James C. Ahiakpor wrote:  
  
>I also wonder why Medaille doesn't appear to see   
>the wisdom and morality in lowering tariffs   
>between the North American trading nations under   
>NAFTA, whether that is related to an "immigration problem" or not?  
  
I would be happy to debate the issue of "free"   
trade with you, or the more interesting issue of   
whether anything that is happening today could   
actually be called "free" trade, or the even more   
interesting question of whether the outsourcing   
constitutes "trade" at all, or merely an   
arbitrage of labor rates. But none of that was   
part of my point. The historical point is that   
intellectuals frequently advance empirical   
arguments which they then conveniently forget   
when the actual events do not work out as   
promised. You can argue the "what if" all you   
like, because such arguments cannot be resolved,   
even in principle. But you cannot deny that   
claims were made that did not in fact pan out.   
NAFTA may be good or bad; it may or may not be   
free trade; it may be just or unjust. But   
clearly, it was not the solution to the illegal immigration problem.  
  
>People will always choose to go where they can   
>earn more for their skills, all other things considered.  
  
Not really. Most people prefer to stick to their   
home country even if there are better   
opportunities elsewhere; the bounds of language,   
culture, and affection are usually stronger than   
mere money. More often, people go because they   
must. In fact, one of the most potent arguments   
against the wall is that it seals the immigrants   
in rather than out. When the cost of crossing was   
relatively low, the "illegals" would work for a   
time and return to the home country for a time.   
But as the cost of crossing rises, it is better   
to stay here and not risk one's health, wealth,   
or life in making the crossing. Thus a population   
that may have floated between the two countries finds itself trapped.  
  
  
John C. Medaille