Then try to find out why he's stealing and what you can do about it.
This diary is a contrarian monologue directed against a prevailing attitude in America: the overriding fear that someone, somewhere, is getting something that they don't "deserve." This attitude, although profoundly anti-Christian, is an historical legacy of our uptight, rigid and punitive Protestant origins. To paint with a deliberately broad brush, it finds its expression in our political dialog in such terms as "moral hazard, "welfare queens," theocratic Christian reconstructionism, and pretty much the entire Randian libertarian philosophy.
My thesis:
Generosity and cooperation are not merely admirable but pragmatic.
In most situations the generous response pays off in ways that our ongoing national policy debate consistently overlooks. Part of this is due to our censorious attitude towards giving people what they need rather than what they deserve, and part to a political penchant for back-end solutions at the expense of front-end solutions.
Systems Thinking: Front-End or Hind-End Solutions? A pony parable.
If the goal is a bigger and better pony there are generally two approaches: front-end solutions and hind-end solutions. (Plagiarism note: I got this pony metaphor from somewhere, but darned if I can remember where. Surely someone will let me know if I need to credit Molly Ivins or some other thinker/writer far better than me).
A policy dedicated to the front end will nurture the pasture with water and fertilizer, so that Dobbin will grow large and healthy. This sets up a positive feedback cycle as the pony eats more, produces more poop, further fertilizing the field.
By contrast, the hind end solution revolves around punishing the pony for not growing faster, paying the cowboy a princely salary on the theory that somehow he will make the pony grow, rationing water and fertilizer to make sure that the grass in the pasture is not getting lazy, and by pretty much generally encouraging the pony to develop more, bigger, and better assholes.
This is the conservative, Republican approach, along with all too many Democrats. Our national debate on a wide range of issues has been largely characterized by this tension between front-end and hind-end solutions: health care, financial regulation, welfare, terrorism, the war on drugs, immigration, you name it. So:
The Mexican border: which comes first, securing the border or reform immigration law?
As a case study in enlightened generosity, I offer my thoughts about the issue of border security with Mexico. I can't claim to have devoted deep study to the issue, so please be kind and accept it as an illustration of the general principle of attacking the deep causes of problems with both analytical thought and open-handedness. Debate is welcomed. Corrections of fact are gratefully accepted.
A recent diary provoked a debate about the way forward for our relationship with Mexico: secure the border or do comprehensive immigration reform? I consider this dialog to be adequately summarized by the question: What do we do about Mexico? But I consider both of the advanced solutions to be inadequate in their current formulations.
The U.S. has poured untold treasure and human capital into keeping the brown hordes from invading our pale and beloved homeland. A vast infrastructure of walls, intrusive police state policies, and distorted political dialog has resulted. Some of this is due to racism, some on the more liberal side due to an admirable concern for protection of U.S. employment, along with security and drug war issues, and I think an underlying but not always consciously examined provincial fear that the US is an island of order in a surrounding chaotic third world hell. From a front-end perspective a large percentage of these resources are very badly misallocated.
To my way of thinking, the debate goes to those advocating comprehensive immigration reform and downplaying securing the border. This approach seems clearly superior to a continuation of our present course. However, in accordance with the philosophy advanced by this diary I would argue that so far the debate has not taken an adequately sweeping view of the problem.
The fundamental solution: fix Mexico. This is considered too hard, too complicated, and too readily stigmatized as soft-headed generosity to succeed. In spite of this, the generous response is not only the right response but the one most likely to ultimately result in a desirable outcome.
Is our border with Mexico too porous? Provided that due attention is given to the underlying problems, the border is not porous enough.
A contrarian proposal: the pragmatically generous policy solution:
- Eliminate the ceiling for Mexican entry visas. Give one to anyone who asks. Ditto US citizens' entry into Mexico. Provide day passes, week passes, month passes, and quarterly passes for anyone who applies at the border. If someone "forgets" to ask at the border, issue them one when they are discovered to be in the country without one. Provide an application process for yearly and multi-year visas. This policy change may seem rash and crazy but it is predicated on all that follows:
- If a worker in the US is found to be undocumented,
a. document them,
b. slap a fine on them and
c. vigorously prosecute the employer who hired them without making them fill out a visa application.
- Make remittances from Mexican workers back to Mexico tax-free or at least eligible for reduced income tax withholding.
- Create a development fund for health, environment, and infrastructure projects in the Mexican border states. Make workers' contributions to this fund tax exempt and match it 50:50 with US Federal aid.
- Work with the Mexican government to establish and enforce an increased minimum wage in Mexican border states, along with aggressive wage and hour environmental and safety regulations.
- Strongly enforce all safety and wage and hour laws for documented workers in the US.
- Legalize and tax marijuana. Down-schedule many harder drugs and pump a great deal of money and effort into both enforcement and treatment.
- Greatly increase support for Mexican government's efforts to prosecute government corruption and the drug gangs. Make Border Patrol staff and resources available to help.
- Make a renewed commitment to strengthening and improving US labor laws.
- Aggressively improve both the US and Mexican health care system.
- Spend quite a lot on intelligence gathering and surveillance on both sides of the border.
- Pay for all of the above with the current swollen, misallocated budget for border security, combined with a fee structure for entry visas, guest worker withholding, and enforcement fines.
To state the obvious, the above list is a tall order. It is, however, more likely to produce the desired outcome, even if everything on it is not accomplished in full, than our present course.
The rationale:
People want to live at home, not exile themselves to a foreign land where they can be abused and exploited. If crossing back and forth across the border is no big deal, they will leave their families in Mexico and commute.
If conditions in the Mexican border states become prosperous and orderly, the contrast between conditions in the US will be less and commuting will become less attractive.
If we drastically decrease the revenue stream for Mexican organized crime, all of the above will be promoted.
If ALL workers in the US are treated equally and well, this destroys the incentive for US employers to favor guest workers over citizens for any given job.
In short:
Generosity pays. Fix the underlying problems and quit wasting so much time and money on back-end patches. Don't worry about making people lazy. Work on creating conditions in which everyone can prosper.
Well, hmm. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the horrifying and godless liberal agenda, isn't it?
respectfully submitted,
Baz