 |
| The opinions expressed in guest columns posted on this site do not necessarily reflect the opinions of AmericanPatrol.com. Visit the Alamance Independent to read Mark Andrew Dwyer's weekly column posted every Sunday. -- Click here for more Mark Andrew Dwyer columns. -- Please, send your comments to readerswrite@yahoo.com |
Originally published in the January 2, 2005 issue of the Alamance Independent
CONFUSING THE CAUSE WITH AN EFFECT
By Mark Andrew Dwyer - January 4, 2004The concept of causality has been in the center of philosophical disputes for about two and half millennia now. From Plato and Aristotle to Hume and Kant to Einstein and Heisenberg, philosophers, physicists and logicians alike tried to precisely define the meaning of the sentence "A is the cause of B", or, equivalently, "B is an effect of A", but despite some partial success they were able to achieve, this seemingly simple task has largely eluded their efforts. So, it must surprise no one that some less brilliant, less talented, and less educated (than the above thinkers) people often commit some thick errors while attempting to characterize the events they witness in terms of the cause-and-effect relation.
One of the most common mistakes in this respect is confusing the cause with an effect, that is, asserting that an event B caused an effect A while the converse is true. The most classic example in this category is a false assertion that the waving of the trees causes the wind blow. As absurd as it seems, it's not that uncommon as one may think, and its consequences may be regrettable. If one falsely asserts the reversed causality and then tries to stop the wind from blowing by preventing the trees from the waving, then the unavoidable failure of such an attempt may not be that dramatic. But if one pours cold water on an ill person in order to cure that person, based on an erroneous assertion that high fever causes illness, the results may be tragic.
As one may expect, the controversy around mass and mostly illegal "migration" from Mexico to the U.S., and debate of possible remedies for this problem, abound in false assertions of the reversed causality relation, like "border fence and beefed-up enforcement cause violent clashes between Border Patrol and illegal immigrants", "Mexican workers are monopolizing such professions as landscaping, construction, and housekeeping because Americans don't perform these jobs anymore", and "Hispanic street gangs are proliferating as a result of growing reluctance of Americans towards mass migration from Mexico", just to name a few. (Obviously, the converses are true: border fence and beefed-up enforcement is a result of illegal border crossers becoming more and more blatant and violent; Americans can't find jobs as landscapers, construction workers, and housekeepers because Mexicans monopolized these professions by accepting, albeit temporarily, substandard wages; and growing criminal activities of Hispanic gangs prompted many desperate Americans to demand a better enforcement of the America's border and her immigration laws.) As a result of these false assertions, invalid conclusions are often made, like that dismantling the existing fences and not enforcing the American-Mexican border will bring the "border violence" to an end, that Mexican monopoly of landscaping, construction, and housekeeping is a good thing as it prevents these profession from ultimate extinction, and that warm welcome for all Mexican migrants that managed to cross the border will surely stop the proliferation of Hispanic street gangs.
A recent column by Jeffrey Davidow (see [1]) may serve as an another example of such a false assertion of reverse causality. In that column, Davidow postulated that "outflow [of people] from Mexico to the U.S. [...] will continue at high rates until the Mexican economy can provide sufficient work opportunities and decent standards of living to a far greater percentage of its population [...]," thus the facto asserting that the insolvency of Mexican economy, or, perhaps, the economic disparity between the U.S. and Mexico that it created, was the cause of Mexico's population surplus that, inevitably, "outflowed" to the U.S. Although Davidow's thesis, due to rather imprecise, if not deceitful, language he used in his column, may seem plausible, a closer scrutiny reveals that the actual cause-and-effect between the weakness of the Mexican economy and the excessive growth of its population (which growth fuels the "migratory" pressure that propels the mass "migration") is opposite.
The fact is that Mexican economy is unable to "provide sufficient work opportunities and decent standards of living to a far greater percentage of its population" because there is far more poor people in Mexico than its economy can employ and subsist, and while the Mexican economy is stagnant (at best), the population of Mexican poor, partially subsidized by the U.S. government's economic and humanitarian assistance and by $13 billion a year in remittances sent from the U.S. to Mexico, is growing exponentially and at an alarming rate (see [2]; I will present a more detailed analysis of data in my next week column). The entire situation looks like a perfect illustration of the Malthus Law that accurately predicted this kind of population growth (and lowering of the living standards that it brings) as an unintended consequence of an increase in monetary contributions to the poor.
The indicated above confusion of the cause with an effect may have dramatically unpleasant ramifications for the U.S. If one took Davidow's assertion (that weak Mexican economy is the cause of the excess of its population) for granted, the logical conclusion would be to strengthen the Mexican economy to the levels comparable with the American economy. Such a "solution", in addition to its obvious unfeasibility (even Davidow seems to acknowledge that), would - most likely - contribute to even more population growth among Mexican poor (who could then afford rearing even more children) that, eventually, would further increase the "migratory" pressure as the excess population couldn't find enough living space and career prospects for its offspring. And that, of course, would only excarbate the immigration problem.
Once one comes to this realization that the excessive population growth, particularly, of the poor segment of Mexican nation, is the root cause of the present insolvency of the Mexican economy, the actual solution of the mass "migration" problem becomes obvious. In order to bring any meaningful improvement of currently unsatisfactory situation, Mexico must stop its population growth until its economy produces enough reserves that are capable of providing a larger population with decent living standards and working opportunities. To encourage such a moratorium on Mexican population growth, the U.S. needs to stop accepting the "outflow" or excess of that population, and make sure to not contribute in any significant way to the high (above the replacement level, that is) fertility rates of Mexican women. We must begin strict enforcement of our border and our immigration laws (saying that it's impossible until Mexican workers are about as well off as American workers is as false as saying that one cannot prevent theft until the thieves are about as well off as their victims). We must make it clear to Mexican political, religious, and social leaders that they either stop their compatriots from multiplying or else we leave them and their economy to their own device.
Then, and only then, we may hope for bringing the current mass "outflow" of Mexicans to the U.S. and the immigration mess it causes to an end.
[1] Immigration, the United States and Mexico
http://www.mexidata.info/id350.html[2] Familiy Planning Matters
(scroll down)
http://www.audubon.org/campaign/population_habitat/monarch.html
| 
| 
| 
| 