Migration has increasingly become a hot button issue in the era of globalization. As economics forces countries to become more open, the barriers separating states and their people have lessened, and in some as cases been completely lifted. The European Union pursues a policy of open borders between its member states, while the countries of the NAFTA region restrict border access with varying degrees of success. For free trade to be effective, access to countries has to be fairly easy to gain, although this has raised a number of security concerns in a world threatened by terrorism. Also, migrant workers tend to fill large gaps within their new countries’ workforce populations, making them invaluable. However, the massive influx of migrant workers into Europe have highlighted cultural assimilation problems that open borders are incapable of repairing. The United States with its continuing Mexican immigration issues may see similar issues as low wage immigrant laborers create tension with domestic Americans who view their presence as detrimental to the economic wellbeing of the American-born worker.

The European Union and NAFTA are not exactly similar at their core, but their experience with migrant labor can be compared to a point. The EU, unlike NAFTA, is a confederation of states more similar to a United States of Europe than a a trade bloc. The EU member states are politically and economically cohesive units despite sharing different cultural backgrounds. NAFTA, on the other hand, is a trade zone minus political cohesiveness – the three countries have only agreed to free trade with one another, which has not resulted in completely open borders for the free movement of labor. Completely open borders in the NAFTA region would lead to a massive influx of Mexican workers into the United States since the economic situation and standard of living pales in comparison to the US and Mexico. Despite some border restrictions, Mexican laborers still make their way into the US illegally, and more than doubled in number from 1990 to 2000. The EU also feared similar problems when it admitted the poorer states of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004. A number of Europeans were concerned that the poor from these new member states would immediately flood into their countries to achieve a better standard of living, or worse – siphon money from their welfare state systems (the Roma, or Gypsies, mainly from Poland and Slovakia were a major concern). Obviously, an open border system in the EU invites such situations, but it exists for a reason – the Europeans have held a historic propensity to welcome migrant labor. Migrants from the Middle East and North Africa were invited into Europe following the second World War to aid in reconstruction, and continued migration is required to fill labor gaps in European states where the retired population has begun to vastly outgrow the labor force. Legalized migration is required so workers can be taxed to pay for continuously growing welfare state policies. The US also sees a need for migrant workers, mainly for construction and manufacturing work that many Americans do not wish to accept themselves. Also, American businesses benefit since they are capable of paying illegal immigrants less money than they otherwise would be required to pay by law. Unlike the EU, these migrant workers do not directly benefit the US welfare state outside of paying sales tax on items consumed. Under the Bush administration’s guest worker program, it seems that taxes will not be taken out of temporary workers’ pay since they are, theoretically, temporary US residents who will never benefit from welfare services after retirement.

Security is a major concern when it comes to migration across borders. While there has yet to be a clear-cut case of cross-border terrorism (there was debate that the 9/11 hijackers entered the US via Canada, but that was proven false) , Canada’s lax standards on amnesty and refugees has created concern in the US. Also, Mexico’s desire to bring in foreign capital via tourism has led it to not pursue a visa policy for a number of countries, including those in the EU. It would be fairly simple for a terrorist to move through Europe and enter Mexico with no more than a passport, and then enter into the US. Such potential problems are inescapable in today’s age of increased global trade and mobility, and it is doubtful that anything short of complete border clampdown can keep the countries of the world completely safe. But what is safety without the ability to grow and experience all the world has to offer, anyway?

On the first day of 1994 the native population of Chiapas, Mexico rebelled against the country’s federal government. The Zapatistas, as they are known, were led by a man known only as Subcomandante Marcos and desired recognition and political autonomy in order to focus greater attention on the region’s dire economic situation. The signing and implementation of the NAFTA agreement served as the impetus for the insurgency, however similar violent outbreaks did not occur in the United States or Canada – why is this? Undoubtedly the primary cause lies in the economic differences between the developed countries of the NAFTA region, the US and Canada, and the developing country, Mexico. Also, historic political and ethnic differences played a large role in the differing reactions across the region.

After the signing of the NAFTA agreement the Zapatistas unleashed their violent fury in a quest to achieve work, land, housing, food, health care, education, independence, freedom, democracy, justice, and peace, according to Noam Chomsky’s Profit Over People. The NAFTA agreement, while not the only reason for the Zapatistas’ uprising, reinforced decades of Mexican governmental policy that ignored the concerns of Mexico’s native population. The majority of Mexico’s indigenous people utilize agriculture as a living via the family farm economic configuration. While family farms in the US and Canada exist and are even subsidized, they are not considered a necessary portion of every day life for a large number of people. Simply, the death of family farms in the US and Canada would not create wide-ranging poverty – resources are available for re-training and re-assimilation into the developed economic machines. Mexico, a developing country with a large, agricultural native population cannot stave off mass poverty when agriculture is directly assaulted by unfair trade. Due to agricultural protectionism on behalf of the United States, Mexican farmers are incapable of adequately competing and, thus, lose their livelihood. The natives’ family farms are no longer as profitable as they once were, extending and worsening poverty conditions in Chiapas and other regions where agriculture serves as the main industry for thousands of people. Also, the expansion of agribusiness-backed crash-crop farms has overtaken native family farms in order to compete with American food dumping. However, pay remains low in these mass production farms and do little to aid the poverty-stricken.

NAFTA, however, is not the only reason for the Zapatistas’ continuing discontent or why similar uprisings did not occur in the US and Canada. The Zapatistas’ concerns started long before the signing of the agreement, decades ago with the rise of the Institutional Revolutionary Party’s (PRI) impenetrable grip on power led to wide-ranging corruption. Mexico’s elite profited greatly from the PRI’s control, whereas the native population were subjugated and their concerns completely ignored. Current president Vincente Fox, who broke the PRI’s decades-old hold on power by way of his National Action Party (PAN), was supposed to bring about change and autonomy for Mexico’s natives in Chiapas. Instead, Fox proved completely ineffectual and, following the 2003 mid-term elections, serves as little more than a lame duck with basically no chance of meeting the Zapatistas’ many demands. The US and Canada both had fairly healthy democracies throughout the 20th century, unlike Mexico, which led to better representation at the federal levels. The Zapatistas as of 2003 have resulted to ignoring the federal Mexican government as much as possible since adequate representation of their interests appears to be an impossible goal, especially during a time of political uncertainty under an unpopular Vincente Fox.

While the Zapatistas have not gained all they have demanded, their concerns have been voiced and the world has noticed. Economic differences and unfair trade practices have negatively affected the already poverty-stricken in Mexico and the legacy of corrupt one-party rule continues to make a wide-reaching agreement between the indigenous rebels and the Mexican government an untenable outcome. The US and Canada, both highly developed democracies with diverse, yet inclusive populations, have not seen the same problems concerning NAFTA. Until Mexico can achieve comparable healthy institutions and competitive economic structures, the Zapatistas’ situation will not improve.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is busy doing the work the people, well, didn’t elect him to do:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has ordered government and cultural bodies to use modified Persian words to replace foreign words that have crept into the language, such as “pizzas” which will now be known as “elastic loaves,” state media reported Saturday.

The presidential decree, issued earlier this week, orders all governmental agencies, newspapers and publications to use words deemed more appropriate by the official language watchdog, the Farhangestan Zaban e Farsi, or Persian Academy, the Irna official news agency reported.

…

Among other changes, a “chat” will become a “short talk” and a “cabin” will be renamed a “small room,” according to official Web site of the academy.

While such a decree on language purification is supposed to show the overwhelming strength of the Iranian state, in reality it is indicitive of its weakness. Mahmoud Ahmdinejad was elected by Iranians to deal directly with the conservative forces in government, of which he is obviously a part of, to bring about the economic revival that mullah opposition to the moderates during President Mohammed Khatami’s eight year term hamstrung. He was not elected primarily due to his extreme views on Persian cultural identity, even if his actions while in office are less than surprising. The Iranian public is becoming increasingly impatient with the lack of movement on economic reform, which has pushed Ahmadinejad’s drive to shore up divided pblic opinion by appealing to topics on which he actually receives majority support despite failed domestic policies: nuclear energy and Israel. The decree on language, while in no way representing a new trend in governmental policy toward Farsi, does suggests that Ahmadinejad has fallen back on utilizing wedge politics to appeal to his conservative base — a sign of weakness, not strength. The failure to bring about palpable and sustainable change to the every day lives of Iranians is weakening Ahmadinejad on the domestic front, and he is not blind to that. In order to combat his eroding domestic approval despite receiving support in kind on nuclear capability and in principal on Israel, Ahmadinejad is attempting to pander to his conservative supporters at the expense of his much larger base of Iranian poor. It’s typical wedge politics, the same sort that brings about innane American congressional debates on gay marriage and flag burning during an election year where issues of actual importance, such as war, budgetary concerns, and health care, should be on the table instead.

The Iranian leadership, meaning the ultra conservative Guardian Council that vets all legislation, is not interested in aiding Ahmadinejad attain his campaign-promised economic goals. However, Ahmadinejad’s closest allies, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), is not interested in supporting an Ahmadinejad-led economic reformation, either. The IRGC, the subversive, militant governmental faction that Ahmadinejad once was a commander in, controls vast swaths of the Iranian economy through charitable fronts known as “foundations.” The Imam Reza Shrine Foundation is one of the largest of these charities, and utilizes full control over the highly important Iman Rezza Shrine to collect funds from domestic and foreign visitors and funnel the money to the IRGC and its leaders. But it’s not just religious sites the foundations control and utilize to accumulate wealth — the IRGC also controls large real estate, industrial, and hospitality firms throughout Iran that receive no governmental oversight centered on reducing corruption and guaranteeing acceptable working conditions. Obviously, Ahmadinejad would face staunch opposition to any attempts taken at instilling economic accountability and reform from those he has received the most support from within the conservative establishment. Perhaps he was never serious about increasing economic prosperity throughout Iran, but the probable reality is that Ahmadinejad believed he could bring about change without directly confronting his closest allies, an impossible goal that has led to his most outrageous domestic overtures.

However, ignoring domestic concerns cannot go on indefinitely. Even the war in Lebanon and Iran’s financial support for Hizbollah, which is in the hundreds-of-millions per month range, is not being treated as a winner by a number of Iranians. And when Ahmadinejad cannot dodge domestic political realities by playing the Israel card, he knows he’s in trouble.

I’m all for people making more money and attaining upward mobility, but the movements to hike the minimum wage that have proven highly popular in many communities are going to do more harm than good. Take, for instance, a new ordinance passed by the Chicago City Council today that will force Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to increase their lowest wage to $10/hour within the city’s limits by 2010. The ordinance is aimed at stores that make more than $1 billion annually, and take up more than 90,000 square feet of space. It certainly sounds fantastic and more than fair – justified, even — until the force of the market is factored in. Wal-Mart will respond to the new measure by finding creative ways to cut costs, which will lead to massive layoffs and retail store restructuring. Price hikes on what are currently cheap goods would also ensure, most likely. It’s basic, common sense economics. Any firm would undertake exactly the same methods. Good intentions do not always make good policy.

I am playing the devil’s advocate here – I understand the primary argument concerning Wal-Mart is that they invade small communities, saturate local markets with under-priced goods, and eliminate other job opportunities through their incomparable department store hegemony. However, the problem is not Wal-Mart or its obviously successful market strategy. The problem, if it can be called that, lies with the search for the great deal. Consumers sustain Wal-Mart, which in turn locks in the low wages that, when combined with ludicrously cheap foreign labor (an entirely different subject and post), creates that great deal and locks in low wage living conditions. It’s a capitalist cycle that Lenin would have loved to rip apart.

So, perhaps it does take a political movement, like the ACORN-led push to create a livable wage for Chicago-based Wal-Mart employees, to break that cycle. In the interim, however, the market is not going to be gentle to those who think Wal-Mart is legally binded to pay them more money. It’s not. In fact, Wal-Mart would be more than happy to remove its presence from Chicago and relocate to nearby areas where the market, despite the protests of the good intentioned, will happily absorb the low priced deodorant, DVDs, denture cream, wiffle bats, and all the other minutia Wal-Mart somehow fits inside its walls.