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