A Global Rio Grande? Unpacking a 21st Century Paradox
Click here for a PDF of this piece
Governments on both sides of the North Atlantic grapple with what is commonly referred to as a ‘migration problem’. It is not difficult to understand why. Almost daily, the mass media recounts stories of Sub-Saharan Africans migrating on flimsy boats from North Africa to Spain or of the rapidly increasing unauthorized Mexican population in the United States, to list just two examples. These emotionally-charged stories illustrate migration’s growing salience in the mass media, highlighting the perception of migrant ‘invaders’ as a threat to indigenous languages, values, demographics, homes, and perhaps most importantly, jobs. Policymakers have responded to such fears by prioritizing migration as a ‘problem’ to be resolved. Yet the perception of a ‘migration problem’ underscores a widespread confusion. Migration is an effect to an alternate set of causes that includes global labor market integration. To resolve the ‘migration problem’, policymakers must address not migration itself, but rather the socioeconomic conditions that cause so many millions of migrants to walk or swim North.
As the grandson of Italian migrants to Argentina and the son of Argentinean migrants to the United States, my family history is firmly rooted in the transformative role that destination countries play in creating welcoming and even empowering environments for migrants. Raised in California and as a graduate student now living in London, I can make several observations regarding migration as it impacts countries on both sides of the North Atlantic. First, migration is the most human manifestation of globalization. Second, migration represents a paradox to the governments of migrant-receiving countries, since migrants are in many cases both needed and unwanted. Third, this migration paradox can only be addressed by first creating a new covenant of shared values between the migrant-receiving North and the migrant-sending South.
Migration is the most human manifestation of globalization. After World War II, Europe and America came together to recognize the need for global economic institutions, reduced trade barriers and greater cross-border trade. There remains a broad consensus around the thesis that economic interdependence inhibits cross-border conflict. However, this view has been challenged in recent years as integrated labor markets have promoted massive migration flows, threatening communities and generating discontent in both the North and South. In hindsight, we observe that most trade agreements left labor migration off the negotiating table. Many policymakers either did not anticipate or were in denial that globalization would trigger the high levels of migration witnessed today. Indeed, globalization has accelerated economic activity throughout the world and along with it the movement of labor demand across geographies. Many governments of migrant-sending countries have been unable to save jobs that have moved elsewhere. This transformation from self-sufficient domestic labor markets to integrated international labor markets, combined with aging populations in migrant-receiving countries on both sides of the North Atlantic, has generated a powerful demand for millions of migrants from the South.
The massive South to North flow of unauthorized migrants today is a challenge to governments attempting to enforce the sanctity of their national borders. Migration, at its core, involves people and families. Managing the movement of people is not quite as clear cut as managing the movement of goods produced in China or India and sold elsewhere. Migrants are not easy to move around or deport. Migrants create linkages with communities and develop social capital. Migrants do not immediately respond to changes in migration policies such as quota restrictions or temporary guest worker programs; as the saying goes, “there is nothing more permanent than a temporary guest worker.” Fundamentally, this human manifestation of globalization has generated significant challenges that governments must address.
In fact, the ‘migration problem’ facing American and European governments is more accurately labeled a ‘migration paradox’. Migration presents a paradox to governments forced to balance an economic logic of open borders with a sociopolitical logic of closed borders. In other words, migrants are both needed by domestic economies and unwanted by those same societies. Migrants are needed because of a declining domestic labor force unable to meet the increased demand for workers. Migrants are unwanted because of xenophobia, heightened by a mass media that characterizes migration as a threat and a drain on public resources, with no mention or explanation of the causes behind their presence.
This migration paradox has sharpened significantly early in the 21st century, particularly in the wake of terrorist attacks by migrants in New York, Madrid and London. Politicians concerned with re-elections advocate very public shows of border control, like commissioning patrol boats in the Strait of Gibraltar or a fence on the U.S./Mexico border, regardless of their effectiveness. These policy efforts contrast starkly with the continued flow of unauthorized migrants into North America and Europe. Any slowdown in unauthorized migration is not likely to be the result of border control efforts, but a reflection of slowed labor demand growth in destination countries. Today, governments continue to address the migration paradox with policies that largely fail to mitigate the inflow of migrants, but instead reinforce unauthorized migrants’ capacity to enter and work in destination countries as illegitimate members of society.
This status quo is not healthy for citizens or migrants alike. The friendly reception that my parents and grandparents experienced in their destination countries does not appear to be on offer in either America or Europe early in this century. Migrants live in the shadows in many destination countries, often finding themselves in a legal limbo, unable to access basic government services while their children face limited educational and career prospects. Yet migrants are not alone. Citizens also face significant uncertainties about their futures. Many citizens grapple with increasingly competitive labor markets, their jobs at risk of moving overseas. Citizens also face a worrisome middle class squeeze, as costs of living rise while incomes stagnate. These uncertainties faced by migrants and domestic citizens alike are unsustainable.
The Rio Grande is a shallow river that marks much of the geographical border between the United States and Mexico. But it also represents the metaphorical border between the South and North: between unemployment and employment, between a life of poverty and a life of economic and educational opportunity. This metaphorical border, or Global Rio Grande, which extends from California to the Strait of Gibraltar and across the Mediterranean Sea, should not be the legacy we leave to future generations. The migration paradox troubling governments today demands that a new generation of Americans and Europeans work together to develop a covenant of shared values between the South and North. As citizens, we must push our governments to promote policies that protect all children and families, tolerate and promote diversity, and define a new nationalism flexible enough to cope with fast-changing demographics. But, following the maxim that great power brings great responsibility, the North must take the lead in the creation of this new covenant.
| 
