Posted on 05/17/2006 4:51:59 AM PDT by uncitizen
Clear Thinking on Immigration
by Andrew M. Yuengert
Amid the heated rhetoric and dubious claims made on both sides of the immigration debate – that any concerns about immigration are evidence of racism, that immigrants are ruining the economy – we should all take a deep breath and call to mind the following points: There is a right to immigrate, but it is not absolute.
Immigrants are people of great dignity, most of them are very poor, and we should not exclude their interests from our discussions about immigration policy. They have a claim on the generosity of a generous people. Their claim is not absolute, however, if they impose large burdens on U.S. natives, who are also people of great dignity, some of whom are also poor. Even a generous nation may restrict immigration if it becomes too great a burden. The recent debate has focused on the nature and size of those burdens. The economic stakes of immigration are small.
Immigration benefits employers who hire cheaper labor, and consumers who buy products made with that labor. The benefits are small, though – less than one half of one percent of national income. Neither are the education and healthcare burdens on states and cities particularly large -$10 billion, compared to state and local budgets of $1.5 trillion – but they are unfairly concentrated on a handful of states and localities.
The argument that the U.S economy will grind to a halt without immigration is simply not true. Neither is the argument that immigration is ruining the economy. Although it does put modest downward pressure on unskilled wages, the numbers are too small (3-4 percent over 20 years) to require a policy response. If immigration ceased tomorrow, some of the jobs immigrants do would disappear – farmers and businesses would find ways to produce without cheap labor, and more homeowners would mow their own lawns (or pay my kids to do it!). Some of the jobs would be taken by native workers, at modestly higher wages. Anyone looking for burdens from immigration will have to look outside of the economy. Illegal immigration is the real issue.
One in 25 people in the United States (12 million) are here in violation of our laws. Such widespread flouting of immigration law is understandably disquieting; it strikes at U.S. sovereignty. We should either enforce our immigration quotas, or repeal them. The presence of so many illegals corrupts our law enforcement, our politics, and our economy, and it undermines our ability to protect ourselves from terrorists. This corruption is the biggest threat from illegal immigration.
We can address this problem by increasing the number of legal immigrants or by enforcing current quotas. The small economic stakes argue for a moderate increase in the number of immigrants we allow in legally. Enforcement is crucial, even if we increase legal immigration.
The 1986 immigration reforms tied amnesty for illegal immigrants to a stricter enforcement regime, but the enforcement never materialized. As a result, we now have more illegal immigrants than ever. We won’t solve this problem until we start making sure that employers are hiring legal immigrants. And for all the talk of “border enforcement,” we’ll have to do more than build high fences – high fences without internal enforcement leads to permanent illegal immigration, because no one wants to jump the fence a second time. Internal enforcement without a fence will work much better than a fence without internal enforcement.
The sheer size of immigration flows, and their increasing illegal nature, make Americans feel as if we can’t afford to be generous to the world’s poor at our doorstep. A clear view of the issues contradicts this assessment. The biggest burdens from immigration are not economic – they are the turmoil caused by the large numbers of illegal immigrants. Most Americans are rightly concerned about the chaos that illegal immigration brings to our politics and our legal system. Addressing the problem of illegal immigrants will solve most of our immigration problems, and will allow Americans to give fuller rein to their generous impulses toward immigrants.
(Andrew Yuengert is the John and Francis Duggan chair of economics at Seaver College, Pepperdine University. He is the author of Inhabiting the Land – The Case for the Right to Migrate, a study on immigration published in 2003 by the Acton Institute.)
Same here. Reminds of Rome's demise. Immigration obviously wasn't a good thing for them in the end. A bloated, nightmarish management problem.
Agreed, but securing the border first is never going to happen if we are waiting for a wall to be built.
I listened to an interview yesterday with a National Guardsman who last summer was on a crew building a section of wall on the border. He was a welder on this job, welding iron fence post and the steel material that they use to use to build temporary aircraft runways during WWII, which in this case they used standing up on end welded together to form a high wall. This crew worked all summer long in grueling temperatures and horrible condition and they were only able to complete 1-mile of wall. That’s right 1-mile. This wall also included a deep trench to prevent vehicles from crashing through it and make it harder for people to climb or dig under.
During this summer they witnessed illegal border crossers walking around the ends of their construction, but they were prevented from doing anything about it by bureaucracy. That was the jurisdiction of the border guard they were told, who were already stretched to thin. As difficult as it would be for someone to climb over the wall, many of these border crossers found ways to do it and some were being injured from the pointy edges on the tops of these walls (the points were part of the interlocking system used to join the runway components). The construction crews were told to cut the panels off and turn them over so the dull rounded edge is on top. This idiotic bureaucracy which prevented them from stopping people crossing around the wall, and required them to build a wall that would not injure those crossing over, slowed their progress and ruined moral of the crew.
A wall going up immediately before anything else may sound like the right thing to do, and I hear it being preached from conservative pundits and web blogs every day. but anyone thinking this can be done effectively before the next decade is done is smoking something usually reserved for those on the DU. Secure the borders first – absolutely, but it starts with getting people with badges and guns on that border assisted by the National Guard as in Bush’s plan. This is something that can be done right now.
That doesn't matter, according to your premise. I have a right!
[... government workers who want their organizations to grow...]
This is something people rarely point out. All those government employees that are providing public services -- from school teachers, to police, to fire fighters, to social workers, etc. -- must look upon any reduction of illegal immigrants as somebody taking away their "customers" and threatening their jobs.
So it isn't just the politicians that are betraying the taxpayers. It is every government worker trying to protect his job and grow his own little empire.
I guess my point is really that even people that want to appear fair by presenting "both sides" include such disinformation.
There are many people that will have read this article and come away with the impression that there is really not much of an economic impact.
This is the kinda thing that strengthens my suspicion that the govt really doesn't want this problem solved.
Secure the borders first – absolutely, but it starts with getting people with badges and guns on that border assisted by the National Guard as in Bush’s plan.
I hear ya. Only i don't trust the Mexican govt or the Illegals for that matter. All it takes is someone to cause a provocation causing a Guardsman to discharge his weapon and it's all over for border enforcement.
That's possible and probable. However, most anybody who lives in CA, AZ, NM, CO knows just how heavy the economic burden of Illegals truly is on American taxpayers.
And when the dust clears it'll be deja vu all over again.
we’ll have to do more than build high fences – high fences without internal enforcement leads to permanent illegal immigration, because no one wants to jump the fence a second time. Internal enforcement without a fence will work much better than a fence without internal enforcement.
He's right about this, though both would work best.
And when the dust clears it'll be deja vu all over again.
Not to try and out cliche you, but how bout this one:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
No it isn't. Part of what constitutes a nation is land, and thus borders. This is not a difficult or esoteric concept.
One of the few major problems I have with the Libertarian Party is their refusal to acknowledge the meaning of national borders. Every nation on the planet defines their territory very specifically. If any peaceful person has the 'right' to ignore the borders of a sovereign nation, why have them? You are basically advocating a world government, if you take this idea to it's logical conclusion.
"...path to citizenship.."
No thanks, we have enough Democrats. Have you seen the projected numbers for the next 20 years if this Amnesty passes?
I'm not going to accept your premise that we don't have a unique culture worth preserving. You know, the one that is 'utterly contaminated and adulterated'.
A Nation is defined by geographic borders, and the culture conained within the people who reside there. A common language, or at least an agreed upon standard, is also indespensable. The laws that a people decide upon is the final mortar which preserves such a defined idea beyond the emotional instabilities of human nature.
I get this list from Biblical wisdom. Particularly the era of Babel, and the founding of Israel through geographic conquest and the establishment of the law.
There is a legitimate role for government to play, and the enforcement of borders is certainly one of them. Now, being that we are a government of, by and for the people, I happen to take particular offense to the idea that citizens who do the jobs that the government agents don't want to do are subversive vigilantes.
If anything defines citizenship, it's the role regular people have played to force this debate to to the front.
But your post dovetails my point in other threads that the underlying cause of this problem is the abhorrent corruption and racism in Mexico. If that were changed, this migration wouldn't be necessary.
>>Less than 100 years ago, a non-criminal, non-diseased person could travel anywhere they wanted in the world without distraint, take-up residence where they wished, and work for whomever they wanted for whatever terms they might agree upon.<<
And receive citizenship (like the Chinese R.R. workers in the U.S.?)?
Even if what you claim were true, that's no reason to do the same today.
Less than one hundred years ago, the U.S. would have - if faced with an equivalent threat from Mexico - summarily sent the military into that country, instituted a regime-change, and then beefed up border security with walls, outposts, etc.
A hundred years ago, there were no mass media luring people to come to our country. No motor vehicles into which a "coyote" could stuff 27 people and simply drive them over the border. No welfare and massive free social services for illegals. No ACLU.
Face it: It's a different ballgame today. The idyllic conditions of the past where Congress would have simply declared war and then, subsequently, annexed a big swath ("cordon sanitaire") of Mexico are long gone.
re: "at least 2 million illegal aliens in the public schools"
Yes, immigrants have taken over my suburb and its schools.
The huge demand for housing by immigrants has tripled housing values (and made the citizen sellers rich) It has tripled the money that THESE IMMIGRANTS PAY IN PROPERTY TAXES TO THE SCHOOLS.
These immigrants PAY SALES TAX on all the stuff they buy at Menards/HomeDepot/Lowes to fix up houses neglected by the previous citizen owners for decades.
State/Federal INCOME TAX, FICA, etc is withheld from pay checks. They could claim enough non-aborted family members as dependents to get a refund. But that might reveal their bogus social security numbers and cost them more than the couple hundred dollars refund. So they actually pay too much in income tax because they use bogus social security numbers. They also will never be able to collect social security based on those bogus social security numbers.
At least, that's the way it is in Chicago suburbs.
"anywhere they wanted in the world "
Blatantly not true. The US (and maybe Canada, Australia) have been unique in allowing and even encouraging immigration. The vast majority of the world has been been extremely restrictive on immigration.
Except for Catherine the Great, No place in Europe allowed immigration prior to WWII. Post WWII they limited immigration to those from their former colonies. People from French colonies could go to France but not Britain. Those from British colonies could go to Britain, but not France, etc.
The US has always had laws against undesireable immigrants often labeled in the law as "people of low moral character". In the eyes of some, non-Christians... and non-Protestants and those of heathen cultures were of low moral character.
The shift apparently started about 1920 with a major shift under Nixon. For many years immigrants landed and found work or a farm. If the local sheriff found them undesireable he had them deported. Undesireables were typically thieves, prostitutes, drunks and those seeking welfare.
Gradually a central government INS/ICE bureaucracy developed. Under Nixon in the early '70s the INS made a major power grab and took away from all other law enforcement the power to enforce immigration laws. Some complain about "sanctuary cities". But it was the INS bureaucratic power grab under Nixon that created defacto sanctuary cities by castrating state and local police.
You raise an interesting point here. I'd venture a guess that the percentage of Illegals who actually own the homes they live in is fairly low.
That being said there is another real estate angle to this. Illegals will not be sent back to Mexico because if they did it would crash real estate values (here in CA at least). Less demand for housing, real estate values go down, rents go down, people begin to default on their debts. The banks will not let this happen. "Amnesty is here to stay".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.