Immigration

For immigrants coming to the US, the majority, particularly those from Mexico, are doing so because their work here translates into much higher earnings in pesos that can be used to support a family either here or back home.

If we can therefore improve the lives in Mexico and similar countries, two major pressures are adressed at once. For one, those who do not want to leave but feel they have to to create a better life for their loved ones can stay, continuing to live in the country they assumably love. In addition, US employers are no longer able to undercharge workers and may thus have to better support blue-collar work.

This is not to say that immigration is bad, but just that both the left and the right in America somewhat miss the point. If Mexicans were able to maintain a high quality of life in Mexico and thus continue to interact with the culture they grew up in and love, I support that.

Implementing a society in which this occurs is much harder, as it would mean narrowing massive gaps in purchasing power between countries. Nevertheless, there are things that Western governments can and should implement. The first thing would be implementing a solid immigration plan.

This applies more so to Europe, but we can look at the differences in how countries handle immigrants/asylum seekers. Comparing Sweden and Denmark, Sweden largely took an approach of accepting as many people as possible, regardless of capacity. The problems with this are multiple. For one, the government ran out of housing, thereby exacerbating the housing crisis. The immigrants also had no real way to integrate themselves into Swedish culture and were left socially isolated. (for more, see this OBF video Immigrants vs. Sweden)

Compare this to Denmark, which screened immigrants to ensure there was avaliable housing and employment, and that newcomers could realistically integrate into Danish society. They also made learning Danish mandatory, further allowing integration. This is a solid immigration plan for European countries, as it is pragmatic while not completely blocking immigration, thus providing great benefit to those from war torn and poverty-riddled places while remaining sustainable.

Yet even further, Western governments should support causes that would bring about freedoms/quality of life improvements for people. For example, the US has such a massive military budget that, perhaps, with collaboration with the Mexican government, it could work on cracking down on cartels. This would have to be done in a way that keeps the judicial rights of the accused (so not as was done in El Salvador exactly), but on the whole, this would improve the lives of those in Mexico, leading to less immigration that is not wanted by those who feel they have to immigrate.

Similarly, the West should support just causes in the Middle East, as a completely non-interventionist role leads to problems down the line that then impact Western governments. This would NOT mean invasions and the like, more so transparency supporting causes by providing food and support, and less so military actions. For example, supporting Burkina Faso’s government against Jihadist forces could lead to mutually beneficial circumstances. The list goes on, and the West should at least work to help in events such as this, instead of ignoring them, which could come back to bite them as well as harm civilians in these countries.

Finally, this is perhaps a controversial take, but Europe should really re-evaluate how it sees many “far-right” parties. Take the National Rally, considered the far-right party in the French legislature. I disagree with them on basically everything, but I do not think they, or any other of these populist right-wing parties, should be seen as the world ending threat the media sometimes portrays them as. Instead, to me, they are more goofy, built on anti-establishment policies that will fail the second they actually gain power.

This is exactly what happen to the right wing Finns Party in Finland, as the election after they came into power they lost 2/3 of their support by the next election and have basically been disliked since. This was due to failing to deliver on their immigration stances as well as bad financial policy and austerity. Such is most of these parties.

In addition, when I look at Le Pens (the leader of the National Rally’s) immigration policy it is not that crazy. As history progresses the general consensus continues to move left, which is why she says that she is fine with immigrants and would just prefer if they were able to interact within French culture. Treating this take as crazy leads to more press for these parties, and in the end more support from people dissatisfied with the status quo, even if their actual policies are terrible for everyone.