In case you missed it, the growing number of immigrants in this country is a major political issue. Whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump becomes the new President, they and their political party must deal with the political fallout.

The arrival of hundreds of thousand of Venezuelans will move the nation to the right. They and most U.S. journalists have an easy explanation for their plight: socialism. Venezula used to be a wealthy Latin American nation until it took control away from the U.S. oil companies pumping black gold from the nation’s large reserves. This political act forced Venezuela into poverty. According to the U.S. version of events, President Nicolas Maduro led a reign of political oppression, stifling Venezuelans who supported the privileged position of the big oil companies.

It wasn’t U.S. wealth and prosperity that brought the Venezuelans to the U.S. border. It was the turmoil and economic downturn in their country that persuaded Venezuelans to make the long journey.  

A U.S. embargo against the “authoritarian” regime of President Maduro prevents the country from using U.S. dollars in its trade. Like most countries, Venezuela depends on imports for vital supplies; no dollars meant no supplies. Venezuelan doctors have complained about severe shortages of medicine. In any case, the political turmoil from the U.S. blockade has led to the emigration of seven million Venezuelans.

In Haiti, the breakdown of the government led to severe lawlessness. Gangs took over the country. Thousands fled, many reaching the United States border. These are the people Trump claimed ate the pets of Ohio residents. In Texas, the flood of Haitians has created grave tensions among Mexican Americans, many of whom have families and friends in Mexico. Border crossings that used to take a matter of minutes can now take hours.

Immigration will be a central issue in the United States, no matter who wins the election. The arrival of Venezuelans who believe their nation was ruined by socialism means they will be a conservative force. If either Democrats or Republicans make a plausible case that a new policy is socialist, we can expect the Venezuelans in the United States to oppose it. Most likely these new immigrants, like the Cubans who fled Fidel Castro, will become stalwart Republicans. Democrats will no longer assume that immigrant voters are supporters.

The point of this article is that a world government, in all likelihood, would prevent these mass migrations. The collapse of the Haitian government would automatically lead the United Nations, assuming it had become the global sovereign, to send armed forces to restore order in Haiti and provide assistance to this beleaguered nation.

The complaints of the United States about Venezuela could then be adjudicated by a world court, which could use soldiers to enforce its decisions. In this way, world government prevents crises that force thousands, if not millions, of people to leave their homes searching for safety. For example, migrations, from North Africa especially, shattered German political coalitions and forced Angela Merkel, surely one of the great leaders of this century, to resign.

It is easy to understand that Americans would be skittish about giving up sovereignty and placing it in the hands of the United Nations, whose authority would increase drastically if it became the sovereign responsible for making the Earth’s people cooperate and stop crises from developing.

Crises in far away countries are causing political turmoil in the wealthy nations. A world government can moderate, perhaps even prevent, the turmoil that convinces families to leave their native land in the hopes of finding a better future.

This is hardly the only benefit of world government. Indeed, a chief objective is preventing wars that plague the world. But by forcing nations to justify their actions and consider the impacts on other countries there would be a substantial increase in world cooperation. One obvious benefit is international cooperation to deal with climate change and reclaim desert lands. As these arid regions acquire water, transported across national boundaries, they will help feed the world’s growing population.

We live in a global economy and the advent of new information technologies like computers means that one institution, the U.N., can keep track of the world’s problems and offer assistance.

Such assistance will not always be welcome. Israel recently banned U.N. relief workers from their nation. The United States’s 62-year blockade of Cuba was recently rejected by 187 nations in the General Assembly. Only the United States and Israel supported the continued isolation of Cuba, which has found itself so short of petroleum that there have been electrical blackouts.

A major reason for the U.S. blockade are the Cuban-American votes in Florida, which are hardly a majority but are sufficiently large to make candidates lose if they support reform of U.S. Cuban policy. World government removes this obstacle.

World government is no panacea. Undoubtedly, nations will have conflicts and political groups will demand governmental reforms. But what world government promises when these conflicts occur is that the nations or their dissident citizens resolve their arguments with lawyers, not bullets. This is surely such a great benefit that the United States and other nations in the world should consider giving up their sovereignty in favor of making the United Nations the chief government in the world.