When an Undocumented Immigrant Is an Economic Refugee

Have you heard of an "economic refugee"? It's a term used to describe people who flee their country for another due to economic reasons. Facing desperate poverty in their country of origin, they uproot their lives in search of a land of opportunity that will let them feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and their families. While they may enter a foreign country without authorization, they have a legitimate need to survive, and it is up to the law of the country to decide whether their presence is simply illegal or an acceptable means of seeking refugee status, as it does for people who escape natural disaster and political or social persecution.

Many people who come to America from Mexico, who comprise an estimated half of the undocumented immigrant population, can be considered "economic refugees." Although the right to be free from hunger is recognized as a basic human right, a 2008 report by Mexico's National Evaluation Council on Social Development (CONEVAL) found that nearly half of Mexicans suffer from food insecurity, with about half that number (23 million Mexicans) forced to go at least one day without eating due to lack of resources. There are also almost 2 million "chronically malnourished" children, with 2006 World Bank statistics indicating that 15.5% of Mexican children under 5 have their growth stunted by inadequate access to food. Is it any wonder that somebody would enter the United States without authorization to feed their hungry children?

There are other countries that immigrants who could be categorized as "economic refugees" hail from. Yet Mexico is of particular significance as our most immediate neighbor from which the largest number of undocumented immigrants come, and because of the impact of American policies on creating widespread hunger for our neighbors. On Race in America, Antonio Ramirez writes about the impact of the 1994 NAFTA "free trade" agreement on poverty in Mexico. Much like the way American consumers demand for illegal drugs fuels drug cartel violence in Mexico, as I've written before, American actions in the realm of trade are fueling Mexican poverty. Ramirez argues that "NAFTA has brought unprecedented wealth to rich investors and squeezed the wages of working people on both sides of the Rio Grande."

In particular, Mexican agricultural has been undermined by NAFTA. Early on, it was evident that Mexican farmers could not compete with American agribusiness and heavily subsidized corn, even though that had been a major crop for the country. I put "free trade" in quotes before because any economist should agree it is absurd to refer to an agreement that preserves major subsidies in such terms, especially when it is the interference of the U.S. government in the form of massive subsidies that is so detrimental to Mexican food security. Long Island Wins reports that in the 90s, the price of Mexican corn dropped 58%, primarily as a result of NAFTA, displacing many small farmers and leading the rural poverty rate to skyrocket to 85%.

Whatever benefits NAFTA and U.S. trade policy may have lead to, it also severely increased poverty in Mexico (while primary enriching a small group of American beneficiaries), which has in turn increased immigration from Mexico to the United States, with or without authorization. And, as the more powerful partner in the agreement, it's up to the United States to remedy an unjust framework that jeopardizes security in Mexico. These economic refugees are coming to America as a result of policies we created, in search of the opportunity to have a life for themselves and their children free from hunger. If we want to decrease the number of desperate individuals willing to risk their lives crossing a desert to enter the U.S. and then reside here in constant fear of deportation, we need to rethink how we use our position of power to squeeze other countries.

Photo credit: 18 55 Photography