If “the border” informs your thoughts about immigration, then your mind is wandering. Seriously, how often have you crossed the border (on foot, no less) to go to work in or visit any other city, state, or country?
Which is why the immigration debate is so ridiculous and sad. Some in the debate are said to be for “open borders,” others are said to be for “secure borders” with a very wide entrance for “legal” entrees, and still others are for “closing the border.” President Trump is famously on the “closing the border” side but has interestingly won praise from more market liberal places of opinion such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page for his success in clearing a border that had become chaotic under his White House predecessor. Not asked enough is why so much talk about the border in the first place.
A more reasonable question would be why anyone would cross the “southern border” or any border to get into the United States to visit or work to begin with. Why wouldn’t they just fly? Too Marie Antoinette for you? Think again. By all accounts the cost of paying a “Coyote” to potentially fail in helping a would-be worker or visitor cross the border into the U.S. is quite a bit less than the cost (a quick look on aa.com indicated $620 one from Mexico City to Dallas, for instance) of flying. Which is telling.
It’s a reminder that markets are not being allowed to work on the matter of workers and/or visitors from central America coming to the United States. See the endless mention of “the border.” Which is the problem. The immigration discussion is stuck in an era that predates the first railroads, or much worse.
Say it again that the very notion of people beginning their American visit or work journey speaks to big, inefficient, invariably armed government. Where the irony grows can be found in the support of “border security” by supposedly limited government conservatives and libertarians. What a costly, failed waste.
To see why, contemplate the stance taken by the “close the border” crowd: they want non-criminals to get in line. Ok, the line part is the easy one when government substitutes itself for the market when it comes to the entrance of visitors and workers. But consider it more expansively.
Consider what happens if work is simply made legal. And to throw a bone to members of the right who don’t quite trust markets, how about we let government process the names of those coming here to legally work.
If so, the borders are cleared in one fell swoop. Really, who in their right mind would walk into another country when they could fly or drive? Travel costs? Judging by the remittances from Mexicans working stateside ($63 billion in 2023 alone), American employers would be more than willing to not just fly them to where they’re needed, but also perhaps help with housing. Visitors overstaying their visas? No problem. Either they’ve got lots of money, or they’ll be working too.
The main thing is that the “border” discussion insults the immigration discussion regardless of your view of immigration. If work is legal, a much smaller number of criminals would still attempt to cross the border only to be apprehended by a much smaller border patrol. In this scenario workers would win, and by extension U.S. businesses and the U.S. economy would win. The only loser would be a federal government that would require much fewer armed workers.
