Topic: Trade and Immigration

That Mobile Line in the Sand

In a recent post and in this Washington Times commentary today, I note that there is less than meets the eye with respect to last week’s “grand deal” to include labor and environmental provisions in trade agreements reached between congressional Democrats and the White House.  (That’s not to say its unimportant — it is significant, and also regrettable).

One of my points (implicit as it may be) is that caving on labor and the environment would not be enough to warm Congress to the benefits of trade liberalization.  What was pitched to the press as the final price to win Congressional support for the administration’s trade agenda was merely the admission fee.  More demands would be forthcoming.

Alas, today members of Congress (22 Ds, including the trade leadership and 20 Rs) petitioned the U.S. Trade Representative to launch a Section 301 investigation into Chinese currency manipulation.  The petition is touted as “one last chance” for the Bush administration to act on the currency manipulation issue before legislation effectively mandating that conclusion, along with sanctions, is moved in Congress.

I can already see the words of Ways and Means trade subcommittee chairman Sander Levin (D-MI) when the USTR turns down today’s 301 petition.  “How can any member of Congress in his right mind vote to support any more trade agreements when this administration is unwilling to stand up for the working men and women of America?”

Of the four pending bilateral trade agreements (Korea, Colombia, Peru, and Panama), I’m betting exactly none will become reality during this presidency and beyond.

Anti-trade Demagoguery from the Eagle Forum

I’m occasionally asked, “If the case for free trade is so solid, why don’t more people agree with it?”  One reason is that it is so much easier to demagogue international trade than it is to explain it.

For example, consider a column posted this morning by Phyllis Schlafly, president of the Eagle Forum. Mrs. Schlafly is a social conservative known mostly for her opposition to abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment, but she also speaks out frequently against immigration and free trade.

In today’s column, titled “The Price Of Imported Food Is Too High,” she takes aim at trade with China, and in particular trade in agricultural goods.

The Clinton Administration conned American farmers into being the principal lobbyists in 2000 for passage of PNTR (Permanent Normal Trade Relations) for Communist China, which gave Chinese goods unconditional access to U.S. markets.

Bill Clinton promised in his State of the Union address that PNTR for China would be a win-win for American agriculture because “this agreement will open China’s market to us.” His Department of Agriculture predicted that the average annual value of U.S. agricultural exports to China would increase by $1.5 billion.

Globalization turned out to be a cheat. Department of Commerce figures show that U.S. wheat exports to China are less today than before PNTR was passed.

Consider the facts on U.S. farm exports to China. Since 2001, when we made normal trade relations with China permanent, U.S. agricultural exports to China have grown from $2.1 billion to $7.2 billion–an increase of more than $5 billion. Our export of soybeans alone has increased by $1.5 billion, raw cotton by almost $2 billion. Wheat exports, in contrast, make up a small and declining share of our total agricultural sales to China. 

Mrs. Schlafly goes on to rail against tainted pet food recently imported form China. “Maybe China’s poisoning of our pets will be one offense too many to tolerate,” she concludes. 

Food safety is not primarily a problem of imports. Americans have been poisoned recently by meat from Nebraska and spinach from California. The answer is better safety inspections for domestic and imported food alike, not higher tariffs on imports. If we tax imported food, we would merely drive up food costs for American families, especially those on tight budgets who spend a higher share of their income on food. 

It’s regrettable that an organization dedicated to upholding moral and family values would put out such misleading material in effect arguing for higher food costs for millions of American families. 

U.S. Trade Policy, R.I.P.

The NY Times, Washington Post, and other major media outlets have been gushing praise upon congressional Democrats and the Bush administration for hammering out a deal that keeps the trade agenda alive.  Lending some credibility to those media perspectives, which are too often misinformed and misleading, are assessments from knowledgeable, respected trade policy scholars that the compromise deal struck last week does in fact constitute a major breakthrough.

In my view, only analytical laziness or low expectations about the capacity of the administration and Congress to agree on anything related to trade, or sheer desperation for a sign of progress could produce a thumbs-up assessment of last week’s deal.  The proper interpretation is this:

U.S. trade policy, RIP.  Here’s why.

There are four concluded bilateral trade agreements (with Korea, Colombia, Peru, and Panama) awaiting congressional approval.  There is the seriously stalled Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations, which has been the elusive grand prize of trade policy during the Bush years.  And there is the June 30 expiration of Trade Promotion Authority, which enables the executive branch to negotiate agreements (that must also reflect the wishes of Congress as of 2002, when TPA was passed into law) and bring them back to the Congress for an up-or-down vote.  Without TPA, agreements would be undone, reconfigured, and made unrecognizable and ultimately unacceptable, as 535 congressional tinkerers got their hands on them.

The TPA 2002 language was silent about environmental provisions and specified that trade partners should be required to enforce the labor laws on their books.  The new Democratic Congress finds the TPA 2002 language unacceptable.   Trade deals must contain strict, enforceable labor and environmental provisions, if they are to win the support of the Democratic caucus – so they say. 

The agreement struck last week is akin to a supplemental to the TPA 2002 bill.  It doesn’t extend TPA beyond June 30, but it imposes additional conditions with which trade agreements must comport.  The administration agreed to the terms because, well, it had no choice!  The labor unions, which now dictate congressional trade policy, are unwilling to support trade liberalization.  The administration has nothing, absolutely nothing, with which to compromise.  Thus, by agreeing to last week’s terms, the U.S. Trade Representative is throwing a Hail Mary.  Trade policy will not advance without those terms, and there’s a remote change it could advance with them.  The problem is that it won’t.

Arguably, the left-of-center press is giddy about the fact that Congress compelled the Bush administration to agree to include strict, enforceable labor and environmental provisions in prospective trade agreements (There was more to the deal, but labor and environmental standards were the big issues).  It matters not to the ubersanctimonious of the media that if you’re really concerned about environmental quality and working standards in poor countries you should seek to remove (not create) conditions on investment inflows.  Oh well, at least they’ve acknowledged the plight of poverty. 

But they should also remember that just because two branches of the U.S. government agree to these provisions doesn’t mean our trade partners will.  With a few relatively minor exceptions, they won’t.

In 1996, WTO trade ministers at the conclusion of their first biannual meeting in
Singapore issued a strong statement of consensus on the issue of labor standards.  The statement declared support for core labor standards, but opposed the idea of enforceable labor provisions in trade agreements.  Standards are promoted by “economic growth and development fostered by international trade and further trade liberalization,” the statement read.  Imposing conditions on trade and investment with poor countries only slows economic growth, which prevents labor standards from rising, was the gist of the statement.

Today, the WTO comprises even more developing countries than in 1996.  Their position against enforceable labor standards is even more entrenched.  They don’t oppose better local labor and environmental conditions, but fear that rich countries will use those provisions as a fig leaf to achieve protectionist outcomes.  The legitimate concern is that the potential to allege labor or environmental violations, regardless of merit, will deter foreign investment in local factories and in other areas of the local economy, which is the real key to raising standards.

Thus, despite suggestions that the last week’s deal opens up the door to continued progress on Doha, reality is quite different.  The United States has only introduced another obstacle that will calcify the current North-South divide in the Doha negotiations.

There is a remote possibility that the agreements with Peru and Panama will come to fruition.  Both of those governments are vested heavily in a successful trade deal with the United States, so they may be inclined to bite the bullet.  It remains to be seen, however, if the Peruvian and Panamanian legislatures will approve the new terms.  And quite frankly, there is absolutely no guarantee that Democrats in the U.S. Congress will support these deals despite last week’s ballyhooed “breakthrough.”

Indeed, the Colombian deal has been identified as still problematic by the congressional leadership.  In a letter to the USTR last week, House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) wrote that the Colombia agreement can not be supported by Democrats unless the Bogota government does a better job finding and punishing violent criminals.  And House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin (D-MI) is actively opposing the Korea agreement since it doesn’t include his proposal to condition Korean access to the U.S. auto market on the success of U.S. auto sales in Korea.

Although the Democratic leadership has been asserting that its caucus would support trade liberalization if its positions on labor and the environment were accommodated, it appears their bluff has been called.  Opposition to Colombia and Korea has nothing to do with labor and environmental standards.  It has everything to do with union opposition to trade, period.

And without labor’s nod, Democrats will not support trade in sufficient numbers to keep U.S. trade policy on track. 

Thus, trade policy, RIP.

Spain: Immigration Up, Unemployment Down

The recent economic success of Spain has not received the attention it deserves. One element in Spain’s resurgence, which I didn’t previously know about, is a relatively liberal immigration policy. According to BusinessWeek:

Over the past decade, the traditionally homogeneous country has become a sort of open-door laboratory on immigration. Spain has absorbed more than 3 million foreigners from places as diverse as Romania, Morocco, and South America. More than 11% of the country’s 44 million residents are now foreign-born, one of the highest proportions in Europe. With hundreds of thousands more arriving each year, Spain could soon reach the U.S. rate of 12.9%.

And it doesn’t seem to have hurt much. Spain is Europe’s best-performing major economy, with growth averaging 3.1% over the past five years. Since 2002, the country has created half the new jobs in the euro zone. Unemployment has plummeted from more than 20% in the 1990s to 8.6%, within shooting distance of the 7.2% euro zone average. The government attributes more than half this stellar performance to immigration. “We are very thankful for all these people who have come here to work with us,” says Javier Vallés, economic policy chief for Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero.

Apparently all those immigrants haven’t “taken all the jobs.” Ask your favorite Lou Dobbs-loving friend to explain to you how this is possible.

Landlords Drafted into War on Illegal Immigration

A couple of weeks ago, I testified in the House Immigration Subcommittee on the difficulties with, and undesirability of, a national employment verification system. Beyond some costly and inconvenient, bleeding-edge tech solutions, there’s no way to confirm on a mass scale that people are legally entitled to work under our immigration law - not without putting a national ID in the hands of every American.

I observed that such a system, once built, wouldn’t be restricted to employment, but would naturally expand:

Were an electronic employment verification system in place, it could easily be extended to other uses. Failing to reduce the “magnet” of work, electronic employment verification could be converted to housing control. Why not require landlords and home-sellers to seek federal approval of leases and sales so as not to give shelter to illegal aliens? Electronic employment verification could create better federal control of financial services, and health care, to name two more.It need not be limited to immigration control, of course. Electronic verification could be used to find wanted murderers, and it would move quickly down the chain to enforcement of unpaid parking tickets and “use taxes.” Electronic employment verification charts a course for expanded federal surveillance and control of all Americans’ lives.

Now comes news that a suburb of Dallas has become the first in the nation to prohibit renting to illegal immigrants. It requires apartment managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them.

A policy like this doubles-down on the error of enlisting employers into immigration law enforcement, and it shows how immigration law creates pressure to expand domestic surveillance. “The policy that will dissipate the need for electronic verification by fostering legality is aligning immigration law with the economic interests of the American people. Legal immigration levels should be increased,” I testified.

But you knew that if you’ve been following this stuff.

(Some) Developing Countries Don’t Like the “Trade” Bit in “World Trade Organization”

The Doha round of world trade talks stagger on, with the latest “deadline” for completion of a deal set at end-2007 (i.e., before the US presidential campaign season gets underway in earnest). Last week the chair of the agriculture negotiations released a paper designed to inject movement back in to the agriculture negotiations that are proving the key stumbling block to reaching a deal on the other important areas of world trade. (On why agriculture is such a big deal, considering its relatively small share in world goods trade, see here). In any event, the chairman’s paper has been roundly criticized, which means it has been a success.

Part of the skirmish, and this is true of the trade talks more broadly, is the explicit commitment to give developing countries “special and differential (S&D) treatment” in the negotiations. In other words, poorer countries have to lower their trade barriers less than do developed countries. In the wake of the disastrous meeting in Cancun in September 2003, when developing countries flexed their muscle, these sorts of concessions were deemed necessary to get the Doha round back on track.

Unfortunately, the S&D provisions have been used frequently as an excuse for developing countries to do almost nothing to lower their trade barriers. It is not quite that clear-cut, of course. Many developing countries have an interest in exporting to other developing countries, and so want to see trade barriers come down across the board. But generally, developing countries feel that this round is about developed countries lowering their barriers to developing country goods and services, while the poorer nations continue to protect their “sensitive” goods markets from competition.

Mercantalism is to some extent the basis of the World Trade Organization: it presupposes that countries will only open their markets in return for increased access for their exports, from which the benefits of trade flow. That’s economic nonsense, of course, but in the absence of political will for unilateral trade liberalization (see more about that here), the negotiated multilateral route is the best one towards freeing markets and giving consumers access to cheaper and more goods and services.

The new development focus of the WTO, however, is proving to be an obstacle in itself to reaching a deal. South Africa, for example, on behalf of a group of other developing countries, read a statement in a meeting earlier this week of the negotiating group on market access (for industrial–or manufactured–goods) that, according to an article today:

“accused rich countries of subverting the talks known as the Doha round by seeking to advance their commercial interests instead of the original “development” goal of lifting millions of people worldwide out of poverty through free trade.” (emphasis added)

Seeking to advance their commercial interests? Those shameless knaves!

The World Trade Organization is just that – a trade organization. It is not a development institution. It is true that freer markets and trade lead to economic growth, but the Doha round of trade talks is a commercial negotiation, not a donors’ conference.

Naming it the ‘Doha Development Agenda’ may have been politically necessary, but it has proven to be a big mistake.

Ban on Travel to Cuba Makes a Martyr out of Michael Moore

I normally don’t have the time of day for Michael Moore, the far-left filmmaker, but count me on his side in his current run-in with the U.S. Treasury Department.

Moore is under investigation for allegedly violating the U.S. government’s virtual ban on travel to Cuba. In February, Moore traveled to the socialist workers’ paradise with a group of Americans seeking medical care. The trip formed a segment of Moore’s new film “Sicko” that takes a critical look at America’s health care system.

According to an Associated Press story this morning:

The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control notified Moore in a letter dated May 2 that it was conducting a civil investigation for possible violations of the U.S. trade embargo restricting travel to Cuba. A copy of the letter was obtained Tuesday by the AP.

This office has no record that a specific license was issued authorizing you to engage in travel-related transactions involving Cuba,” Dale Thompson, OFAC chief of general investigations and field operations, wrote in the letter to Moore.

According to U.S. law, Moore could be fined thousands of dollars for violating our decades-old ban on travel to, trade with, and investment in Cuba.

As we have long argued at Cato [check out our research on the subject], the economic embargo against Cuba violates the freedom of Americans while giving the Castro government a handy excuse for the economic failures of its communist system.

By bringing this action against Moore, the U.S. government will turn him into a sympathetic martyr while providing millions of dollars of publicity for his latest piece of propaganda.