After Trump’s election, it was fun to watch everyone switch issue positions as if political parties were a yoga class. Republicans suddenly became enamored with executive orders. Democrats realized that they love the CIA and want to start a cold war with Russia.
There have been more flip flops in 2017 than you’d find at a frat house cookout, yet this recent Washington Post article on deportation still managed to stand out among the crowd.
After years of praising illegal immigration and citing bogus economic studies which went through acrobatic contortions to conclude that migrant workers do not depress U.S. wages, somehow the newspaper has a completely different take on the benefits of the immigrants now that they are being deported back to Mexico:
More returnees means lower wages for everybody in blue-collar industries such as construction and automobile manufacturing, where competition for jobs is likely to increase, economists say.
Who are these rogue economists who realized that an increase in supply lowers the price of labor? Are there finally economists opining on immigration who have actually taken an economics class? The current media consensus is that such migrations are great for America because they make a pack of strawberries cost 10 cents less, even though the economists are largely silent on the effect of a community adding families trying to raise four kids on a household income of $9,000.
The difference in how the effects of immigration are described by the media when entering the U.S. versus returning to Mexico is striking. When they cross into the U.S., Mexican laborers are described as “I’m A Slave For U” Britney Spears – a huge hitmaker who is making everyone around her rich with her sick body. But now that they are returning to Mexico, the media is more accurately depicting the laborers as 2007 Britney Spears – bald, pudgy, carrying drugs, and trying to break into places they don’t belong with an umbrella.
But the irony of the analysis does not end with the admission that low skilled immigration lowers wages. The Washington Post also added this factoid regarding the deportees:
“Many of these people come not knowing how to speak Spanish,” said Amalia García, secretary of Mexico City’s labor department, which serves as a point of contact for the deportees.
If a person had never lived on planet Earth, and instead only read about it via the New York Times, the above statements would come across as nonsensical and xenophobic. The fact that the deportees don’t speak Spanish should only add to the diversity of Mexico – and diversity is a strength. The ability to be able to speak to your neighbor is a highly overrated luxury coveted only by bigots.
The article also posted this curious tidbit:
Moreover, the loss of remittances from the United States — Mexico’s second-largest source of revenue at roughly $25 billion last year — could have devastating effects, particularly in rural areas.
Again, this would be curious information to a Huffington Post reader. Why is Mexico worried about losing remittances from the United States? American economists have studied this, and it is actually good for Americans that billions of dollars are flowing out of the country because it means that Western Unions are making a $10-$20 fee on each transaction – and some Western Union branches employ almost 3 workers to handle the billions of dollars leaving the U.S.! That must mean more jobs and a stronger American economy! Mexico should be thrilled that these people are returning to Mexico – perhaps they may even send money from Mexico back to America! Wouldn’t that really stimulate Mexico’s growth?
And just read the shocking things the deportees are doing to Mexican schools:
The system for transferring U.S. school credits into Mexican schools is rife with red tape, requiring translated transcripts and other proof, which can take more than a year, Anderson said.
We’ve shown that in America huge influxes of immigrant students raise school test scores. Teachers absolutely love it when they get a transfer student who has been studying completely different things in a completely different language. That way they have less time to devote to existing students – who can then be ignored and thus become better independent thinkers!
And of all the things in the article, the most surprising statement about the deportees was the following claim:
But Anderson also noted the resistance here to doing too much to accommodate a population of returning compatriots who rub many the wrong way with their English and their more aggressive American manner.
“It really interrupts the economic and social norms of Mexico,” she said.
But as all MSNBC viewers know, countries don’t have economic and social norms – unless those countries are full of bigots. If the deportee’s culture is rubbing native Mexicans the wrong way, that means that native Mexicans need to check their privilege and learn to embrace different cultures.
One can only hope that whatever editor published this piece at the Washington Post is quickly fired and sent to the Lena Dunham school of cultural appropriation to learn how to properly celebrate, but not steal, different cultures. Because if these migrant workers truly do make Americans richer, safer, and better educated, then they surely will do the same for Mexico.