Initial Thoughts on Immigration Reform
On the Arizona immigration bill, a few words — I am a firm opponent, despite my overall desire for better enforcement of federal immigration law. Put simply, I do not trust Arizona police, especially in Maricopa County, with the additional discretion they’ve been given. Sheriff Joe Arpaio already presides over a police department credibly accused of racial profiling — and as reporting by William Finnegan in The New Yorker and Radley Balko in Reason make clear, the criminal justice system in Arizona’s biggest metropolitan area is rife with serious problems that threaten the liberty of citizens and immigrants alike.
Beyond the near inevitability of racial profiling, there is the conventional objection to local police enforcing immigration law: doing so discourages people in immigrant neighborhoods from working with police. Undocumented residents won’t act as witnesses or good Samaritans or report being victimized by crime if calling 911 might well result in their deportation. It is folly to alienate so many residents from police officers who require their cooperation to keep all Arizonans safe.
So what do I propose? After all, illegal immigration is a serious problem: newcomers to America are a benefit to our nation, but the costs they impose on schools, hospitals and other social services are born locally, and folks unlawfully in the country are unlikely to inculcate in their kids the civic habits that are critical to the health of any democratic polity. Arizona’s porous southern border is also troubling given Mexico’s increasingly violent drug trade.
Personally, I’d like to see a path to citizenship for folks already here illegally, and an increase in the number of immigrants able to come here. As a political matter, this can only happen once the southern border is secured — and reluctant as I am to reach this conclusion, I think that’s as it should be: the amnesties of the past have promised better enforcement, but it’s never been delivered, effectively kicking the problem down the road, or even exacerbating it.
On the other hand, I am loath to support better enforcement unaccompanied by the guarantee that once illegal immigration is under control, legal immigration will be expanded. Yes, immigration imposes costs on some Americans, but that has always been the case, and the cost born by the natives in the much poorer America that my ancestors immigrated to were much higher. It doesn’t seem fair to keep newcomers out so that I can pay marginally less in local taxes, or even so that a poor American can earn marginally more at their job.
My proposal:
— A physical wall along the entire Mexican border. I don’t like the symbolism of closing the country to newcomers either, but realistically, the status quo is worse for everyone involved: we’ve got a partial wall that incentivizes border crossings through the most dangerous parts of the desert, and a corruptible, heavily armed border patrol hunting illegal immigrants by day and night. A solid wall would significantly reduce the number of illegal crossers, it couldn’t be corrupted by drug traffickers, it wouldn’t ever abuse illegal immigrants it deters — it is, all things considered, the least bad solution, and it is mere sentimentalism to instead favor the status quo, a partial wall and the symbolism of armed border guards and a deadly desert rather than a tall slab of concrete.
— Automatic increases in legal immigration quotas pegged to every measurable decrease in illegal immigration.
— The auction of lots of visas for high-skilled immigrants, with the profits allocated to jurisdictions that bear the costs of low skill immigrants.
— Pass the DREAM act.
— As I once wrote in regard to immigration policy in Southern California: “Every Southern California jail should verify the legal status of inmates and deport those in the country illegally — it matters little whether illegal immigrants trust their jailers. In Los Angeles County alone, the LA Times estimates that 40,000 illegal immigrants pass through the jails each year (among 170,000 total inmates). Multiply that by Southern California’s five counties over multiple years and countless crimes can be averted. Latino advocacy organizations may object, but they shouldn’t: if these convicts return to their country of origin rather than their ZIP code of residence, law-abiding illegal immigrants will benefit as much as anyone.” This avoids the trouble of having local police enforce immigration law, and gets rid of the profiling problem too since everyone convicted of a crime is checked.
It’s been a long time since I wrote about immigration policy. Maybe I am missing some drawback to these ideas, or social science data demonstrating that some assumption I’ve made is wrong — let me know. I am as yet undecided on how exactly a path to citizenship should work. But the priority should be on transforming people off the books into equal citizens and civic participants. None of this guest worker program nonsense: these are people, not workers, and it is folly to create a second class of non-citizens.
There will be no end to legal immigration, none, as long as the combination of NAFTA and American farm subsidies exists. That combination has done incredible damage to Mexico’s low-wage agricultural jobs base, forcing millions of Mexicans to look north for jobs. Of course, there will be no end to this combination, as the entire point of “free trade” globalization is that the barriers towards entry for American businesses are eliminated while the structural advantages of those same businesses are protected at all costs.
As long as you can buy American corn cheaper than Mexican corn in Guadalajara, Mexican-American immigration is inevitable, no matter what kind of barriers you erect.
— Freddie · Apr 29, 04:16 AM · #
That combination has done incredible damage to Mexico’s low-wage agricultural jobs base, forcing millions of Mexicans to look north for jobs.
i think the theory is that peasants should have been absorbed by the growing non-agricultural sector. that was the theory….
though i don’t have a brief for ag subsidies and the like, just wanted to note that there probably isn’t much of a future for really low productivity peasants on the scale of many third world countries. though note that mexico’s GDP PPP is $15,000, and it’s fertility rate is now less than 2.2 per woman. at some point emigration will abate because of these issues.
— razib · Apr 29, 06:00 AM · #
“folks unlawfully in the country are unlikely to inculcate in their kids the civic habits that are critical to the health of any democratic polity.”
What civic habits are you talking about, and why would illegal immigrant not pass them on to their children?
— frankye · Apr 29, 06:01 AM · #
Frankye,
I am talking about voting, joining the PTA, circulating petitions to qualify a candidate for the local ballot, writing your congressman, testifying before the planning commission hearing, etc. Illegal immigrants are either legally prohibited from doing these things, or generally don’t do them out of quite reasonable fear that official contact is dangerous to their prospects for staying in the country. They’re also naturally less invested in the political institutions of a nation that doesn’t extend citizenship to them.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Apr 29, 07:48 AM · #
Arizona was forced to act by a federal government which has failed to act on one of its legitimate functions. That’s about all I have to say about it. We can claim the Arizona police will abuse the power to enforce the law and, thus, violate the law, but they could do that before this particular law. Until the police abuse the law, in which case they’d be sued, then it’s speculation and nothing else. This situaton is being used as an excuse to spread the fear of racism and solidify the hispanic vote for Democrats. The president, so far, has acted like an unscrupulous partisan rather than a president with large responsibilities.
— mike farmer · Apr 29, 11:08 AM · #
Razib—absolutely right, the demographic changes in Mexico will alleviate a lot of the migrational pressure over the next generation or so.
Conor, I believe most studies show that roughly half the people in the US without documentation came across on legal visas and overstayed their visa. Also, I think I’ve read that there’s serious problems in building a wall across the rough terrain in much of New Mexico and Arizona. A wall is a very expensive, very uncertain, very ugly way to address the problem halfway.
— pc · Apr 29, 12:13 PM · #
I agree about demographic trends, actually. Didn’t know that.
— Freddie · Apr 29, 01:16 PM · #
“borne”
— Hyman Rosen · Apr 29, 01:43 PM · #
Far be it from me to say anything good about farm subsidies (and I won’t) but isn’t a highly industrialized commodity like corn one of the least labor-intensive crops out there? My anecdotal impression is that the labor-intensive crops are also the ones that aren’t particularly subsidized: things like strawberries, lettuce, grapes. Anyway, they don’t grow corn in Arizona, do they?
Construction, on the other hand, is kind of unavoidably labor-intensive. Again, my anecdotal impression is that housing construction is a huge draw for unskilled immigrant labor. You would think that given the utter collapse of its housing market, Arizona would be hemorrhaging unskilled laborers, including illegal immigrants.
My own preferred solution:
- Replace the payroll tax with a value-added tax. This eliminates the main incentive on the part of employers to hire people off the books, leveling the playing field between illegal immigrants and native-born unskilled laborers, and captures the remaining off-the-books activity by taxing consumption of said income.
- Auction all visas. That would provide an incentive to Congress to increase the number of visas available (more revenue) and eliminate the makework associated with justifying the “need” for a non-citizen to fill a particular position, thus addressing the concerns of Silicon Valley and other employers of skilled immigrants. But it would also change the politics of holding employers accountable: hire somebody without a valid visa and you face fines that are a multiple of the cost of the visa. This would leave the INS with the much more limited mission of keeping out criminals, terrorists, and so forth, since “overstayed my visa” would now be a crime equivalent to “didn’t pay my taxes” – something the government seems to be pretty good at dealing with already.
- Devalue the dollar relative to the yuan so that imports from Mexico become relatively more attractive and imports from China relatively less, which should result in a flow of capital to Mexico to set up factories there.
Ultimately, a business that can’t operate without labor that is priced well below what the local labor market will bear needs to move that business to a place where the prevailing wage is lower. The alternative to importing labor is exporting capital.
— Noah Millman · Apr 29, 01:49 PM · #
Labor intensive for Archer-Daniels-Midland? No. Labor intensive for near-subsistence level farming communities, at levels of poverty so extreme that they were barely industrialized at all? Different story.
— Freddie · Apr 29, 02:58 PM · #
When the employment prospects for low skilled workers are poor I don’t see how anyone except their employers should be for more low skilled immigrants legal or illegal.
— Mercer · Apr 29, 04:59 PM · #
I just want to focus on one aspect of Conor’s proposal: inmates in jail. Conor perhaps wants to distinguish between “jail” and “prison;” or “inmate” and “convict.” And Conor should also be more clear about the time of deportation. There is nothing wrong with the instant deportation of non-serious criminals, but serious criminals probably deserve their 7+ years (or whatever) as guests of the government before deportation.
Although to make the obligatory disclaimer: as young men go, illegal immigrants have a very low rate of criminal behavior. I’m less certain about legal ones: over to you, Fabrice Tourre.
— Joe S. · Apr 29, 05:56 PM · #
1) Won’t a wall be the most hideously expensive boondoggle ever? 2,000 miles of concrete and/or chain link in some of the most unforgiving terrain this country has to offer? The material maintenance costs alone will beggar the Border Patrol’s budget, let alone staffing, environmental impact (some species DO need to move freely across the border), etc. To say nothing of the non-monetary costs of living in a country that seems to have forgotten that it didn’t like walls the restricted movement when they were located in, say, Berlin.
2) “Folks unlawfully in the country are unlikely to inculcate in their kids the civic habits that are critical to the health of any democratic polity.”
This actually isn’t true to lived experience. Children of illegal immigrants, at least in California, are just as involved as their peers in civics. Sometimes even more so. I do a fair amount of work with illegal immigrant parents around their children’s disabilities: they are just as likely to be involved and participatory in the special education process as any other parent. This is why California law, for example, imposes no burden upon teachers or social workers to report a family’s immigration status.
The habits you fear will be subsumed are actually encouraged when fear is removed from the situation.
— Erik Vanderhoff · Apr 29, 06:04 PM · #
Joe S.,
Yes, I should have been more clear — I am talking about people who’ve been convicted of crimes.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Apr 29, 06:04 PM · #
Connor says “I am talking about voting, joining the PTA, circulating petitions to qualify a candidate for the local ballot, writing your congressman, testifying before the planning commission hearing, etc.” re: his claim that illegal immigrant families won’t inculcate civic virtues to their kids.
Connor, it’s an interesting theoretical supposition, but I’d wager you have no sociological evidence to back this up. There are plenty of immigrant parents who deeply ant their kids to grow up with all the advantages of being fully American, even if culturally Mexican-American, Salvadoran-American, or for that matter Ethiopian-American.
On the other hand, there are boat-loads of legal resident and native-born WallMart moms, black fathers, suburban strugglers, and upper-middle class parents who are totally, utterly oblivious to all the civic virtues you name and do not a whit to encourage civic engagement by their kids.
This argument just stands out as a straw-man to me.
— Ralf · Apr 29, 06:19 PM · #
The wall will adversely impact migrating species of animals. Already does.
— davep · Apr 29, 06:22 PM · #
“The wall will adversely impact migrating species of animals. Already does.”
Illegal armadilloes should not be entering the U.S.
— mike farmer · Apr 29, 06:34 PM · #
Err, we already tried a wall, remember? 10 foot wall, 11 foot ladder. How about a guest worker program combined with draconian workplace enforcement (directed at those who employ illegals)?
The only other solution is to fortify the border. Undesirable and expensive (about 10B in one time costs, at least 1B in O&M costs) but it may become necessary if Mexico falls apart.
I live in AZ (5 miles from the border) and although illegals are a problem the real problem is the drug trade and its impact on Mexican society (and soon, ours).
JT
— Jeff Tyler · Apr 29, 06:40 PM · #
“newcomers to America are a benefit to our nation”
Really? When we’re running out of water in the Southwest, water is polluted everywhere, we have huge traffic problems in all of our cities, we are running out of energy resources, and on and on; in short, we already have a huge overpopulation problem already. I disagree completely that newcomers are an overall benefit to our nation.
— Dag · Apr 29, 06:47 PM · #
“It doesn’t seem fair to keep newcomers out so that I can pay marginally less in local taxes, or even so that a poor American can earn marginally more at their job.”
What kind of drivel is that? Non-Americans do not have a God-given right to move to the United States! If increasing legal immigration means higher taxes for all and less chance that our poorer communities will have jobs, then I’m sorry but American citizens come first. There was a time when huge immigration was needed for our industrial based economies. Italians, Irish, and Germans came and worked our mills and mines. But with double-digit employment and a domestic economy constantly threatened by cheap Chinese and other imports, we can’t afford to increase immigration any more than it already is
— MarcV · Apr 29, 06:48 PM · #
A physical wall along the entire U.S.-Mexican border would be an existential threat to the cultural survival of indigenous groups like the Cocopah, Yaqui, Tohono O’odham, and Hia-Ced O’odham whose populations span the border. The physical barrier would effectively fragment native populations, making it harder to maintain their language, cultural traditions, and social bonds, and hastening the disappearance of those cultures.
A permanent physical barrier would also divide animal populations, preventing natural migration in response to drought, climate change, over-hunting, etc, and making extinction more likely. Jaguars, which have been extending their range back into the U.S. over the past few decades, would be left without a viable breeding population in the U.S. Ocelots, peccaries, and other animals would be similarly threatened. Physical barriers fragment animal populations into smaller habitat “islands,” and island populations are much more vulnerable to extinction.
I realize that most Americans upset by illegal immigration don’t give a damn about Yaqui Indian culture or ocelot populations, but these are things that need to be considered in any rational discussion of a permanent wall along the entire border.
— Todd · Apr 29, 06:54 PM · #
“Devalue the dollar relative to the yuan so that imports from Mexico become relatively more attractive and imports from China relatively less, which should result in a flow of capital to Mexico to set up factories there.”
Noah I think perhaps you overestimate the benefit of the factory-based, export-based model as a producer of jobs in Mexico, especially the sorts of well paying jobs that discourage immigration. Such a model also has the downside of making Mexico extremely dependent on swings in US consumption, hence the dramatic impact of the economic crisis in Mexico compared to other LA nations.
— pc · Apr 29, 07:20 PM · #
“How about a guest worker program”
No, no, a thousand times no. It’s one thing to let in immigrants. It’s quite another to create a permanent underclass of non-citizens.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 29, 08:27 PM · #
The odds that a wall or other fixed installation will stop small, highly flexible groups of people who can blend in moments after they arrive don’t look good.
The underlying problem stems from the proposition that if you got your birth certificate from one hospital, you have a prior claim to one standard of living and way of life, guaranteed by government subsidy if necessary, and if you got your birth certificate from another hospital five miles down the road, you don’t. This proposition gets particularly iffy given the origin of the border location (a war we would, by today’s standards, consider highly illegal).
— John Spragge · Apr 29, 09:33 PM · #
I’d be interested in seeing you unpack this a little:
“It doesn’t seem fair to keep newcomers out so that I can pay marginally less in local taxes, or even so that a poor American can earn marginally more at their job.”
Especially the latter part. I am kind of a squish on immigration, but the idea that it’s UNFAIR to prefer citizens to immigrants seems a little… unnatural to me. Or something.
We impose all kinds of costs on richer folks in order to make life better for poorer folks. Sometime we straight up give the money to the poor folks. It’s not unheard of.
So it doesn’t strike me as “unfair” in any greater sense to hammer illegal immigration. OK, sure, the people in the rich part of town are going to have to pay more for their lawn care if the landscapers start paying their workers a living wage, due to increased competition for low-skilled labor. And sure, that’s a transfer from rich people to poor people. If that’s unfair, aren’t food stamps unfair, too?
Again, I am a squish. But the idea that “fairness” forces us to allow a heavy stream of immigrants seems non-obvious to me.
— Sam M · Apr 29, 11:03 PM · #
so good,i like this,thanks!
— juicy couture · Apr 30, 07:55 AM · #
Frum makes some valid points
I think the Arizona law has pushed immigration reform to the front burner.
The question is, will the republicans filibuster Obamnesty when the Graham/Schumer bill comes up?
The dems are wisely tying amnesty to beefed up border security….
And I was very struck by the similiarities in the bill’s legal immigrant section to Dr. Manzi’s suggestions in America’s Edge.
Is Dr. Manzi advising the WH now?
I think that would be a good idea.
— matoko_chan · Apr 30, 12:53 PM · #
“The underlying problem stems from the proposition that if you got your birth certificate from one hospital, you have a prior claim to one standard of living and way of life, guaranteed by government subsidy if necessary, and if you got your birth certificate from another hospital five miles down the road, you don’t.”
That’s like saying the problem is that Paris Hilton was born to her parents and I was born to my parents, so why should she have a different standard of living than I have?
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 30, 03:27 PM · #
Processing your visa to respond your family in the US for an alien is a very tedious procedure. You may have to wait for five years or more than ten years for some. Unless the US government would make the conclusions speedy, then the number of those who take the of going to America and masking would be greatly minimized.
— Immigrant kid · May 6, 01:06 AM · #