« Now There's An Idea | Main | A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words »
March 28, 2006
More Immigration
I heartily endorse Max Sawicky's comments on immigration, with the caveat that I think a guest worker program including a clear and achievable mechanism for citizenship is a decent compromise. This conversation, by the way, is not saying nearly enough about remittances, the money sent by legal and illegal immigrants to their home countries. That cash is the largest direct source of foreign aid in Mexico, and, without it, the Mexican economy would have done far worse over the past few decades. Since a collapsed state on our Southern border is a near-nightmare scenario, we shouldn't, particularly when talking about safety, underplay the added economic stability that Mexican immigrants provide to their home country. Here's Fed Chief (then Fed Governor) Ben Bernanke giving a speech on the subject:
Many immigrants to the United States send substantial shares of their earnings--sometimes half of their incomes or more--to family members in their home countries. The U.S. Department of Treasury estimates that remittances to developing countries totaled more than $90 billion last year.3 These remittances have a significant economic impact on the receiving countries. Remittance flows to developing countries typically exceed official development assistance, are similar in magnitude to foreign direct investment, and are more stable than either of these other flows. For example, in 2002, the Latin American and Caribbean countries received $32 billion in remittances, of which $25 billion came from immigrants to the United States. These remittances constituted about 2 percent of the gross national products (GNP) of the region in that year. In 2002, remittances from citizens working abroad accounted for nearly 30 percent of the GNP of Nicaragua, 25 percent of the GNP of Haiti, and 15 percent of the GNP of El Salvador. Mexico receives the largest absolute amount of remittances in Latin America--about $9 billion in 2002.4 Just-released figures show that total remittances to Latin American and Caribbean countries in 2003 rose about 19 percent from the total in 2002, to $38 billion (Inter-American Dialogue Task Force on Remittances, 2004).
The rest of his address is good, by the way, and if you're interested in the subject, I urge you to read it.
March 28, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83425d93253ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Immigration:
» Cut in Line? What Line? Play by the Rules? from Electoral Math
What's wrong with this New Democrat, rights-and-responsibilities notion? I'm only going to say this twice, so listen closely. [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 28, 2006 1:10:56 PM
Comments
guest worker program including a clear and achievable mechanism for citizenship
My understanding (and I could be wrong about the usage) is that this isn't a normal usage of 'guest worker'. As I've seen the term used, 'guest' is used precisely to convey 'legally in the country but not on a citizenship track.'
Which doesn't change your substantive position, of course, but I think Sawicky probably agrees with it, just in different (and more conventional) words.
Posted by: LizardBreath | Mar 28, 2006 10:42:58 AM
Maybe so, but I know that McCain-Kennedy has a guest worker program with a path to citizenship, so their may be two types floating around...
Posted by: Ezra | Mar 28, 2006 10:44:34 AM
You have lauded the postive effects of the transfer of wealth to the developing nations. You have not addressed the negative effects of sending this money out of the US economy, however....*and* let's not forget....these people are illegal. Remember the law? The law that you held so dear and is to be followed regardless?? And yes, this is an important secirity issue.
But here's the thing: FISA, currently, is the law. And it's not an incidental law with language that accidentally enlarges it to apply to this case.
---Ezra Klein Jan 2 “He Ain’t The Law”
Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 28, 2006 10:48:03 AM
Oh, I know you're not the only one using 'guest worker' that way -- language shifts, people redefine terms. I just meant to draw your attention to the fact that some of the people you're responding to, including, I would bet, Sawicky, are still using 'guest worker' to indicate that distinction.
Posted by: LizardBreath | Mar 28, 2006 10:52:09 AM
Immigration is a good thing. Most economists say immigration is good for the economy. Even illegal immigration is good for the economy, but it isn't particularly good for Border security or for, yes "Rewarding bad behavior" We should be rewarding people who work hard & play by the rules. For people trying to immigrate to this country illegally, the silent acceptance of illegal immigration is a slap in the face.
Posted by: Dustin R. Ridgeway | Mar 28, 2006 11:10:36 AM
Fred: Exactly. Which is why I'm arguing that we should legalize it.
Posted by: Ezra | Mar 28, 2006 11:12:53 AM
Which is why I'm arguing that we should legalize it.
Legalize what? Just hopping the fence with no controls? That is what these people have done. They have, in effect, collectively flipped us off. Our laws don't matter to them. They just don't care.
You seem to really like polls, Ezra.
Try
This One
Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 28, 2006 11:21:42 AM
In the context of my post, guest worker meant lacking prospects for citizenship. Guest worker status with a citizenship route is immigration, albeit through a protracted process.
Posted by: Miracle Max | Mar 28, 2006 11:23:33 AM
Do you even care if your arguments make sense, Fred? Or have you long ago ascended to some platonic realm of ignorance from which you peer down, making blithely moronic statements and totally disconnected assertions?
Posted by: Ezra | Mar 28, 2006 11:37:37 AM
I think its pretty obvious that if immigration laws for the people in Mexico were revised so that a 'guest worker to a path of citizenship' were included, these people wouldn't need to be jumping fences so to speak.
Its a lot like prohibition. Once it was lifted, the people who had "broke the law" really hadn't anymore.
Still, I'll repeat what I said in the earlier thread. There exists no practical way of enforcing this law, that is, a way in which the 11 million or so are deported. Am I wrong? If so, what is the plan? Seems to me pro-deporters need to be the ones proving that mass deportation is the policy to be going with, not the other way around. Defending the current ineffective law(s) and/or policies regarding immigration from Mexico or elsewhere, without showing a way to make them effective, is nothing more than blowing hot air.
Posted by: Adrock | Mar 28, 2006 11:53:55 AM
Do you even care if your arguments make sense, Fred? Or have you long ago ascended to some platonic realm of ignorance from which you peer down, making blithely moronic statements and totally disconnected assertions?
Heh. It is not I who advocate for those who routinely break our laws nor champion a hands off approach to border security. It is not unreasonable to ask that the borders are monitored and those who do not belong asked to leave.
The stupidity of your argument that 'it simply can't be done so let's cave in' is appalling. Sure it can be done. You just don't want it to be done.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 28, 2006 12:06:59 PM
Realm of platonic ignorane. Hehe. It contains the perfect idiot, the ideal moron, etc. Like it.
Posted by: TJ | Mar 28, 2006 12:13:55 PM
Actually, all of this is a blessing. This is not a new issue but has been on the back burner for some time. Border security is a big, big issue and now it's impossible to ignore this problem.
Whatever happens, it will be much, much better than the status quo.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 28, 2006 12:19:01 PM
I don't think we can practically expel the millions of illegal immigrants already here. But since they came here illegally, I'm not totally against some penalty.
I'm wondering if there's some form of middle ground around saying, in effect, you're here, that's a fait accompli, we'll legalize your stay, but we won't allow you to become citizens. Would that (a) hold them accountable, (b) bring them into the system and (c) accept reality? (Note: I wouldn't change the fact that their children, born here, would be citizens. That would change the face of the US.)
Politically, from the left, I'd like to see them all become citizens; it would be great for the Dems. But I can't see that happening anytime soon.
Posted by: pfc | Mar 28, 2006 12:25:44 PM
I'd like to see them all become citizens; it would be great for the Dems.
I think you have stumbled upon the big reason for all of the passionate cries for amnesty.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 28, 2006 12:30:47 PM
Hey Fred, recall the phrase 'no taxation without representation'?
Any plan for reform that doesn't include a path to citizenship that is clear and definite sets up a two-level workforce and two-level society - the undoing of our entire nation as a immigrant people. Everybody came from somewhere (even the native Americans), and we must reject the 'pulling up the ladder' approach.
The immigration-rejectionists don't talk much about one of the driving forces for cross-border migration: employers who need low cost workers for crappy jobs, and who don't enforce the immigration laws on hiring undocumented workers. BushCo has all but eliminated fines for employers who break the hiring rules. Surprised? Anything for the corporations....
Dems should be aware however that there is significant disagreement among Dem voters on what to do about the uncontrolled migration across the southern borders. A wall won't work (lots of sea routes are available) and is contrary to our national self-image. Employment controls can work, but the employers have to want them to work - and they don't.
I'm with Krugman. This Congress can't be trusted to do the right thing this year on immigration reform. Regardless of what the Senate does, the conference committee is very likely to do the worse things possible. This immigration problem is bad, getting worse and should be addressed, but not this year.
Perhaps the solution is something like the military base closure commission. Congress should appoint a truly representative and expert group of people; let the commission suggest a total reform package (for enactment in say 2007 or 2009); and then the Congress must vote it up or down, but not modify.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Mar 28, 2006 12:59:49 PM
There aren't a lot of good answers here - "out of hand" seems to describe the whole situation, and while Fred isn't right, he's not necessrily that wrong - even if our immigration policies don't make sense (and they don't), we are a nation of laws and rewarding those who've broken the law leaves uncomfortable questions. I like the structure of a fine and tax paying and a wait period for folks who are already here as an initial discussion point, but I think there's still details that need to be worked out.
But I think some larger structural problems exist - one is there's little in the bill I've seen to set disincentives for luring cheap labor over the border, meaning the problem continues; and no real structural reworking of the INS which means all those citizenship applications will be nice but without a better system for processing them, there's probably more mess ahead.
I'm not so cynical as to favor blanket amnesty simply because it might benefit the Democrats - I don't think that's a logical conclusion, anyway. But the problem here isn't Dems, anyway, it's the GOP, which can't settle on any kind of policy that makes sense. So the bill dies - doesn't seem bad for Dems, certainly worse for the GOP. At the very least, we climbed in and under some mass bromides (like "they do the jobs no one else wants" - which is true if you pay them subsistence wages), and started asking some hard questions. This is an uncomfortable topic and I suspect more people are less charitable on immigrant issues than we'd like to think. Finding a solution is going to be complicated and take some finesses, not things the GOP seem to be good at, lately.
Posted by: weboy | Mar 28, 2006 1:27:01 PM
...even if our immigration policies don't make sense (and they don't), we are a nation of laws and rewarding those who've broken the law leaves uncomfortable questions.
Yes, we are and Li'l Jimmy in Portland feels exactly the same way.
The US is a nation of laws, and not of men.
Posted by: JimPortandOR | Jan 2, 2006 1:31:35 PM
So why is he now running his mouth about the immigration issue. The law is clear, isn't it?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 28, 2006 2:40:05 PM
Yes, Fred, the U.S. is a nation of laws and not of men. So how about we levy mult-billion dollar fines against Wal-Mart for breaking these laws? Revoke the incorporation of companies that employ illegal immigrants? Granted these examples are a wee bit draconian, but solving the problem boils down to this:
These illegal immigrants have very little, and thus very little to lose. About all we can threaten them with is prison (assuming that you're ruling out corporal punishment), and, well, repeating our experiment with the WWII Japanese seems ill-advised. Alternatively, there's deportation...which means they just need to find another way in. And both of these solutions hinge on ferreting out a full 4% of our population that is committed to evading detection and deporting them.
The companies, on the other hand, have MUCH to lose, and the government has the means of enforcing punishments on them if they break the law. I know you'd love to see America recreate the Berlin Wall along the Mexican border, Fred (and that's what it would take to even begin to make a dent in these operations), but for a fraction of the cost and with a lot less dead Mexicans we can accomplish the same thing by making it genuinely dangerous for companies to hire illegal aliens. They come here for jobs; if the jobs aren't here, they won't come here. Bush seems to have taken that last sentence to heart, but not the way I suggest...
Posted by: Kylroy | Mar 28, 2006 3:24:57 PM
Why do we allow people to be exploited in this country so we can eat food on the cheap? People come to the United States and work for dirt wages so we can eat cheap food, and our President tells us that we should have a guest worker program so these folks can be legally exploited. I see a whole lot wrong with this, and the first thing that I see wrong is that we have jobs in this country that pay below minimum wage, and we want to change the law so people can work for below minimum wage. The only positive I see is if we allow these folks to work legally in this country then unions could organize the workers and get them a decent wage.
Posted by: jbou | Mar 28, 2006 4:21:29 PM
Both the employers and the illegals are guilty. Fine the living shit out of any company that knowingly hire illegals. I have to show a SS card and valid drivers license to get a job. Why should they be any different. We also need to criminalize being here. Currently, it's only a civil offense.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 28, 2006 4:32:33 PM
The cracks about minimum wage (not you, jbou) are of course beside the point. Progressives want to see gradual and consistant increases in the minimum wage. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain - or without a vested interest in keeping corporate profits in the hands of shareholders instead of those that generate the profits - that such increases actually help the economy, not hurt it.
So why do people like me say that taking illegal immigration out of our economic system would lead to a collapse? Because many of these workers are not paid a minimum wage. The true cost of goods/services - that is, a cost that reflects business owners abiding by the law - if imposed rapidly and in a chaotic fashion would indeed wreak havoc. But if we would just recognize that immigrants - illegal or otherwise - are an indispensible part of our nation's economy and work to rationally absorb them into our economy, the resulting adjustment would be just that: an adjustment, perhaps a short time of slower economic growth, but certainly not destructive.
Putting the focus on the immigrants themselves is absurd, even though this behavior stands in a long American tradition: blaming prostitutes for prostitution, drug dealers for drug addicts and such. If there were no demand (from employers) for labor that doesn't cost them FICA, Worker's Comp, unemployment, etc. and that will accept less than the minimum wage, then there would be virtually no illegal immigrants. Just as with the "War on Drugs," we will never "win" unless we attack the demand issue.
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 28, 2006 4:43:28 PM
Stephen,
I believe some of the bills do, indeed, punish the employers for knowingly hiring illegals...as they should be. That being said, we still have laws against drug possession and utilization of prostitutes...criminal laws....and there is no reason why we should not have criminal laws for being here unlawfully as well.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 28, 2006 5:36:24 PM
I am going to mark my calendar on this one: Fred and I have found common ground. We both agree that punishing businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens (and making sure they're not just remaining willfully oblivious to their immigration status) is important to meaningful immigration enforcement. Simple principle that 's been echoed elsewhere: make the cost of defiance greater than the cost of compliance. As long as it's cheaper to pay the fines and round up a fresh batch of undocumented workers, businesses will still hire illegal aliens, and the workers will still find ways in (because many people will work incredibly hard to improve their lot in life; we used to call this the American Dream...).
But criminalizing illegal immigration...oh, god, Fred. Did you see my comments about WWII internment camps being a bad idea? (While they were technically "concentration camps" in that they concentrated a population in a small area, I refuse to use the term because it has become synonymous with genocide.) You think Juan Q. Public is angry now, just wait till a bunch of his relatives are locked up for trying to follow him here. Our prisons are overflowing already, without trying to imprison folks whose only crime is trying to move up in the world through a proven, effective method. Add in an enraged Mexican populace that just wants to see their friends and family released from American prisons, and this ends up looking like a horrible idea from all angles. I know it's viscerally satisfying to pummel the powerless, Fred, but enforcement is nigh-on impossible without Gestapo-like levels of intrusion into people's private lives.
Random thought: On almost all fronts, liberals wish America was more like Europe, and conservatives want to move as far as possible the other way. But on immigration, the conservatives wish we had European-style limitations and the liberals want to open the floodgates (or possibly just keep them open). Something that surprised and offended me about German citizenship: it's solely (or at least largely) based on lineage. My uncle, a first generation American of German descent, could move there tommorow and start voting in April; meanwhile, there are third-generation German Turks who've never left Berlin that aren't full citizens. I don't now about you, but the idea that someone has lived their entire life in a country but isn't fully a citizen just boils my blood. And for that reason, I'm not real keen on cementing 2nd-class citizenship in America.
Posted by: Kylroy | Mar 28, 2006 5:54:15 PM
Oh, and Fred: any cop will tell you that you don't (succesfully) stop prostitution by collaring the hookers. You do it by shaming the johns. Why? Because the prostitutes are doing it to survive; lock them up, and they still need to survive as soon as they get out. But the johns are doing it for kicks; it's a lot easier to convince somebody to find their kicks elsewhere than to stop trying to survive.
I really didn't want to make the previous comparison, but it follows the same principle of "you can only take from those who have something to take."
Posted by: Kylroy | Mar 28, 2006 6:00:13 PM
