Three Quizzes on Immigration

Tom Tancredo has a new campaign video out, and the subliminal message is clear: illegal immigrants are likely to be hooded villains who want to kill us.  Watch the video at this link. 

It's scary—unless, of course, you'd rather not let Tom Tancredo do your thinking for you, in which case it's a disappointing oversimplification of an important issue. 

Once when I was thinking about "illegal" immigrants, I was reminded of the time twenty years ago when a police spokesman told our neighborhood group that, even though it's "illegal" to run red lights, there are times when you should definitely go ahead and do it.  One of those times is when sitting there waiting for the light to change—while taking someone to the emergency room, for example—would be more costly than "breaking the law" by cautiously proceeding through the red light. 

In other words, when someone breaks a law, occasionally there's a chance that the law, not the person, was incorrect for that situation. 

Is it possible that our immigration law, and our ability to process would-be immigrants under that law, is way too ineffective and time-consuming, and therefore causes a portion of our "illegal immigration" problem?  Is it possible that, under current law and staffing, we cannot process desirable immigrants efficiently enough (including teachers, scientists, engineers, managers, and entrepreneurs)?  The US Citizenship and Immigration Service is all but admitting to that at their website.  Is it possible that some "illegal immigrants" achieved their illegal status by deciding not to wait for the red light to change? 

I think it's possible, but apparently Tom Tancredo doesn't.  So, to throw my two cents into the immigration debate, I assembled three quizzes of progressively increasing difficulty.  (The key to the red and blue color coding is after Quiz 3.) 

Unfortunately, I only have one of the answers above: the answer to Quiz 2, question (a) is "more than half" (see this Alan Reynolds article for more detail).  If you can quantify any of the others, feel free. 

I wonder if Tom Tancredo or Lou Dobbs can help us with any of the answers to Quiz 3?   I am especially interested in the answer to 3(d).   

Comments

[Aaron]

On Quiz 2:

If I park my car legally and then proceed to jaywalk across the street, you're going to give me credit for not parking illegally?

Interesting.

Or is the point of that question about building a wall when a lot of illegals come in via airplanes, buses, etc.?

[Bob]

I don't have any more answers than you do, Steve. Here's my position:

Our government has culpability in this because of its' lax policies and failure to staff agencies coupled with ineffective processes. That can and should be fixed.

I support a temporary guest worker
program with the stipulation that it is effectively administered and we can take a good shot at matching supply and demand.

Now for some more questions:

Shall we cherry pick the scientists and engineers and give them special treatment or apply a law equally to all immigrants regardless of the economic value they offer? Yeah, big debate on the economic value, I know.

Is special treatment of immigrants
a form of corporate welfare? For example, if workers need to speak, write and read English to function
is the cost to provide either a bilingual society or language education something that should paid for by the business or the taxpayer? Do we really know the costs and benefits?

How many businesses that employ illegals are paying them less than minimum wage? Let's leave the whole minimum wage discussion alone for the moment.

Brief digression.

Let's speak the unspeakable. We're really talking about Mexican immigrants for the most part. To me, ones' heritage is not important providing one takes the responsibility for assimilating into the culture and learning our laws and traditions. If I were to relocate to Italy, for example, the onus would be on me to learn how things are done there and to act in accordance with their customs. It was my choice.

Also, are Mexican illegals refugees or immigrants? I suggest it makes a difference. My take is that the liberal ideology sees them as refugees and subsequently confers victim status on them. In doing so these poor people are nothing but pawns to be used in advancing a political agenda.

Look, I acknowledge that this is an emotionally charged topic and is very politically motivated because we're in an election period. Nevertheless, the bill that was put together back in the spring was an unwieldy mess; the sheer complexity of it guaranteed
it could not be enforced.

My bottom line: No open borders. Find a common sense approach (government and common sense....oxymoron)to immigration. Welcome those who come here to better themselves with the expectation that they are accountable to respect our laws and that citizenship is an earned privilege.

[Dave Justus]

Aaron,

I expect that Steve's point for question 2 is that there is no reason to believe that illegals who originally entered legally and overstayed their visas are particularly 'dangerous' as the Tancredo campaign would have us believe.

Bob,

I think at the heart of your questions is one question: Are other people in general economic competitors that reduce your share of the 'pie' or are they economic partners who help you make the pie larger?

Most peoples gut instict is that our resources are fixed, and so if there are more of us, we each have less. I think that incorrect, and that other people are generally the source of the resources and, particularly under a free economy, will produce resources.

[Bob]

Sheesh, Dave. How did you read that into my brief attempt at discourse?

Economics is but one dimension to this issue. Yes, this is an economics oriented blog. I just don't buy into economics solving ALL problems. Of course, if you see this
simply as an economic issue you will
take a different position.

[Joe Sixpack]

What are your chances for decent economic policy (i.e. tax rate reductions) when you have millions of dirt poor immigrants voting and being urged to take advantage of an array of government benefits? Now I know illegals aren't supposed to vote, but you are trying to blur the line between legals and illegals and Hillary and company is trying to give them drivers licenses, which effectively makes it very easy to commit voter fraud.

[Rick Ballard]

"give them a path to citizenship - that starts in their own country, six months after they've returned from the US"

Aside from proving that lack of intelligence is no bar to serving in Congress, Tancredo has proven that even the very limited can become a successful demagogue if they use the right mixture of fear and ignorance.

It would be entertaining if someone would address "how many and what kind" of immigrants would best strengthen the US' as a precondition to entering into a "debate" upon the subject. Wheere are the actual "holes" in the labor force going to be over the next 25-40 years? I lean toward a roughly 70/30 unskilled/skilled mix with a maximum "need" beginning in 2010 and tapering off in 2025. We're going to be short about 500,000 new entrants beginning in 2010 if the BLS projected increase in labor force rate of 1% holds - which it won't. We're actually running a 1.2% increase rate which would mean an 850,000 new entrant shortfall.

It's a shame that the pro-immigration side doesn't just put up the data in justification. It really isn't that hard to dig it out and it's pretty convincing.

[Aaron]

I'm pro-legal immigration and we need to seriously reform the legal system. A friend of mine is a US citizen. He married a Thai citizen who had a green card and was already working in the USA for many years as an accountant for the State of Calif.

But he had to hire an immigration lawyer and spend thousands of dollars for her to become a citizen, etc.

If the GOP ran on a immigration reform platform coupled with measures to stop illegal immigration, I think they could avoid the Tancredo image.

Also, I think there is a cultural argument that America is a melting pot and more of a mix of people from all around the world coming in would help balance the strong cultural presence from Mexico. (Which I don't mind so much either.)

[ChuckPonziJr]

Today, I missed your post in support of my financial schemes.

[Steve]

Chuck:
I don't understand that. Clarify, please -- a private email would be acceptable.

All:
The point: the law is flawed, and its enforcement is nil. By default, undesirables willing to break the law can get in easily, while desirables unwilling to break the law either don't even try, or get mistreated by our incompetent system.

What we need from politicians, besides less demagoguery, is a two-dimensional policy statement: (1) how to stem the flow of illegals, while (2) speeding up, by a factor of at least twenty, the amount of time required to process would-be entrants legally, so that an informed accept/reject decision happens within (say) 60 days. (Warning to conservatives: that would require more "government spending" to beef up the USCIS, which would put upward pressure on the dreaded deficit. I don't care, of course, because it would be an investment in our future, and deficits that don't grow the debt ratio are harmless in any case.)

I'd like to see a "brainiac fast track" for highly-skilled immigrants. So would the Silicon Valley economy (see http://tinyurl.com/yv5rrm ). Unfortunately, I sense that both parties are giving higher priority to the vote content of each possible demographic mix instead of the economic contribution potential, and I expect more gridlock as a result.

Politicians we have enough of. Statesmen we need more of. Not much reason for optimism on this issue.

[karl]

Steve,

I really enjoy your approach to many economic issues, but I think you're making a heroic assumption here: There is no difference between people from any country and culture.

There is ample data which shows that Hispanics in the US achieve at a level significantly below the European majority. Whatever the reason for that, be it discrimination, less human capital, cultural preference for leisure or any number of things, I think that it's not unreasonable to be asking if the massive increase in the US's Hispanic population is a good idea for the long term. It's not like there still aren't significant problems in racial relations between whites and blacks in the US and we've had 400 years to find an equilibrium there.

This isn't like a new tax law that can be changed. Once these people are here and turned into citizens, there's no going back. And though Latin America contains many admirable people, I'm not sure I would want the US to be run as the voters in those countries seem to prefer to see their countries run.

People focus on what they are allowed to say in open society which is why there's a focus on denouncing murderers and such. That kind of argument is easy to shoot down, but ultimately it's not appealing to people's fear of immigrant murders, it's a public way to say we don't like the cultural changes we're seeing in our country and that seems to be a popular thought right now.

[Dave Justus]

Bob,

No offense was intended. Most of your questions seemed economic related to me (how can we afford all these immigrants type stuff.)

My answer to that sort of worry is that it makes more sense to worry about how we can afford to not have all these immigrants.

Karl,

I believe pretty much those exact same arguements have been used against every 'undesirable' immigrant group since the founding of our nation. In particular it seems quite close to the domestic reaction against Irish immigration. I suspect that you think that reaction was proven incorrect by history.

Of course, this time MAY be different, but I would want to be really sure if it was me making such a statement.

[Andrew]

Bob,

I think we should try and cherry-pick the well educated immigrants and give them preference. Aren't you glad we cherry-picked Einstein? Also, I think all this fear of bilingualism is misguided. Knowing a second language, especially one so popular as Spanish, provides both cultural enrichment and economic opportunities. Imagine if our businesses and lawyers could communicate natively with an extra 400 million people worldwide. Surely that affords more opportunities.

karl,

Race relations between blacks and whites have had since the 1960s at best to heal, not 400 years. Up until then, slavery and segregation were codified at the official level. In contrast, Texans have had several hundred years to get used to Spanish speaking immigrants, and while it's not a panacea, they get along together much better than blacks and whites do in some Southern states.

[Aaron]

Steve,

I think you could possibly streamline the immigration process and not increase spending. It's like the IRS its so complicated.

Why not have a simple system instead?

Like in my example, why does someone who already has a greencard have to hire an immigration lawyer when they get married to a US citizen?

Haven't they already been cleared once?

[Aaron]

Andrew,

I agree that knowing a second language like Spanish is great, but I worry about the demographics in some cities where it could end up with Spanish as the majority language and then a lack of incentive to learn English.

Its not a major worry, but I think the language/cultural argument is legitimate when its not a cover for racism. I'm not sure we can do much about it, either, except keep the school teaching in English.

Keep in mind there are other immigrants coming in who may not have realized they needed to be studying Spanish instead of English if they wanted a factory job. :)

[Matt]

I'm against the idea of amnesty for immigrants who are here illegally. Even though most of them are productive, and otherwise law abiding citizens. I think it would be a smack in the face to those immigrants who did have respect for the US law (however broken) to abide by it when moving to this country.

My solution to this is a simple one. Just make it easier to legally emigrate to this country. Way easier. We background check people for buying guns in this country, how about a similar check for immigrants and then they get a green card and are allowed in.

After this is put into place, the illegal immigrants have a choice to make. They can stay where they are and continue to be here illegally, or they can leave and come back, entering legally (and easily) this time. This doesn't reward their illegal status but it doesn't necessarily punish them for it either.

[Rick Ballard]

"I'd like to see a "brainiac fast track" for highly-skilled immigrants."

Steve,

The BLS stats count 2.5 million "brainiac" jobs. Considering a 30 year turnover plus 10% growth (just SWAGs), I come up with a need of 330,000 new brainiacs per year.

The BLS stats http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/ show about 432,000 H1B visas issued plus 159,000 green cards issued for "employment-based preferences" issued in 2006.

How many more do you reckon are necessary?

[Dave]

I don’t agree that certain "desirable" immigrants should be given special treatment (like teachers, scientists and engineers), while poor and uneducated immigrants are turned away because they are, well poor and uneducated. For one, I think its un-American, but that’s a personal feeling and one I wouldn’t presume to impose on others.

But there is a better reason that I disagree with that statement. Its very short-sighted. Immigrants come to this country looking for a better life not just for themselves but for their children. And their children often go to college, get an education, and become teachers, scientists and engineers. The same "desirables" you wanted in the first place.

Case in point. My grandfather came to this country from Italy in 1928. He was 18, wretchedly poor, and not well educated. But he and his wife (also italian) gave birth to a teacher, a computer programmer, and 2 entrepreneurs who started their own business and now employ several people. And that teacher gave birth to an engineer and a business analyst. Both went to top schools (ivy league and a good engineering school).

BUT… I will say this. My grandfather came in legally and learned English, and did not presume that the country should speak Italian. On the contrary, English was a top priority to him, and he made sure his children learned it and got a good education. He may not have been well educated, but he was good with his hands and was a welder. During WWII he helped build battleships and carriers which, mind you, were to support a war against not only Germany, but his (my) home country of Italy because sadly it was run by a nut facist named Mussolini. He understood (as do I) that a war against a country's leader is not the same thing as a war against its people.

[Aaron]

Dave has a point. People who come from poor countries who are already doctors or engineers are the elite of that country.

What about the genius Bangladeshi who never got schooling, but burns to immigrate to the USA to create a better life for his family?

There is a machine tool company in Taiwan that was founded by a man with only a primary school education. That's the kind of guy we also want in America, but he wouldn't have as many points as the son of a communist party official in China who has an engineering degree.

[Bob]

Dave, your grandfather had an advanced degree in character. I wish
more of our schools provided such education and that our society recognized its' value. Do we really need more MBA factories?

Steve's point about importing the brains to increase, indeed maintain, our technological competitiveness is valid, though. I sure don't want them going to Japan, England or Germany.

Nevertheless, as one can learn from the comments here, this topic is multi-dimensional and not easilty solved.

[Dave]

thank you for your kind words Bob, they are all too rare on this thing we call the internet.

Regarding this

"Nevertheless, as one can learn from the comments here, this topic is multi-dimensional and not easilty solved."

I could not agree more. I am listening with a very open mind.

[Dave Justus]

In my expirience, desire and hard work trump education and intellect almost all the time.

Let those who want a better life come, and I suspect most of them will succeed at it and raise the rest of our standard of living in the process.

I understand that Dave's grandfather immigrated legally, but part of that story is that it was much less onerous to legally immigrate at that time.

[Publius]

Steve,

You have such intelligent, well-informed ideas and opinions on economics, and I always learn something by reading your blog.

However, I'm afraid you've fallen victim to the same terminological confusion that vexes most everyone who discusses immigration and the issue of illegal aliens, and so you conflate two very different things.

On the one hand, there is immigration: the legal process by which people move, permanently, from one country to another. On the other, there are illegal aliens: foreign nationals who are in a country other than that of their citizenship in violation of that country's laws.

From this definition, your scare quotes around "illegal" are inappropriate, as is the use of the world "immigrant," because they are foreign nationals (i.e., aliens) who are breaking our laws (hence the shorthand term illegal).

As for the security impact of illegal aliens, Tom Tancredo might be overplaying the terrorism angle, but illegal aliens do pose a verifiable threat to our safety. The site http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/ lists many of the crimes committed by illegal aliens, including assault, child molestation, rape, DUI vehicular manslaughter, and out-and-out murder. Among the victims are cops, paramedics, nurses, college students, parents, and children--some as young as 4.

The most horrific tale is that of 9-year-old Jordin Paulder, who had the audacity to tell a Latino illegal alien that there was something wrong with his car's tire. His reward for his act of kindness was a fatal blow with an axe to the face.

So again, while I appreciate your blog and your insights, I sometimes find that there is more to the picture than the economic angle. In my opinion, the issue of illegal aliens is definitely bigger than economics alone.