Migrant Caravan Nears Southern Border
As many people have seen on the news, a large caravan of South American migrants is encroaching on the southern border of the United States. In order to provide insights on this issue, I will offer information regarding potential courses of action from both economical and humanitarian perspectives.
Firstly, the economic impact from the mass resettlement would be primarily felt in the area in which a majority of the migrants select to settle, for the total size of the caravan is only roughly 4,000 people. While it is assumed that they would not have a large national impact in either the U.S. or Mexico, they may have a larger impact on local economies: lower local wages, lower returns to capital, and a higher labor supply are all consequences that would become evident in the local populations that accepted the migrants. Meanwhile, the populations that previously hosted the emigrants would experience slightly higher wages, higher returns to capital, and a reduced labor supply (under the assumption that the emigrants came from concentrated communities).
The humanitarian aspect of this crisis is important as well. The migrants come primarily from the less-developed areas of Honduras and Guatemala, and many of the emigrants do not have the training to find work in positions for highly skilled labor. The lack of applicable skills needed to find well-paying work will drive many back into the poverty that they have tried so tirelessly to escape. One of the most practical ways to help the emigrants find work is for the United Nations to invest in the industries in the migrants' home nations. By having the United Nations collect contributions from many member nations, the impact of decreasing wages and MPL's would be greatly diffused and therefore reduced to negligible levels from the donor nations, while still increasing the wages and MPL's for workers in the receiving nations. In addition to aiding the receiving nations while not detrimenting the donor nations, aiding in investment instead of resettlement would reduce assimilation costs for the migrants and assist in keeping family groups intact.
I really liked that you broke up your thoughts on the matter into the economics and humanity of the issue. As for your economic view, I think that the only thing you left out is that the community the migrants settled in may feel those negative effects in the short run, but in the long run the market will equal out and basically go back to how it was before the migrants, only seeing small changes from this situation. I think your idea of having the United Nations invest in these poorer countries that we see migrants coming from is a good idea, but unlikely to happen.
ReplyDeleteI like the fact that you knew what you wanted to say and how you planned on making it work. Like Erin said about your economic view, the only thing you would need to add is the negative effects that might come with having the migrants stay for a short period of time. But what will happen if the migrants continue to do the same thing by going to other countries and doing the same thing. This can cause some economic downturns for those other economies as well in the short run. Some of the countries might not be capable of doing that.
ReplyDelete