Barriers of Our Borders

1 Barriers of Our Borders ABSTRACT The immigration question is arguably one of the most crucial questions of the current time. In the USA, there has been a notable movement towards putting in place strict measures to regulate who gains entrance into the country. This anti-immigrant rhetoric has been manifested in the administration’s plans to build a physical barrier – in the form of a wall – between the border of Mexico and the USA. This research study considers the extent to which the erection of such a barrier is likely to jeopardize the American economy by limiting the number of agricultural workers who can enter the country’s borders. In doing so, it demonstrates the ways in which the economies of the two countries are inextricably linked to each other. It also conducts an evaluation of the figure of the migrant worker amidst changing immigration policies, rising nationalist rhetoric, and the global movements of capital and labour.

Key words: Immigration, Migrant Workers, Nationalism, Global Capital, Labour, Agricultural Workers

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com

2 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Background of the Study Amidst rising nationalist rhetoric in various parts of the world, illegal immigration has gone to the forefront of global headlines. In a bid to reassert themselves and their economies, several countries in the West have begun to take protectionist measures to restrict the number of people gaining entrance to the countries. In this political context, when President Donald Trump was elected as the 45th president of the USA in 2016, he promised to build a wall between the USA and Mexico to regulate who gets access to the USA. The individuals and institutions who supported him in this endeavor believed that such a wall would ultimately protect both the country's physical and economic security. However, for political scientists such as Garrett (2018), this new iteration of a wall – considering that there had already been built a wall at the border in the 1990s and the 2000s – would create more harm than good. More specifically, an attendant worry was cthat one of the unintended consequences of building the wall would be the jeopardizing of the agricultural economy because of the reduction in the number of temporary workers who mostly come from Mexico.

Problem Statement The erection of a physical barrier – in the form of a wall – between the USA and Mexico is likely to deter illegal immigrants from entering the USA. Such deterrence would then adversely affect the US agricultural economy by diminishing immigrants who typically work in the fields.

Purpose and Objectives of the Study This research study explores the economic aspects of erecting a physical barrier at the border between the USA and Mexico. In doing this examination, it aims to explore the extent to

3 which the two countries’ economies are entangled. On the one hand, allowing illegal migrants the opportunity to work in the USA sustains an agricultural economy that would otherwise suffer from the lack of workers. On the other hand, the migrants who access work in the USA can sustain a part of Mexico’s economy through their remittances to Mexico. In this way, this economic entanglement between the two countries suggests that the erection of a wall may not be the most sustainable solution. In this regard, the present research study will also consider alternatives to erecting border walls. Finally, the study will evaluate the figure of the migrant worker within the context of rising nationalist rhetoric, “crumbling nation-state sovereignty,” globalization, and the global movements of capital and labor (Brice, 2019).

The Rationale of the Study Carrying out this research study is timely, not just in the USA but also in the global context. The entanglement of global capital and labor means that economies can no longer separate themselves from other economies in the world. However, rising nationalist rhetoric amidst growing trends in globalization suggests growing populist pressure – particularly among Western countries - to regulate migration trends. Thus, researching the extent to which the erection of a border wall between the USA and Mexico may ultimately jeopardize its economy is an ideal way of examining how economies are entangled and how the erection of walls as a strategy – is inherently unsustainable.

Limitations of the Study It is worth noting that the discourse of erecting a wall on the border between the USA and Mexico was debated mainly during the Trump presidency. Even so, the Trump presidency has since come to an end. This change in presidencies may mean that the erection of the wall may not happen. In this regard, this study may attain a certain level of retrospectivity. Put differently,

4 the change in administration in the USA eliminates some element of immediacy in so far as the research study is concerned. Even so, even without this essential immediacy, this research study will retain its relevance because it considers a phenomenon that is not only restricted to the actual erection of the wall. It also speaks to a particular political mindset among certain individuals and institutions. As authors like Garrett (2018) have acknowledged, the quest to erect a border was emblematic of a rising nationalist sentiment among the West populations. To this extent, a retrospective analysis of the effects that such a border would have had on the agricultural economy would still be relevant.

Theoretical Framework The erection of the wall in a bid to regulate the entrance of illegal migrants to the USA can be understood through the conceptual framework introduced by Benedict Anderson’s influential text ‘Imagined Communities.’ As per Anderson (2006), the idea of nations – and, therefore, nationalism – only emerged after there had been a weakening of the idea that Latin was a superior language, that society had to be organized around divine leaders, and that the origins of humankind were not universal. To him, a nation was an imagined community that served ontological functions for populations. As such, organizing people under the idea of nationalism – as the erection of the wall seeks to do – is always bound to receive support, particularly from disenfranchised groups. Benedict’s theory of the nation as an ‘imagined community’ will be essential to finding a way to balance the desire for the kind of nationalism that ties people to their roots and the awareness that the nation itself is ultimately a fiction.

The economic foundation of migration can also be viewed through the theoretical lens of Ernst Georg Ravenstein (1885). After studying the migratory data on the UK and other countries, he argued that migration trends tended to follow certain laws. He identified the following laws:

5 there is typically a reallocation of the population between the territories involved; the territories differ mainly according to economic characteristics; most migrants tend to move to short distances; migrations are likely to occur step-by-step; for each migrator stream, there is usually a corresponding return stream; migrants on long distances typically migrate in large industry and trade centers; city residents tend to be less mobile than residents of rural areas; women tend to be more mobile than men internally while men travel longer distances; big cities tend to grow mainly because of migration; the volume of migration tends to correspond to an increase in trade, industry, and transport; and the main reasons for migration are usually economic.

Research Hypotheses Based on the purpose and objectives that underlie this research study, there are four main hypotheses. First, this research study seeks to demonstrate that the restriction of migrant workers through building a wall is a testament to the resurgence of nationalism throughout the West. In this case, the USA is only the latest in a growing number of Western democracies that adopt protectionist stances. The second hypothesis is that the quest to build a border wall is founded on the economic and identity insecurities plaguing populations in the West. These insecurities are brought about and exacerbated by the growth of globalization and the movement of global labor and capital. The third hypothesis is that countries and economies are entangled with each other due to the world’s economic and political history. As such, effecting superficial means of disentanglement – such as border walls – is unlikely to benefit. Finally, the regulation of migrant workers into the USA is bound to have the long-term effect of adversely affecting the USA’s agricultural economy.

6 Summary of Remaining Chapters The second chapter will conduct a literature review of the work that directly speaks to the phenomenon of migrancy. In this chapter, the aim will be to develop an understanding of authors who have researched migration trends, nationalism, globalization, and global capital and labor.

The third chapter offers a description of the data-collection process and the research methodology utilized in the research study. The fourth chapter will present detailed results from the research process. In this chapter, the aim will be to analyze the data that has been presented.

The fourth chapter will contain a discussion of the results, a recommendations section, and a conclusion. This chapter will also use the collected data to examine the notion of migrant workers. In privileging migrant workers, this chapter will use migrant workers as an entry point into border walls, globalization, nationalism, global capital and labor, and various aspects of migration. It will define and conceptualize migrant workers and consider the circumstances from where migrants and migrant workers emerge.

7 CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter will provide a brief overview of existing previous research on the current research topic. In this regard, this chapter's primary purpose is to create the theoretical framework upon which the current research study lies. The question of migration vis-à-vis national sovereignty has been a subject of interest for scholars and experts from various academic disciplines for years. Because migration is a subject that lends itself to an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach, the scope of research studies that will be considered will speak to this multiplicity in approach. In this chapter, the scholarly work that will be considered will take a holistic view and a tactical approach. Under the holistic view, the aim will be to consider foundational texts that theorize on the notions of nationalism and migration.

Under the tactical approach, the aim will be to consider scholarly work that pays particular attention to anti-immigration rhetoric in the USA – particularly under the Trump administration – and the status of migrant workers.

Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities It is possible to argue that the appeal that Anderson’s work has to various academic disciplines lies in the fact that his text addresses questions that have a bearing on issues of culture, national identities, and questions related to capitalism (Anderson, 2006). His main concern, however, was with the cultural roots of nationalism. He was also decisively critical of Eurocentrism, thereby ensuring that his text could be useful in a global context and not just limited to the concerns and circumstances of Western countries. At this point, it would be necessary to critically examine Anderson’s conception of nationalism vis-à-vis the immigration question as it is currently happening in the USA. According to Anderson, the nation is first and foremost a modern concept. In this regard, it is an “imagined political community” that is usually

8 imagined as limited and as sovereign (Anderson, 2006). He also advanced the argument that the nation's idea emerged from cultural and social developments that had the aim of undermining the extent to which religious communities and dynasties held sway over the identities of individuals.

For this reason, then, the need to rise above the limitations put in place by religion and dynasties gave people a need to imagine a community that would tap into other communal aspects of identity to develop a distinct identity that did not necessarily rely on the power that came from the Church or the landed classes. Thus, in his text, Anderson theorizes that there were very specific conditions that led to the development of nationalism – and thus, the nation – in the 18th and 19th centuries. In his formulation, the nation comes into being primarily because it depends on the development of communal horizontal bonds between people who, in most cases, do not have physical familiarity with each other. Even though these people do not know each other personally, they can surpass their differences and develop a common identity based on shared history, shared beliefs, and shared philosophies regarding reality, experience, and knowledge (Anderson, 2006).

To Anderson, then, the nationalist impulse was borne from two crucial elements. The first is limitedness (Anderson, 2006). Here, the imagined community that is the nation is limited and exclusive. This means that nations are bound to recognize and respect the presence of certain boundaries between them. Typically, various nations distinguish themselves based on these boundaries. Furthermore, not respecting these boundaries often has far-reaching consequences.

The second crucial element is the notion of sovereignty. Here, the nation becomes sovereign becomes it replaces any traditional ties that existed before creating the nation. In this regard, one’s national identity becomes a person’s foundation of individuation. In other words, a person’s nationality becomes a person’s most important marker of identity.

9 Anderson’s theory of nationalism is relevant to the American context because, contrary to other theorists who were working at his time and before his time, the nation's notion had been identified with Europe. However, Anderson maintained that nationalism first developed in countries such as the USA, Brazil, and some former Spanish colonies (Anderson, 2006). To him, one of the most critical factors that led to the growth – and spread – of the idea of nationalism was print media. He argued that it was the development of vernacular print media, more than anything, that laid the foundation for the nation. This is because, despite the geographical distance between people in the same locale, the reading of the same print material meant that people could share in a collective experience that was neither based on the Church nor their social positions hierarchy. Instead, the thing that brought them together was the fact that they had willingly decided to belong to a group that would be conceptualized as the nation.

To Anderson, print culture – first through the Bible and then through the vernacular newspaper – had three critical effects. First, it was able to cut across regional variations in language, therefore allowing people in a particular area to engage in a medium of exchange that was below the sacred language of Latin and above vernacular languages (Anderson, 2006).

Secondly, print culture provided a particular fixity to language, allowing for the slowing down of the rate of change to enable greater continuity between the present and the past. Thirdly, the print culture created languages of power that, in a sense, gave more privilege to those languages that were closest to the written form (Anderson, 2006). Therefore, one can argue that Anderson's emphasis on print culture – particularly on the newspaper and the novel – has been one of the most stimulating factors for several scholars who are working across some disciplines.

Anderson’s concept of the nation is directly relevant to the USA's immigration discourse in several ways. First, it possible to argue that the variant of nationalism that is anti-immigration

10 demonstrates that Anderson was right when he noted that “the end of the era of nationalism, so long prophesied, is not remotely in sight” (Anderson, 2006, p. 3). It is also worth noting that perhaps Anderson would not have anticipated that nationalism would have taken the specific form that it took. Secondly, anti-immigrant rhetoric could be evidence that immigrants – by definition – fall outside of the imagined community that is the nation. Therefore, by developing stances that seek to limit entrance for immigrant workers to the USA, the main argument that is being made is that the USA – as a nation – is not open to people who are either outside its imagined community or do not hold the identity of being an American citizen as their most important identity marker.

Even so, the above formulation is easily complicated by the fact that it only considers the subjectivities of American citizens who hold anti-immigrant sentiments. According to an author such as Leo Chavez (1994), one could apply the method of logistic repression to consider the importance, if any, of the idea of an ‘imagined community’ to undocumented immigrants to stay in the USA. This author’s work is notable because it does not only consider the sentiments of American citizens. Instead, it explores the extent to which an undocumented migrant could gain entry into the imagined community that is the USA if they express the willingness to do so.

Therefore, the fact that there may be an unwillingness to make room for willing immigrants to become members of the USA community may suggest that nationalism is founded on exclusivity. As Anderson notes, the thing that underlies a sense of community is fundamentally imaginary. Therefore, members of a community: …internalize an image of the community not as a group of anomic individuals but as interconnected members who share equally in their fundamental membership in the community.

11 The internalization of the image and a sense of connectedness to the community is as important as actual physical presence in the community. (Chavez, 1994, p. 54) According to Chavez (1994), the fact that the members of an imagined community have the ability to develop alternative ideas of the constitutive facets of the said community, such a view does not necessarily allow for a redefinition of community. Such resistance to the redefinition of what a community entails is evident from the fact that – during the Trump administration – American anti-immigrant rhetoric was arguably at its highest. Such a phenomenon suggests that nations as imagined communities do not easily allow other people to determine their entrance. Instead, the exclusive character of the nation places limitations on the people who can access it.

Georg Ravenstein’s Laws of Migration Ravenstein’s foundational text about migration continues to inform a significant amount of migration discourse in the contemporary context. From as far back as the 19th century, this author was able to identify several principles that explained and offered insight into how people move across the world. This seminal text is crucial for understanding the movement of immigrant workers into the USA. Additionally – and perhaps more importantly – this text allows people belonging to a particular nation to come to terms with the reasons that would motivate people to emigrate.

Written in 1885, Ravenstein’s book was based on migratory trends into the United Kingdom. His ideas demonstrated that, essentially, no academic discipline could comprehensively argue an all-inclusive theory of migration. Even so, Ravenstein principles of migration could be placed into three categories. The first category was based on reasons. Here, the author sought to provide detailed reasons that underlay the decision that one makes to

12 emigrate. The second category was distance. In this case, there was a need to explain migratory trends based on the various covered distances. The third category concerned itself with the various characteristics that could be identified with migrants.

Under the first category, there were three main laws of migration. First, Ravenstein (1885) argued that most migrants tend only to travel a short distance simultaneously. The second law is that most people come from large cities that are likely to engage in long-distance migration. Finally, under this category, Ravenstein argued that most migration is typically from rural areas to urban areas. Within the context of the migration of workers into the USA, one notes that their movement from Mexico to the USA is not based on long distances. In the same vein, an American who was employed in the USA was likely to seek opportunities in the USA instead of moving to Canada in search of opportunities. Furthermore, those who come from rural areas are most likely to go to the USA searching for employment opportunities, particularly within the agricultural economy (Greenwood, 2019).

The second category in Ravenstein’s formulation also had three laws. First, Ravenstein noted that most international migrants consist of young males between the ages of 20 and 45. The second law under this category concerned that, in most cases, most migrations tend to constitute step-by-step processes. Finally, each migration flow was said to be responsible for the production of at least one counterflow. Under this category, too, one could argue that the migratory trends of Mexican migrants prove Ravenstein’s theory. As Jeffrey Cohen and Ibrahim Sirkeci (2021) suggest in their text, the fact that migration from Mexico had become somewhat normal in certain states in the USA meant that the movement of American citizens to Mexico was also normalized. Even so, despite this counterflow, it is worth having in mind – as Jeffrey

13 Cohen and Ibrahim Sirkeci (2021) do – that, in the case of the Mexico-USA and the USAMexico flow, it was more likely that the power dynamics were essentially unequal.

Just like the first and second categories, the third category also had three laws. According to Ravenstein (1885), certain characteristics revealed themselves from the migratory trends.

Firstly, female migrants were likely to be migratory in their countries compared to their male counterparts. Secondly, it was clear that migration was likely to increase in volume with an increase in the development of the industry and innovations in the field of transportation. Finally, Ravenstein argued that, ultimately, the leading causes of migration were economic. Here it is possible to argue that this last law is the one that is most relevant within the context of the movement of immigrant workers into the USA. For most of them, migration is less a matter of choice than a question of necessity. Had it not been for economic reasons, then the volume of migration would possibly not be as pronounced as it is.

Ravenstein’s migration laws provide a good opportunity for one to conduct an inquiry into possible obstacles of immigration. According to Greenwood (2019), one of the main obstacles of immigration is quotas. In many countries – the USA included – a maximum number of people can gain entrance into the countries. Laws such as the Immigration Act of 1924 have provisions that limit the number of immigrants who can come from a specific country. (Ngai, 2017). The second obstacle is the phenomenon of temporary migration. In this case, the only way an immigrant can survive in their new environment is by engaging in the employment sector.

Indeed, in the USA, the figure of the Mexican migrant worker is common.

Furthermore, in countries such as Dubai, most of the people in the service sector are not nationals of the countries but workers who have emigrated from poorer economies. Finally, the issue of seeking refugee status could also be an obstacle to immigration. In such a case,

14 remaining in one’s source country could be risky, and, therefore, emigration remains the only safe choice. Still, this group of people is not based on economic dependency, but political dependency complicates their claim to stay in the imagined community that is the USA. Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric During the Trump Presidency In their text, Laura Finley and Luigi Esposito (2019) note that, due to the changes brought about by the Trump administration, the issue of migrant workers has become one of the most contested during his presidency. Finley and Esposito (2019) also argue that several changes were most emblematic of the anti-immigrant stance held by people in the country. The first main change was an expansion of the groups that would be prioritized for deportation if they were found to be acting in ways that went against the immigration laws. The second change was the administration's plan to hire fifteen thousand more immigrant agents whose work would involve enforcing the new anti-immigrant rules and regulations. The third change was the broad travel ban that had been placed on refugees and, particularly, people who came from Muslim-majority countries. The other significant change was the creation of an office of Victims of Immigrant Crime Enforcement. Established via a President’s Executive Order titled, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” this instrument had the aim of serving the needs of people who had been the victims of crimes that had been committed by individuals who had a nexus to immigration (Finley and Esposito, 2019). The scope of the people who could claim remedies under this presidential order also involved the families.

The text by Judith Greene (2018) considering the question of migrant workers is essential to gaining insight into the specific measures that have been put in place to respond to increasing numbers of migrants in the USA. Greene notes that the phenomenon of expanded migrant prosecution has become the “newest contributor to mass incarceration.” According to her, the

15 incarceration costs associated with improper entry and re-entry can be conservatively estimated to be about $7billion since 2005. Greene (2018) also notes that despite the fact that such incarceration typically strains what is already a strained prison industrial complex, it does not necessarily deter migration. This fact suggests that there is a need for better solutions in so far as the question of migrant workers seeking employment opportunities in the USA is concerned.

The Importance of Mexican Migrant Workers to the US Agricultural Economy It is worth noting that migrants tend to exert pressure on the US economy for many people who oppose immigration. Furthermore, for those who feel disenfranchised, there is an underlying sentiment that migrants take away their employment opportunities and benefit from the country without necessarily having a corresponding benefit. However, scholars such as Ponce, Lucia, and Shimada (2018) demonstrate that this view is not factual. According to these authors, the public charge rule rationale required immigration officials to reject applications from individuals who sought to remain or enter the US lawfully if it could be demonstrated that they were likely to receive public benefits that were tied to need.

In Ponce et al.’s view, this rule's enforcement had three critical aspects that one would have to take into serious consideration. First, this rule would make it more difficult for migrants who were of modest means to gain lawful entry to the US-based permanent residency (Ponce et al., 2018). Secondly, this rule would likely make immigrant families reluctant to receive public benefits such as Medicaid. In preceding assistance from the state, they would live in precarious economic conditions. The third aspect to consider is the fact that immigrants typically contribute significantly to the US economy. Thus, the limitation placed on migrants based on the erroneous assumption that immigrants do not benefit the economy harms the country and reduces the work that immigrants do, and discounting the important role they play in industries such as agriculture.

16 Chassamboulli and Peri (2020) argue that immigrants – and, particularly, migrant workers - tend to work at higher rates than the typical American citizen. In addition to this, their geographic mobility – brought about by their migrancy – helps the US economy respond to issues that are typically associated with worker shortages. There is also evidence from work by Chassamboulli and Peri (2020) to suggest that immigrant workers typically support and complement the native-born population. Finally, because immigrant families are more focused on employment opportunities, immigrant families tend to be upwardly-mobile, thus ensuring that they will infuse benefits not just to their families but also to the US economy.

In his text, Philip Martin (2002) argues that the US agriculture industry is unique for the fact that it is inherently seasonal. According to this author, it is this seasonality that informs Mexican migrant trends in the USA. This author notes that, in light of the fact that the demand for hired workers in the agricultural industry is seasonal, more workers are usually needed during some months more than others. However, the nature of the industry is such that it relies on seasonal lanor, most of which – due to the sheer volume of the farms as well as the attitudes of American citizens regarding afrm labour – is done by Mexican migrants. Indeed, as Martin argues, the migrant farm labor system in the USA has always depended on an “army of workers willing to accommodate themselves to seasonality.” (Martin, 2002, p. 1127). In the typical case, these workers were difficult to find in an American society that prized upward mobility. This situation therefore meant that, as far as the Western states of the USA was concerned, it was usually newcomers (Mexican migrants) who were likely to work in the agricultural sector.

To what extent, if any, could one argue that the US agricultural sector relies on Mexican migrants? To answer this question, two related issues are worth considering. First, the US agricultural sector had always benefitted from a sort of agricultural exceptionalism that allowed

17 it to operate relatively protected from labor and immigration policy laws. This meant, therefore, that before 1930, the seasonality of US agriculture ensured that farm labour as offered by immigrants was cheap. Additionally, the low wages led to higher land prices. Therefore, instead of reforming labor reforms during the 1930s, there was the adoption of the “guest worker program that became the basis for the Mexico-U.S. migration today.” (Martin, 2002, p. 1128). In turn, this led to the development of the Bracero program, where there would be an exception in the immigration law to allow for people from North America, South America and other adjacent islands to take part in agricultural labor in the USA. Even though the Bracero program came to an end in 1964, its availability allowed the southwestern states to become the “garden states” of the USA (Martin, 2002).

18 CHAPTER III: RESEARCH, DATA COLLECTION, AND FINDINGS In this chapter, there will be a description of how the data was collected. There was primary reliance on desk research (secondary research) as the primary methodology to answer the research questions. As Sileyew (2019) indicates, desk research methodology involves using data that already exists to answer pre-identified research questions. In the typical case, the use of this methodology involves summarizing and collating the data to achieve overall efficacy in so far as the research process is concerned. For this particular study, the research material that was relied on includes the data that the Pew Research Center availed and data that emerges from the research studies conducted by various scholars and experts working across various disciplines.

This chapter will also contain the results of the desk research that was conducted to answer this main research question: Is the erection of a physical barrier deterring illegal migrants from entering the USA? As was established earlier, most of the data relied on in this study was from two main institutions: The Pew Research Center and the Migration Policy Institute. In addition to this, there was a reliance on the academic work of scholars and other experts in the field. The followings section will detail the results of this desk research.

Justification of Research Methodology Sileyew (2019) notes that desk research has certain advantages that were particularly useful within the context of this research study. He notes that perhaps the best reason to rely on secondary research is the availability of data. As this author maintains, many sources from where data relevant to the study can be sourced. This availability is particularly advantageous where it may be difficult to conduct primary research. Desk research is typically less expensive and, therefore, a less time-consuming process. Data is readily available typically means that one can rely on a minimum expenditure to obtain the needed data.

19 The use of desk research as a research methodology is also useful because it allows a researcher to gain insight into how the said methodology is ultimately beneficial. In the case of institutions, in particular, the process could result in the formation of hypotheses and an evaluation of the various costs associated with the conducting of primary research. Finally, in conducting this research study, it became clear that secondary research is quicker to conduct because data is usually freely available. If a researcher identifies data sources, then one could complete secondary research within a matter of weeks.

Even so – as Sileyew (2019) suggests in his text – this research methodology is not without its limitations. This author notes that even though data may be readily available, a researcher has to exercise caution and perform credibility evaluation to understand the available information's authenticity. A researcher should also remain aware that not all secondary data resources offer the latest statistics. Therefore, before relying on a particular set of data, it will be necessary for one to investigate the extent to which the data can be updated to accommodate the circumstances that provided the context for the research study. To guard against the dangers of conducting secondary research, the research process began by ensuring that the primary research upon which the secondary research was done was of good quality. This was done in recognition that, ultimately, the success of the research study would be dependent on the quality of primary research.

Research Questions and Hypotheses Concerning the research study, the aim was to identify the data that spoke to the research question. As discussed in the introductory chapter, the main research question is as follows: Is the erection of a physical barrier deterring illegal migrants from entering the USA? In support of these research questions, the following were the guiding hypotheses:

20 

The restriction of migrant workers through building a wall is a testament to the resurgence of nationalism throughout the West.



The quest to build a border wall is founded on the economic and identity insecurities plaguing populations in the West.



Due to the world’s economic and political history, countries and economies are entangled with each other.



The regulation of migrant workers into the USA is bound to have the long-term effect of adversely affecting the USA’s agricultural economy.

Procedures Followed The main repository of information that was relied on for this research study was the Pew

Research Center. This center presents itself as a non-partisan fact tank whose primary responsibility is to inform the public regarding the issues, attitudes, and trends that shape the world. It is worth noting that even though this institution is mainly associated with the USA's circumstances, it also pays attention to other issues that affect other parts of the world. To this extent, therefore, this institution conducts public opinion polling, facilitates demographic research, conducts extensive media content analyses, and engages in other forms of empirical social science research. It is worth noting that the Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. In this regard, researchers who rely on the data that this institution provides typically take on the burden of formulating their hypotheses and conclusions from the provided data sets.

With respect to the current research study, the Pew Research Center was a handy resource as it also researches Hispanic trends. Therefore, this research study seeks to create knowledge about the feasibility of creating a border along the USA South-Western border. The states that are along this area – California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas – typically have

21 migrant workers from Mexico. To this extent, the Pew Research center has accumulated years of data that will be immediately relevant to the present research endeavor. The primary data sets that were relied upon in the current research were the number of immigrants in the country, the number of Mexican immigrants in the country, the perceptions about who migrants are, facts regarding the San Ysido California border, and general immigration rhetoric in the USA. While the data sets provided by the Pew Research were useful, this information repository was supplemented by relying on academic work as well as policy papers written by various scholars, academics, and experts working in and around the vast area of migration. For this particular research study, the scholars who had information about the question of migrant workers, the San Ysidro California border, and the agricultural economy were prioritized. There was also reliance on the work of scholars who had considered the implications of building a border wall, particularly on the economy of the USA. To this extent, the research was conducted under the aegis of institutions such as the Migration Policy Institute. Founded in 2001, this institute is arguably the leading organization in so far as migration policy is concerned. It conducts authoritative research regarding migration and provides numerous learning opportunities, and leads to the development of novel policy ideas.

The research conducted under the sponsorship of the Migration Policy Institute is particularly useful because – in addition to paying specific attention to the circumstances of North America and Europe – it is also active around the world, thus providing a useful global and comparative approach in so far as migration issues are concerned. It is also worth noting that this institute’s research approach is guided by the belief that “countries need to have sensible, well-thought-out immigration and integration policies to ensure the best outcomes for both

22 immigrants and receiving communities” (Migration Policy Institute, 2020). In this regard, its research philosophy aligns with the hypotheses that undergird the present research study.

Migration Trends in the USA: The Pew Research Center and the Migration Policy Institute In a research study published in 2020, the Pew Research Center found that immigrants are more likely than US-born workers to remain in lower-skill occupations (Bennett, 2020).

There are marked differences when it comes to the nature of jobs that immigrants and US nationals prioritize. When it comes to immigrants, research indicates that they are less likely to work in jobs that place a higher degree of importance on nonmechanical skills. This phenomenon was particularly evident in the case of “social, fundamental, analytical, or managerial skills” (Bennett, 2020). In 2018, the Pew Research Center found that 43% of immigrant workers tended to work in jobs where analytical skills were seen to be “least important.” This percentage was in contrast to that of 28% in the case of workers who had been born in the USA. Equally, the research study demonstrated that 35% of immigrants were employed in jobs where the fundamental skills were not seen as being important compared to the rate of 19% for US-born workers. As the research indicates, such jobs include welders and loading machine operators (Bennett, 2020).

It is also worth noting that despite the trends that have been identified above, the share of immigrant workers who work in high skill jobs is now rising. Indeed, although –overall – immigrants tend to be concentrated in lower-skill jobs than US-born workers, the Pew Research Center acknowledges that “they have experienced employment growth in many high-skill occupations since 1995” (Bennett, 2020). Overall, there was an increase in foreign-born workers employed in fundamental skills occupations from 20% in 1995 to 25%. Notably, as more

23 immigrant workers moved into high-skill occupations, there was a corresponding decrease in the share of foreign-born workers who were employed in occupations where social or fundamental skills were not too critical.

It is worth juxtaposing the statistics from this trend with the rising level of education among immigrants. According to the Pew Research Center, the number of immigrants aged 25 and above with a qualification of a bachelor’s degree and above had increased from 22% in 1995 to 34% in 2018 (Bennett, 2020). The Pew Research Center identified one main contributing factor for this increase in education levels among immigrants. According to them, this increase in education levels could have resulted from the surge in the arrival of educated Asian immigrants during the 2000s due to the H-1B visa program of the 1990s.

In light of the new restrictions put in place by the Trump presidency, it would be worth considering the various ways that they have influenced border apprehensions, particularly in the case of the US-Mexico border. According to the Pew Research Center, border patrol agents apprehended “about half as many migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2020 as they did the year before” (Gonzalez-Barrera, 2020). While this downward trend may result from the coronavirus outbreak, there is also a possibility that the sharp drop was brought about a shutdown of the border. Concerning migratory trends, the Pew Research Center's research also demonstrates that, since the year 2000, border apprehensions have tended to peak in the spring and then to decline during the hot summer months. From 2013 onwards, the pattern seems to have undergone a sharp change, with the annual migratory peak happening in March. As the Pew Research Center details, “Apprehensions fell dramatically after May, declining to 40,507 by September, the final month of the fiscal year.” (Gonzalez-Barrera, 2020).

24 According to the research study conducted by Emma Israel and Jeanne Batalova (2020) under the Migration Policy Institute tutelage, even though there have been significant population changes in the past decade, Mexicans are the largest group of immigrants in the USA. According to these authors, Mexicans account for about 24% of the 45 million foreign residents in the USA. In 2019, the researchers note that about 10.9 million Mexican-born individuals were living in the USA. However, between 2010 and 2019, this population of Mexican migrants reduced by 7%.

These authors maintain that two main factors influenced the reduction in the number of migrants.

The first factor was an increase in immigration enforcement. The second contributing factor was the strengthening of the economy. Even so, the USA continues to be a top destination for Mexican immigrants. (Israel & Batalova, 2020). Additionally, the most-favored areas of settlement for Mexican migrants were California, Texas, and Arizona.

The research by Israel and Batalova (2020) also indicates that Mexicans were seen to participate at “slightly higher rates than the native-born and overall foreign-born populations when it comes to participation in the labor force.” According to the Migration Policy Institute researchers, about 69% of Mexican immigrants who were 16 years and older participated in the civilian labor force. This percentage was in contrast to the 67% rate of foreign-born populations and 62% of the US-born population. Overall – and in comparison, to foreign-born and US-born populations – Mexican migrants were likely to be employed in service, natural resources, construction and maintenance, production, transportation, and moving materials.

The History of Mexican Migrant Workers A review of the literature and research data relied on in the present research study demonstrates that the history of Mexican migrant workers in the USA has to be understood within the context of the Mexican Revolution as well as the series of civil wars that forced

25 Mexicans to flee to the USA in search of a better life (Gutiérrez, 2019). Consequently, many American farm owners took advantage of the influx of cheap labor and hired Mexicans to work on their farms. For example, as Gutiérrez (2019) suggests in his text, by the 1920s, at least three quarters of the 200,000 farm workers who were found in the state of California were either Mexican or Mexican-American.

Even so, as the population of Mexicans in the Southern states increased, there was an evident need for reforms in so far as the agricultural sector was concerned. Due to this, there was the crafting of the first labor agreement between the USA and Mexico. This agreement provided that US farm owners had to avail legal contracts for all the Mexican workers that they employed.

Furthermore, the said agreements had to have provisions regarding issues such as wages and work schedules. On its part, the US government opted to put into effect more measures at the border between the USA and Mexico, therefore ensuring that there would be fewer chances for Mexican immigrants to work under exploitative labor contracts (Gutiérrez, 2019).

Equally, the research by Clemens, Lewis, and Postel (2018), into the figure of the Mexican migrant worker demonstrates that the supply of farm labor in the USA continues to be one of the most crucial questions in so far as US immigration policy is concerned. These authors note that during the early years of the 21st century, about 77% of all workers on American farms had been born abroad. More importantly, almost half of these workers had not been in the USA for more than 5 years, thus emphasizing the seasonality of their labor. Additionally, more than half of these foreign-born farm laborers did not have the requisite permission to work in the US. To an author like Gutiérrez (2019), these statistics point to the fact that the USA’s agricultural economy – particularly in the southern states – has a history of depending on workers from other countries. Indeed, this author reveals that, in most cases, most foreign

26 farmworkers are likely to stay in the country for just as long as it will take them to make a certain amount of money. After that, they often return to their home countries. Another notable trend is that, for those who opt to remain in the United States, their offspring are usually unlikely to seek employment in the farms. The upshot of all these trends is that, in so far as the country’s agricultural economy is concerned, one of the most important people is the seasonal worker who, in most cases, is content to receive a small amount of money in return for seasonal labor.

It is important to take note of the contradictions that exist in the American agricultural industry. On the one hand, there is a recognition of the fact that without foreign labour, the industry would be unlikely to survive. As such, there is a general understanding that Mexican migrants are necessary not just to the American agricultural industry, but also to the country’s overall economy (Gutiérrez, 2019). On the other hand, there is a vibrant anti-Mexican rhetoric in the country, fanned by populist nationalism of leaders such as President Donald Trump. As per the logic of this nationalism, there should be a stricter immigration policy that controls who gets access into the country.

The research by Gutiérrez (2019) shows that there were two instances, in particular, where the US government made exceptions to the dominant anti-Mexican sentiment. In what came ultimately to be referred as Bracero programs, one of the first initiatives was to facilitate the entry of Mexican workers to southwestern American farms. Even though this program was not officially part of the Bracero program – this would come later - it managed to cater to the labor needs of the southwestern agricultural economies. The first of these programs lasted from 1917 to 1921. Even so, the end of this first program was not neat. As the work by Gutiérrez (2019) demonstrates, the migration trends continued even after the formation of the US Border Patrol in 1923.

27 In light of the fact that the USA took part in the Second World War, there were many men who were called to fight for the country. For this reason, the US was experiencing a shortage of farm labor. The Mexican and American governments opted to officially create an immigration program. This was the Bracero program which was developed on 4th August 1942.

In the second iteration of the immigration program, more than 5 million Mexican workers were admitted into the country. This second iteration lasted from about 1942 to 1964 (Gutiérrez, 2019).

As the Second World War came to a close, the federal government of the USA began to decrease the number of Bracero permits that were issued. This reduction led to a situation where Mexican migrants in need of employment would attempt to enter the country illegally. For this reason, the high numbers of Mexican immigrants in the country led to stereotypes and the subsequent discrimination of Mexican migrants. The anti-immigrant prejudice began to grow and came to a head when the Eisenhower administration opted to develop an aggressive campaign aimed at forcibly deporting Mexicans and Mexican-Americans back to Mexico (Gutiérrez, 2019). While this program known as ‘Operation Wetback’ officially came to a close in 1954, the anti-immigrant stance against Mexicans had already been set in motion. Furthermore, the idea that Mexican farm migrants were available for the provision of cheap labor remained dominant in the ensuing years.

From the 1990s and into the early years of the 21st century, about half of the employers who were employed on American farms did not have authorization to work in the USA. It was therefore agreed that, as a way of dealing with the challenges that were often faced by illegal immigrants, there was a need to develop an immigration policy that would legalize the status of Mexican seasonal workers while also making it easier for farm owners to get access to farm

28 labor (Gutiérrez, 2019). These discussions culminated in a bill called the Agricultural Job Opportunity and Security Act. Even so, after the bill was accepted by the Senate, it was ultimately rejected, therefore leaving the problem of undocumented immigrants unresolved.

During the Trump administration, it remained clear that the immigration policies that the administration adopted and enforced will play a large role not just in determining the composition of the agricultural workforce, but also in the ability of the agricultural industry to be sustainable. The debate on the building of a physical barrier, therefore, had contesting views.

Even though President Trump was keen to build a wall as a way of securing the border and managing the number of Mexicans who could access the country, America’s farmers were not entirely in support of the barrier as it would seriously limit the extent to which farm workers – who provided cheap labor – could find a way into the USA (Clemens et al., 2018).

In this context, the Trump administration attempted to develop a solution that would ensure that the needs of American farmers were addressed while also maintaining the antiimmigrant stance that the administration championed. In April 2019, the US Department of Agriculture decided to launch a streamlined process for the acquisition of the H-2A visa which would allow agricultural seasonal workers – usually from Mexico – to find a way to work in the USA. According to Luckstead and Devadoss (2019), the H-2A visa is one of the most streamlined visa applications in the history of the US government. To ensure that migrant farm workers are able to have their visas processed in a quicker manner, agencies such as the Department of Labor, the Department of State, and the US Citizenship and Immigration Services work together and share data to reduce the turn-around time on visa issuance.

It is worth noting that this visa strategy has to be understood within the context of multiple and possibly contesting interests. The first interest is political. The Trump

29 administration – representing Republican interests – was interested in catering to the interests of farmers whose politics were Republican. If they attended to these GOP-leaning farmers, they would have a better chance of securing their votes in the 2020 election. In addition to this, the streamlining process would allow the administration to proceed with its plans to build a physical barrier between the USA and Mexico border. At the end of the spectrum, Democrats were interested in ensuring that there were less restrictions on immigrants. As such, while they were in support of the streamlining of the visa for Mexican immigrants, they were generally not keen on building a wall. In their view, the overall effect of this wall would be the jeopardizing of the American economy (Luckstead and Devadoss, 2019).

The research by Luckstead and Devadoss (2019) reveals that the H-2A program has gained traction since it was first introduced. In addition to encouraging farmers to attempt to hire locally before venturing to Mexico, it also protects Mexican farm workers by ensuring that farmers provide seasonal workers adequate amenities such as housing and transportation. Due to the provisions put in place by the H-2A visas, there has been a multiplication in the number of visa application that have been made as well as the visas that have been issued. Indeed, authors like Bier (2020) place the figure as rising from less than 50,000 to 150,000, thereby constitution 10% of the entire country’s agricultural workforce. Ultimately, then, the H-2A visa functions as one of the ways that the Trump administration anticipated to be able to build a wall while also ensuring that there would be a way to meet the country’s labor needs.

The San Ysidro Border To understand migration trends in the San Ysidro border, the work by Hernández (2018) is instructive. She notes that San Ysidro is a small predominantly Mexican-speaking community that is located at the southern ends of Sand Diego. Considered the world’s busiest border

30 crossing, she argues that it offers a unique chance for one to “study the US/Mexico border, as San Ysidro is emblematic of globalizing processes, where local dynamics intersect and often conflict with regional, transnational, and global political/economic interests.” (Hernández, 2018, p. 12). In this sense, then, the study of the San Ysidro border provides a unique opportunity for one to understand immigration policies, migrant trends, as well as the permeable nature of nation-state boundaries.

The San Ysidro point of entry is important in investigating the necessity for a wall. While it remains the busiest border crossing among the 48 points between the USA and Mexico, it is also worth noting that it is an official route into the country. Therefore, while a physical barrier exists, it cannot be said to completely deter immigrants from gaining access into the USA. As the work by Hernández (2018) reveals, immigrants will always find ways of gaining access to the USA, usually through illegal channels. In January of 2020, for example, USA authorities discovered the longest smuggling tunnel that had ever been discovered in the country. Stretching for more than three quarters of one mile, the tunnel had been built to link Tijuana – in Mexico – to San Diego.

Equally, Kil’s work demonstrates that one of the essential borders – at least in so far as Mexican migrants seeking entrance to the USA is concerned – is the USA-Mexico border (Kil, 2019). Concerning the traffic across the two countries separated by the border, this author notes that nearly 300,000 workers were known to travel legally across the border, with some going to work in the USA on a daily or weekly basis. Indeed, as this author argues, at the time of the border’s most unrestricted status, migrant workers would also illegally cross into the USA. To do this, they would have to use a border resident card that allowed residents to cross into the USA for non-work purposes. Even so, as Kil notes, this restriction was often disregarded, and migrants

31 would use the resident cards to work. The state of the border can be understood by examining the case of Texas State AFL-CIO v. Kennedy. In that case, the courts ruled that any person who had an alien resident card could live outside the country's borders as long as the said person continued to work within the USA. This ruling was particularly crucial as, in a significant way, it was able to legitimize migrant workers, particularly those who worked in USA’s agricultural sector.

32 CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The figure of the migrant worker is ubiquitous in the 21st century. Due to globalization and the manner in which economies are inextricably linked, capital easily moves from one place to the other. However, due to diminishing economic opportunities as well as growing inequality across different parts of the world, there is a nationalist trend that is increasingly being adopted across the Western world. In this research study, the work of authors such as Benedict Anderson has been useful in gaining insight into the various reasons that underlie people’s propensity to rely on the notion of nation for their primary identity. Indeed, as the anti-Mexican rhetoric in the USA demonstrates, it is this populist rhetoric that has prompted leaders such as President Trump to aim to erect a physical barrier between the USA and Mexico.

Even so, while the Republican Party attempted to demonstrate the utility that such a barrier would have, the reality of the agricultural industry had to be reckoned with. The work of scholars such as Gutiérrez (2019) has demonstrated that the Mexican farm worker is – and has always been – one of the cornerstones of the American agricultural economy. From the turn of the 20th century, it is seasonal workers hailing from Mexico who were both willing and able to find work in the farms while assuring farmers that labour would be cheap. Through the post-war Bracero programs, the economies of Mexico and USA became enmeshed in a manner that has remained more or less consistent to the present moment. Additionally, in light of the fact that the agricultural industry plays a large role in the country’s overall economy, jeopardizing this tenuous relationship through the building of a border could harm the American economy.

On the other hand, Mexico benefits from the remittances with which seasonal workers in the USA return home. As Gutiérrez (2019) has demonstrated in his work, the majority of Mexican immigrants typically return to their country after the season is over. As such, there

33 seems to be a symbiotic relationship between the two countries. Perhaps in recognition of this fact – as well as encouragement from farmers of large tracts of land in the Southwestern states of the country – the Republican government introduced a new visa system that would fast-track and streamline the issuance of temporary visas to Mexican migrants. While this move has seen the number of seasonal workers go high, it has also meant that the Republican Party went on with its plans to build a physical barrier.

Continuing with the plans to build a physical barrier introduces a new set of considerations, with the most crucial being the fact that the erection of the wall does not mean that illegal migrants will be deterred from attempting to enter the USA. Instead, there will be the use of alternative methods to enter the USA. Indeed, in 2020, the longest tunnel at the Tijuana and San Diego border was discovered. The existence of this tunnel demonstrates the lengths to which illegal immigrants would be prepared to go just to gain access to the USA. In sum, then, it could be argued that the building of a physical barrier in the form of a wall is not a sustainable solution for the immigration and labor crisis in which the USA currently finds itself. In the worst-case scenario, such a wall will jeopardize the ability of the agricultural industry to thrive as well as the country’s overall economy. At best, the wall will simply embolden illegal migrants to devise alternative – and perhaps more dangerous – strategies of gaining entry into the USA. To develop a sustainable solution, it may be time for the USA to revisit its immigration and labor policies, particularly as they affect migrants from Mexico. In a globalized world where the migrant worker is a commonplace and where the economies of different countries are more entangled than ever before, adopting nationalist measures such as building walls could jeopardize the ability of a country to thrive and provide for its citizens.

34

35 REFERENCES Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso books.

Bennett, J. (2020, February 24). “The share of immigrant workers in high-skill jobs is rising in the U.S.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/24/theshare-of-immigrant-workers-in-high-skill-jobs-is-rising-in-the-u-s/ Brice, A. (2019, October 15). “Border walls don’t make us safer or stronger, says political scientist.” Berkeley News. https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/10/15/walled-states-waningsovereignty-wendy-brown/ Bier, D. (2020). H-2A Visas for Agriculture: The Complex Process for Farmers to Hire Agricultural Guest Workers. Cato Institute, Immigration Research and Policy Brief, (17).

Chassamboulli, A., & Peri, G. (2020). The economic effect of immigration policies: Analyzing and simulating the US case. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 114, 103898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2020.103898 Chavez, L. R. (1994). The power of the imagined community: The settlement of undocumented Mexicans and Central Americans in the United States. American Anthropologist, 96(1), 52-73. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.1.02a00030 Clemens, M. A., Lewis, E. G., & Postel, H. M. (2018). Immigration restrictions as active labor market policy: Evidence from the mexican bracero exclusion. American Economic Review, 108(6), 1468-87.

Cohen, J. H., & Sirkeci, I. (2021). Handbook of culture and migration: an introduction.

In Handbook of Culture and Migration. Edward Elgar Publishing.

36 Finley, L., & Esposito, L. (2020). The Immigrant as Bogeyman: Examining Donald Trump and the Right’s Anti-immigrant, Anti-PC Rhetoric. Humanity & Society, 44(2), 178-197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597619832627 Garrett, T. M. (2018). Where There's a Wall There's a Way: The End of Democratic Discourse regarding Immigration and Border Security Policy. Md. J. Int'l L., 33, 183. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/mljilt33&div=11&g_sent=1&ca sa_token=feekIRd6PcUAAAAA:vVJ9aXz7RR81nyvaX7Kb4kV_xNz1iZ74NKOuBY5 rK6xHznDhT01PfZwAaAMCL42bqKut7H7S-w&collection=journals Gonzalez-Barrera, A. (2020, November 4). “After surging in 2019, migrant apprehensions at U.S.-Mexico border fell sharply in fiscal 2020.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/04/after-surging-in-2019-migrantapprehensions-at-u-s-mexico-border-fell-sharply-in-fiscal-2020-2/ Greene, J. (2018). Confronting Immigration Enforcement under Trump. Social Justice, 45(1 (151), 83-98. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26677647.

Greenwood, M. J. (2019). The migration legacy of EG Ravenstein. Migration Studies, 7(2), 269-278. https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mny043 Gutiérrez, R. A. (2019). Mexican immigration to the United States. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History.

Hernández, R. D. (2018). Coloniality of the US/Mexico border: Power, violence, and the decolonial imperative. University of Arizona Press.

Israel, E. & Batalova, J. (2020, November 5). “Mexican Immigrants in the United States.”

Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mexicanimmigrants-united-states-2019

37 Kil, S. H. (2019). Covering the Border War: How the News Media Creates Crime, Race, Nation, and the USA-Mexico Divide. Lexington Books.

Luckstead, J., & Devadoss, S. (2019). The Importance of H-2A Guest Workers in Agriculture. Choices, 34(1), 1-8.

Martin, P. (2002). Mexican workers and US agriculture: The revolving door. International Migration Review, 36(4), 1124-1142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17477379.2002.tb00120.x Migration Policy Institute. (2020). “About the Migration Policy Institute.” Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/about/about-migration-policy-institute Ngai, M. M. (2017). The Architecture of Race in American Immigration Law: A Reexamination of the Immigration Act of 1924. Race, Law and Society.

Ponce, N., Lucia, L., & Shimada, T. (2018). How Proposed Changes to the ‘Public Charge’Rule Will Affect Health, Hunger and the Economy in California. Los Angeles, CA: The UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. https://reproductivefreedomca.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/public-charge-seminarslides-nov2018-r2.pdf Ravenstein, E. G. (1885). The laws of migration. Journal of the statistical society of London, 48(2), 167-235. https://doi.org/10.2307/2979181.

Sileyew, K. J. (2019). Research design and methodology. In Cyberspace. IntechOpen.

Zlolniski, C. (2017). Growers, unions, and farm laborers in Mexico’s Baja California. Uncertain time: Anthropological approaches to labor in a neoliberal world, 209-232.