as an opening gambit - after all, it is important to keep in mind that the proponent of the proposal, is a leading negotiator - in what promises to be a very heavy-duty, but very necessary, debate on the subject, which will hopefully lead to sound and workable solutions. 

A Big Plus of the Trump Proposal

Because of the sensitive nature of the problem, the issue of illegal immigration has become as toxic as kryptonite, while the combustible mix of all the different interests of the multiple stakeholders in the issue, is poised to explode. So if Trump is now causing the issue to be frontline and center of the debate and the elections, that is a good thing. Indeed, addressing the problem has long, long been overdue.

This post will not address all the points raised by the Trump proposal; it will, however, provide reflections on the issue from a big picture, geopolitical/geoeconomic point of view.

The Stakeholders

With respect to the problem posed by the illegal immigration, who exactly has skin in the game? It is suggested, that the following are the key stakeholders:

1. At a country level, the United States, Mexico, and all other countries of origin of illegal immigrants (e.g. China, and Central American countries, among others);

2. American Citizens - especially minorities and those on the lower economic rungs, whose unemployment rates remain sky high;

3. American companies and other employers of illegal immigrants;

4. Illegal immigrants already living and working in the United States.

To reach a win-win solution, the interests of all need to be considered - especially given the intractable nature of the problem and its geopolitical and geoeconomics repercussions.

The Context

In good economies, there is tolerance. Conversely, in a faltering economy, where jobs are hard to find - especially good-paying jobs - tolerance starts to run very low to nil, and resentment very high against those perceived as having no right to even be in the country in the first place. 

The Obama "recovery" has been the most anemic recovery of modern times. Since 2008, jobs have been scarce. While the unemployment rate appears to have gone down, it is mostly due to millions of people withdrawing from the labor market after failing to find a job for an extended period of time. Competition for jobs is fierce, with many having to make do with various part-time jobs to survive. 

In the scale of stresses, not finding a job - especially for a prolonged period of time - ranks right up there as one of the top stressors in life. No wonder, then, American citizens are feeling aggrieved.

Trapped in No-Man's Land

Two additional historical factors have also intervened to aggravate the situation and stir the cauldron: (1) the termination of the temporary worker program, thanks to the effective lobbying of the unions; and (2) the exponential increase in the flow of illegal immigrants, especially from Central American countries fighting civil wars. At one point, it was said that half of San Salvador's entire population had emigrated to the United States.

With the subsequent hardening of the U.S. immigration laws, migrants who worked on seasonal jobs, used to moving freely between the U.S. and their countries of origin after completing their jobs, could no longer do so, ending up essentially trapped - as it were - in the United States, in a shadowy limbo of citizens without a country. Understandably, they wish to come out of the shadows. 

Along the same vein, those who give them jobs would much prefer not to end up being classified as criminals just for giving someone a job - especially when they can't find people to fill their job openings.

BUT Then There is The Rule of Law

The United States became the No. 1 economic and political power in the world because it was founded - and governed- upon the principle of the rule of law.

Indeed, a study has shown that the rule of law is key to the development of any country. The more firmly the rule of law is rooted, the higher the level of development - and vice-versa.

Moreover, the rule of law is akin to being pregnant: you either are, or you aren't. There is no such thing as being "a little bit pregnant." Similarly, a country either follows the rule of law or it doesn't.

Thus, once you start allowing breaches to the rule of law, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to quicksand. In that regard, jumping over the border might be considered a minor infraction. Unfortunately, that minor infraction then cascades progressively into ever greater infractions, until the very Constitution becomes no more than a suggested point of reference: identity theft; those who hire undocumented workers, in turn become criminals under the law; sanctuary cities brazenly flaunt federals laws; the laws themselves are illegally selectively enforced, until you go all the way up to executive orders which fly in the face of the separation of powers, a key tenet of the U.S. Constitution.

Thus, the very concept upon which illegal immigration is predicated, ends up corrupting an entire system - and as a corollary, puts American lives in danger, as has been reported in recent weeks.

However, for the rule of law to work, it needs to be based on ergonomic laws and a regulatory framework that address the needs of the citizenry. In the immigration field, they are sorely lacking, and have been lacking for a long time now.

The Pull-Push Factor

In addition, the very potent economic pull-push factor must be addressed if there is any hope at all of finding a viable win-win solution for all stakeholders: the pull of jobs in the United States, coupled with the push of the lack of jobs/security in their countries of origin. And that's where the Trump plan is lacking.

Sending 11,000,000+ back to their countries of origin, is untenable. Beyond the cost, the sheer logistics, and time, needed to achieve it, sending so many "home," presents the following problems:

1. It would have an enormous destabilizing effect across the entire American continent.

United States. In the United States, if it doesn't collapse, the economy could be severely impacted. Middle-term it might open up jobs for Americans, but short-term, it definitely would inflict a lot of pain across entire sectors of the economy, and many businesses would have to close their doors, causing a downward spiral. 

Though it may sound like a cliché, the fact remains that there are jobs - especially in agriculture - Americans won't take practically at any price. One company tried to hire Americans for the back-breaking work of picking the harvest, only to have them quit after a couple of days because it did indeed prove to be back-breaking. Another small contractor tried desperately to find help to install its acoustical panels. No luck. It had to recur to hiring undocumented workers. These examples are replicated many times over.

On the other hand, 11,000,000+ individuals - undocumented or not - because of their sheer number, can't help but heighten the competition for jobs. Their undocumented status also makes them ripe for abuses in the amount they are paid - definitely pushing salaries down . . . all of which particularly affects minorities and those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

Countries of Origin. Still, the countries of origin could not peacefully assimilate so many people coming back. There is a reason why their citizens have migrated north putting their very lives at risk in the first place. The lack of jobs could tip some of those countries back into civil war. At the very least, the insecurity - which in some countries has already reached dangerous levels and is the cause of the more recent waves of immigrants - would increase even more.

With all the problems it already has all over the world, it is not in the interest of the United States to also have an unstable Latin America at its doors - not to mention having to deal with all the broken relations with important neighbors sharing the same continent, especially at a time China is eyeballing the region as a strategic enclave.

2. Realpolitik. The huge upheaval of sending 11,000,000+ people  back to their countries of origin only to bring some of them back through the proper channels and the "open door for legal immigrants in Trump’s wall," sounds great for rule-of-law purposes, but not for the realpolitik and the humanistic aspects of the situation. Especially when you factor in the constitutional and logistical complexities of families with children who are American citizens - which practically guarantees the intervention of the courts.

Thus, while always open to other suggestions, it would appear that a solution needs to be found to deal with the 11,000,000+ - or at least a great number of them - in situ.

In that regard, those who feel that, having broken the law to enter the country, illegal immigrants should not be rewarded, certainly have a point. It does send the wrong message, as was proved in 1986, by granting amnesty to some 3,000,000 illegal immigrants with the understanding that it would be the last time, and that the border would be reenforced to block future flows of illegal entrants into the country. Yet, there are now more than 11,000,000+ undocumented migrants in the country. 

However, the fact is that the 11,000,000+ entered the country thanks to a broken system, and - like it or not - not only do they now live and work in the U.S., but, as noted previously, many also have children born in the U.S., who are consequently American citizens. 

Clearly, something needs to be done to prevent them from continuing to be walking violations of law, which cause ever more violations by others. Further, long-term it is simply unsustainable to have an underclass of people living in the shadows, not allowing them access to healthcare or schooling, etc. or it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy that they will become the fount of health situations, gangs, etc.

Sooo they should not ever be given American citizenship. But, maybe - if they have been otherwise law-abiding citizens - they should be given some sort of status that would bring them out of the shadows. The latter could also have the salutary effect of raising wages, as they would then have to be paid at market rates. In addition, some sort of a  temporary worker program needs to be reinstated to allow migrants to return voluntarily to their countries of origin when their seasonal work is done.

From there it is clear that to prevent the cauldron from boiling over, the flow of illegal entrants needs to be stemmed. In that regard, various solutions are being proposed not only by Trump, but other candidates. However,  one solution not at the forefront is that conditions in the countries of origin need to be improved to prevent the incentives that cause people to emigrate in the first instance. Those countries need - and strongly need to be encouraged - to generate economic growth and eradicate their insecurity. Indeed, all countries involved - including the United States - need to spur economic growth instead of throttling it with public policies that spawn ever more regulations that make it difficult to create wealth and jobs across the board.

The Wall

As for the wall - with its "lovely door" to allow legal immigrants into the United States, the latter has a legitimate interest in protecting its border as it considers most pertinent, especially from non-economic migrants. 

Having said that, insisting Mexico pay for it, needs to take into account that Mexico, along with Canada and China, is one of the United States' most important commercial partners - the 3rd, in fact. Among other things, Mexico is one of the largest sources of travelers and tourism to the United States. In 2010, Mexicans spent US$163 billion dollars on American goods. Indeed, Mexicans spend a higher proportion of their income on American products than any other export market in the world.

It also ignores that the purpose of the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA") was to create a more competitive region vis-a-vis other economic regional blocks (think Asia, European Union) - a sort of North America, Inc., where there would be competitive enhancing "production-sharing" among the three countries.

To put it mildly; indeed, it is a massive understatement to state that Mexicans south of the border, aren't exactly happy with Trump's pronouncements at the moment, and that does not bode well for maintaining a healthy commercial relationship that benefits both countries. . . 

The Next Round

Be that as it may, we now have Trump's first salvo on the subject of illegal immigration. His proposal contains many other points which will surely be debated by the candidates and society at large, and distilled throughout the process. In that respect, Trump is an artful negotiator, and it will be interesting to see what his next move will be.

In the meantime, he is certainly sending a strong message to all would-be illegal immigrants: don't even think about it, because you will be instantly deported should I become President - and, for better or for worse, some commentators are already saying that the chances of that happening are starting to look pretty good.

ACEPUNDIT

@ACEPUNDITRY