Culture

Du libre-échange et de l'immigration

Jan 11, 2019 Amar Bhidé

MEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS – Malgré la réaction actuelle d'opposition au libre-échange qui se manifeste notamment par la politique protectionniste "L'Amérique d'abord" de Donald Trump, les arguments en faveur de la libre circulation des marchandises et des services sont de poids. Il en est de même de ceux relatifs à l'immigration, la libre circulation de la main d'œuvre, mais ils sont bien plus complexes.

Pour un libertaire comme moi, les avantages du libre-échange sont évidents : les transactions volontaires entre vendeurs et acheteurs, que ce soit au niveau national ou international, bénéficient presque toujours aux deux cotés. Une réglementation peut être utile pour veiller par exemple à l'absence de dangerosité des produits entrant sur un marché, mais les barrières douanières doivent être minimes.

Par contre, il n'est pas souhaitable de limiter les échanges avec un pays pour le punir parce qu'il subventionne ses exportations ou parce que les travailleurs y sont exploités. Dans ce dernier cas, cela peut sembler justifié, mais en réalité cela prive les travailleurs du peu qu'ils gagnent et constitue pour les consommateurs un impôt injustifié et souvent régressif.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 16 Comments on this article

lalit rane Mar 7, 2019

America's opioid crisis is fueled by physicians prescribing opioid for pain relief without giving much thought for it's outcomes and how addictive it can become.

Placing all the blame of America's opioid crisis on illegal immigrant is unfair and Hippocratic. Drug smuggling happens because there is demand for it in the affected country. Instead of acknowledging this truth, if you put blame on others for opioid crisis, the problem will never saw a solution.
Instead of screwing poor people on border wall, if money is spent on making chronic pain relief and wellness services available to Americans, there will be more relief and more hiring of healthcare professionals (some of it probably from pool of migrants for keeping costs in check.)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Jan 17, 2019

If you need to find a trade term for immigration, it would be dumping, where nations sell below cost, effectively exporting unemployment. That, of course, is illegal, under WTO rules. So, should we craft WTO-type rules for migrants, allowing travel only when it's clearly agreed by all parties to be mutually beneficial?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Miron Ely Jan 13, 2019

This article does not make any sense !
Mr. Professor from Tuft must not live in real world
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Jan 13, 2019

"There is no doubt that immigration brings a host of benefits, …. to the native-born population."
The author must not have studied the subject very much.
The statement can be correct if a host country has a vacancy.
However that is not what the issue is. That is the mass immigration, the huge numbers. entering western welfare states from entirely different cultures.
They do not speak the language, have no required qualifications and have another culture.
The integration of a non-western immigrant in the EU cost on average euro 100,000.- per person.
Even when they have a paid job, they do not pay enough tax to cover the cost of the welfare facilities.
In some EU cities the number of immigrants exceed 50 %, immigrants have over 150 nationalities.
It leads to alienation, loss of cohesion, increase in crime and slow down of economic growth.
When groups of immigrants are from one culture they do not integrate anymore and parralel societies develop.
Moslims have values which are incompatible with the most basic western values.
Many do not want to integrate at all, but try to change the culture of the host country.
Often the successful immigration in the US and Canada are cited.
But they always controlled the immigrantflow, on maximum numbers and qualifications.
The EU has failed to do that and have badly damaged their societies.
- Miron Ely Jan 13, 2019
  
  Excellent comments ! I agree 100%!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hahn-June Yeon Jan 12, 2019

While individual human beings are valued as 'human capital', or 'labor force' in classic economics, the statement that "immigration – that is, the movement of labor across borders" is an oversimplification of what a human being is. Immigrants would be nothing more than a 'cleaning robot' if they only provided labor.

As the writer has pointed out, human beings, including immigrants, do not have a static economic value. Immigrants have the possibility to both innovate and destruct the society they settle down. A more careful understanding of the value of immigration is necessary. It would also be possible to issue temporary residential permissions to immigrants who do not have a specific skill or education requirements, so that they are motivated to assimilate to the local culture and also learn practical skills in order to get their visas renewed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Jan 12, 2019

It's easy to blame the unfairness of one's society on immigrants. Some work too hard, and lower wages. Others don't work enough, and consume public resources. Some get a free ride in the good schools. Others show up too educated, and complete with an unfair head start provided by the public education paid for by their country of origin. You might think these things average out? Or are just inconsistent?

Some western countries still haven't learned how to manage the toxic effects of inequality. Like the US, for instance. It amazes me that we assimilate immigration as well as we do. But some other countries, who seem too be among the more enlightened in terms of social programs and interngenerational economic mobility, also face growing nativist resentment.

So to some degree, it's universal. Still, a society with more to go around (defined as resources not hoarded by the top financial holders), that society can sustain more *growth* in numbers, whether by immigration or not. A society with major inequality problems cannot, either way. There would, of course, be variations in how the blame is distributed safely. Foreigners can usually be substituted for immigrants. Usually. Seems like at least once a century, that fails too. Then, there's no telling what will happen.

In the western world, the class of people holding anti immigrant beliefs is actually quite well off, by world standards (even despite being treated like dirt relative to higher status groups within the home country). So the desperation that would lead to a risk of wholesale revolution simply doesn't exist.

Instead, probably we're faced with blunt militarist populism. It may or may not have redistributionist components, more likely not, but depends on country. The trick, for those properly positioned, is to harness the political energy to generate positive financial returns. Will this create improvements in society? Sadly not.

Is there a reason to have immigrants anyway? Yes.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Jan 11, 2019

The European Welfare State is the enemy of mass immigration. Benefits and entitlements are very high and can easily lead to politically and economically unbearable situations that immigrants, and dependents, do not work at all for several years. Welfare benefits, and administrative overhead expenses of government agencies, including health insurance, can easily average some € 30,000.-- per person. With immigrant groups already in European countries for 30 - 40 years there is scientific evidence that several such groups do not make a positive economic contribution to the receiving country for more then a generation.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Morten Lynge Jan 11, 2019

There is a major fallacy in the argument...
"immigration – the movement of labor across borders"
In too many cases, the immigrant is not 'labor', because they have no skills the market can use!
The argument is correct for immigrants that can be used, but not for those that can't...
- Miron Ely Jan 13, 2019
  
  Not in too many cases ! 98% of the immigrants to Europe are and will remain on assistance with tax payer's money !
  They do not come here to work ! They come to get state assistance .
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/fDnSEhQfr

Du libre-échange et de l'immigration

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Du libre-échange et de l'immigration

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification