No remittances without representation!

Sir, you write “Poor government plagues Central America”, “Central America needs a bold gesture from the US”, FT April 22.Those migrants who often see no choice in life than to depart, with their family remittances produced their efforts far away from home, too often only help to keep in power those who caused them to depart.

An ambitious process such as that one referred to by FT, requires time to acquire political feasibility, and moments of sharp internal divisions might not be the best moment to find it.

In this respect I argue that to help the migrants acquire much more political representation in their homelands, would be a better place to start.

And the migrants sure have economic ammunition they could use. For some of these countries the GDP they help generate in e.g., USA, is larger than the whole GDP registered in their respective homeland.

What a splendid moment for an America Union!

Sir when reading Martin Wolf’s “A year of living dangerously for the world’s economy” July 16, and seeing him speculate that in terms of government indebtedness the US could soon look like Italy, I cannot help but thinking about what a particularly splendid moment it would be for the announcement of an American Union between the US, Canada and Central America.

Analyzing these countries you see how well they complement each other in economic terms and so the worst thing that could happen for the US now would be to build borders and shrink their GDP numerator just when the check arrives with a high debt denominator.

'American Union' passports could work

Published in FT, April 10, 2006

Sir, It is sad in today’s globalized world to still find so many local Americans who believe that when they ship a criminal band member over the border, to someone much less resourceful, they have gotten rid of their problem.

In this respect, Jacob Weisberg, ("Immigration ideas bordering on perverse”, April 6), aghast with the current ideas on immigration law reform in the US, proposes not passing any reforms but to keep going as if nothing’s happening.

Another more transparent route would be to bite the bullet and accept that an “American Union” between North and Central America already exists, de-facto, and issue a common passport for all the citizens of the enlarged American Union.

Such a strategy would make it possible for many of the over 11 million illegal immigrants that dare not leave the US because they do not know whether they can later return, to be freed from their (also de-facto) mother of all jails, and go home, even on a temporary basis.

It would also help to realize that had the US spent an Iraq-war sized budget assisting Central America, as the European Union did with Spain and others, the whole immigration debate could have been a moot issue, with exception perhaps of all the aging baby boomers moving south to find care and services.

Finally, the fact is that when you see how all the Central Americans toil away in the US and help their families back home, you have to ask yourself whether this is not just part of the process whereby the US manages to renew its working and family ethics, in order to remain strong.

PS. A letter in the Washington Post: How many of those governments not wanting to have their emigrants move back to their homeland, feel so because they do not want to renounce the family remittances that helps to keep them in power?

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2009/09/mcprison.html

https://voiceandnoise.blogspot.com/2003/02/snowing-in-washington-my-first.html

A de-facto USA enlargement

When we read that in the greater Washington metropolitan area alone, there already are 550.000 persons who come from El Salvador, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the Central American countries are already a de-facto part of an extended USA Commonwealth. Put another way, the USA—surreptitiously perhaps—has gone through its own European-style enlargement. This demographic fact shows that the current debate in the USA on immigration reform could benefit by being split into two parts: immigration reform as such; and a debate about some laws and regulations affecting cohabitation in a commonwealth. Doing so would allow urgent reforms to proceed more constructively and keep the debates from being taken hostage by extreme proposals like building new Maginot Lines or Berlin Walls.

Not long ago, some enemies of the recently negotiated CAFTA agreement started spreading rumors that, through it, the United States had accepted conditions that in effect bypassed current immigration laws. This is not true, far from it. However, perhaps the CAFTA negotiations were indeed the perfect opportunity to start open and transparent discussions about what I call the de-facto enlargement of the USA. As it is, trying to look for solutions to some huge but still quite particular problems through a general immigration law is really picking the wrong instrument of change.

By the way, if I were a truly desperate builder of a wall to surround the United States, looking at the map, I would perhaps have to settle with some water barriers such as the Bering Strait and the Panama Canal.

Sent to Washington Post, April 2005, destiny unknown

migration Cafta border