One of the things I remember most from my life as a student was one particular night in my Taxation course during my MBA program. We were in about the 7th or 8th week and discussing the nuances about a particular tax code item. I won’t bore you with all the specifics here (but feel free to ask me about it if you care) but it had to do with a change that was made in order to close a loophole that existed and ended up resulting in some fairly disastrous consequences that were completely unintended and unforeseen. That led our professor to make the following statement (and I’m paraphrasing); “whenever I hear debates about making major changes or simplifications to the tax code, I always say ‘unless you can tell me at least one major negative that this change will cause, you haven’t thought hard enough about it.’” That’s actually how I feel about a lot of our problems where it is common to hear 30-second sound bite solutions of “we just need to do X” and everything will be fine.
I am using this as the intro to my discussion on immigration because, simply put, it’s quite a tangled mess that has no easy answers. Every solution I’ve heard either has serious negatives attached to it or is logistically impossible (or both). That’s not to say that none of them are the “correct” choice, but it’s just infuriating to hear various solutions presented as though they are the clear “right” answer and that there are no drawbacks. By the way, this could also be said (especially) of health care, but that’s a blog for another day.
Of course, the long-term solution to the immigration problem is a prosperous and stable Mexican economy. However, I haven’t seen and don’t anticipate any politicians campaigning on the platform of “Your tax dollars for Mexico!” so I think that doing what we can from our end and continuing to encourage free trade is about the best we can do.
First, I want to start with the fence on the border. I never really got to the point of thinking about this on a philosophical level, because I have a very practical objection to it- it doesn't work. I hate always citing this, but on Penn and Teller's Bullsh!t they studied the specifications of the wall and built a replica of a section of it. They picked up a group of illegal Mexicans at a Home Depot and had them build the wall (but didn't tell them what it was for). Then they had them, in groups of two, try to get around it. One group tried to go over it, one group through it, and the other one under it. It took the group going through it the longest: just over 5 minutes. The group going over got through in less than 3. Even if we build double or triple layers, that's still slowing them down by less than 10 minutes. That hardly seems an efficient use of taxpayer money. A tv stunt is certainly not a scientific experiment, but considering there are large sections of the wall that are being built by recent immigrants I think it’s at least somewhat valid. Then there’s just the obvious problem that the fence only covers an extremely small portion of the border. Sure, that may be where the majority of illegals cross but is our goal really just to get them to cross somewhere else?
OK, so if a fence won’t work then what will? Well, I’m sure it comes as a surprise to no one that the reason immigrants come here is due to the economy and job opportunities being vastly superior over here than in the majority of Mexico. Hence it would make sense that in order to stem the flow of illegal immigrants we need to remove that motivation. That means tougher laws and penalties on businesses that hire illegals. However, we also need to be careful here. You don’t want to make the documentation rules so oneruous that you cause businesses to discriminate against legal immigrants just so they can avoid any possibility of having legal problems. Creating that kind of climate would further exacerbate the situation because then illegals lose more motivation to ever become legal. Nevertheless, better enforcement and creating incentives for adherence to the existing laws seems like a reasonable course of action and a good place to start. I am fully in support of that.
Then we get to the question of what to do with the millions of illegals currently in the country? The common answer given to this is "send 'em back!" Again, I immediately have an objection to this on the practical level. I don’t know, and have never heard of, a reasonable way to do this. One of the most frequent arguments used to expound on the need to get a handle on immigration is “we know nothing about who these people are, where they come from, or what they are trying to do.” This is definitely true and is a problem. While few would argue against the statement that the vast majority of Mexican immigrants are simply seeking to raise their standard of living, it is probable that at least a few are exploiting the open border for more sinister purposes. But the reason it is a problem is also the problem with any solution. How do you identify and round up a group you have no information on? You are literally chasing invisible people. How will you ever know if you have them all? Actually, how will you even be able to quantify it at all?
Then there’s the problem from the U.S. economy side. If we actually were successful at rapidly expelling all illegals out of the country our economy would be absolutely decimated (at least in the short term). The last report from DHS (issued last August for data through 1/06) estimates that there were approximately 11.6 million “unauthorized” immigrants living in the U.S. It is further estimated that 7.8 million of these were in the workforce. At that time, total unemployment in the U.S. was 7 million. That means that in the event that we actually were wildly successful in expelling immigrants, we would end up, in a best case scenario, with a deficit of almost a million jobs that we’d have no way to fill. And of course, practically speaking it would be far higher than that. The 7 million unemployed come from all over the country while the population of illegals is much more concentrate in the southern states. Eventually, Americans and legal immigrants can fill the jobs of illegals, but not immediately and not at the same rate. The biggest part of motivation to hire illegals from an employer side is the ability to pay them less than the minimum wage. This keeps the cost of goods and services lower and allows the business to be more competitive. Now, if all of a sudden they are required to pay minimum wage, then one of two things occurs. If their competitors are still employing illegals, they can no longer compete and go out of business. Or, assuming everyone now has to use legal workers, the result is a definite increase in price to the consumer. How much? Well, again since we don’t have great information no one really knows for sure.
Thus, it seems like this is a problem that, by necessity, needs to move slowly and incrementally. I’d say that Congress has the slowly part down but I don’t think “inert” quite qualifies as a speed. It doesn’t seem practical to just round up nearly 12 million people and it seems as though we’d have a lot of problems if we actually were able to do it. It is for that reason that I’ve come around to support at least a limited policy of amnesty. I detest the idea of rewarding people for their illegal actions, and I fully admit that at this point I don’t have much of an idea as to hammering out the specifics for how this would happen. And the absolute worst thing for the U.S. would be to encourage a sudden rush of border hopping to get into the country before some arbitrary date. Nevertheless, it seems like setting up some way of encouraging illegals to come forward and identify themselves is the only likely way to get the situation moving forward. I'd also like to further clarify that this would only apply to those who come forward. Those caught in an INS raid should rightfully be deported. This would have the dual effect of encouraging more illegals to come forward rather than be caught, and also to discourage businesses from continuing to hire illegals.
So in summary and to paraphrase a quote on democracy, I believe that amnesty is the worst solution to the immigration problem; except for every other solution. So, for those of you ready to jump on me and propose your own solution I ask that you please list at least one significant negative to what you propose. If you cannot do that, I believe you do not have a true appreciation for the real complexity of this situation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
John-
I think a lot of this call for immigration reform is really just thinly veiled racism, classism, and xenophobia. Much of the de facto illegal immigration from Mexico does not constitute a real threat to our national security. From a taxpayer's viewpoint, illegal immigrants cost Americans in emergency room visits and to educate their children born here, but I think the cheap labor they provide and relative stability they've brought to some of the poorer areas in our inner cities might outway those costs. What we really need to worry about are the damn Chinese, Jews, and Arabs (JOKE).
Good points Dan.
Wow, only 1 comment in over 2 days. Am I off my game or do you guys really have nothing to say about this?
We are waiting to see what Weir has to say.
I am wondering what the data is, if there is any, on immigration in other countries?
I am asking this because during a recent immigration discussion with my sister, we looked up the citizenship requirements for Mexico to see if it was hard for someone to become a citizen there. It seemed pretty similar to what the US requires. So our question had become, "Do[would] other countries grant amnesty to illegal immigrants?"
When you see fliers about immigration marches, they list their demands (at least the last one I saw a couple of months ago for the May march) and alot of them seemed pretty excessive.
I don't know what solution, if any, there is to solve this problem, but I don't feel that we should be giving in to demands of people that came here illegally. What about those who have worked hard to get their papers to come here legally? Would it be fair to some people to work hard at it while others are just handed it?
My problem isn't with immigrants, I am not racist. My problem is with the fact although alot of people come here for better lives and opportunities, leaving behind oppressive governments and poor economies, some of them do what they need to/required to do it legally, while others refuse, sneak in, and sometimes even demand what everyone else has..
I agree with Meg on both points. Just because some people are geographically advantaged and able to sneak in, they shouldn't be given special treatment. It's not fair to everyone else who isn't connected to the U.S. by land.
Also, and this is an opinion I of course wouldn't share in certain company, because you get called a racist (whatever), but: a lot of times people who march, they march for more rights, but if those marchers came here illegally, they are not citizens. I feel like sometimes people equate the act of physically being here with being citizens.
I have more thoughts but they are all jumbled and filled with random stories and analogies, so excuse me for a few while I whittle them down....
Have you guys heard of the wet-foot, dry-foot clause? I think it applies to Haitians or Cubans comign here illegally.
I had never heard of it but this is what I found in a South Florida Times article:
It is alleged that the Cuban Migration Act of 1994 and 1995 have produced a Wet Foot, Dry Foot policy. This means the U.S. would stop admitting Cubans intercepted at sea, and Cubans caught at sea (i.e., with wet feet) would summarily be sent to Cuba.
Cubans who reached U.S. soil (dry feet) would be permitted to remain in the United States, and are eligible to adjust their status to Permanent Residence. This policy is in contradiction and violation of the third provision of the Cuban Migration Act of 1994, which clearly states that: “The United States and Cuba agreed to cooperate on the voluntary return of Cubans who arrived in the United States or were intercepted at sea.”
There is no special consideration afforded to Cubans in the act itself based on the way in which the “Wet Feet/Dry Feet Policy” is interpreted. Even according to international law governing the rights of refugees to which the United States is a signatory, Cuban migrants intercepted at sea are entitled, much like any refugee, an opportunity to express a legitimate fear of persecution if returned to Cuba.
I didn't know it had a name, but yes, I had heard about that.
Can I tell an immigration story? Sorry, some of you have heard it, but it's such a cool story!
I met a guy once, worked at a nail salon, he came over here on a boat from... shoot, I think it was Malaysia or Vietnam or something. A rickety, wooden, boat. You know the percentage of people who cross the Pacific Ocean and make it here alive in a boat like that? 1 in 100. And he knew it, and his family knew it, but they all agreed he would go anyway. And so when he got on the boat, said his goodbyes, his family assumed it was the last time they would see him alive. They didn’t know he’d survived until months and months later when he called them from the U.S.
So... I read John's blog all the time but never take the time to comment because I don't always want to take the time to do the research. I however have decided that I might as well just comment so here it goes.
I think that the U.S. can learn a lot from Brazil on this one. The City of Curitba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curitiba
experience rapid growth during the last half of the 20th century and much of its growth (like many other cities in the world) was do to the migration of rural poor to urban areas. The city had three options: 1. Build a fence to keep them out 2. Ignore the problem and end up with a shanty town full of disease and crime ( San Palo comes to mind) or 3. Work really hard to encorporate these people into to structure of the city and turn them into contributing members of society. Through some master full city planning and public work campaigns the city built one of the best and most used mass transit systems in the world and turned degraded parks and undeveloped areas into useable areas and used some of these public work projects to train and employ the masses of migrants on the cities fringe.
It seems to me that we need to take a much more proactive aproach to americanize immigrants, develop networks that help them find jobs with honest businesses, work to provide minimal health care and help them properly pay taxes. And yes this does mean full amnesty for anyone currently in this country. And now the bad part. This would totally overwhelm the current system and would increase the number of illegal immegrants try to come to America. A slow integration and an understanding that this will take time helps with the first problem. Now for problem 2. The question now becomes how do you stop millions of people from entering the country without draconian measures. Since this is all about money I think a good way would limit illegals post amnesty would be to heavily audit the practices and finances of businesses that have high numbers of illegal workers. I know this will raise to price of a lot of goods and service but maybe just maybe this is the right price.
Quickly on Phil:
In your plan if you put huge restrictions on companies that employ large numbers of illegals (although they wouldn't technically be 'illegal' in your plan) it would be considered extremely racist. eg.."How come 'Mexican Only' companies are being singled out.
On Mike:
I don't know what else to say about this that I haven't already said. It is nice, however, to see that I have the power over discussion here, not John.
On Mooks:
The wetfoot/dryfoot thing is problematic both socially and politically. Socially, and conscience-ly(?), it is just not acceptable to send Cubans back to Cuba. People trying to defect to the US are often executed. It is not too socially acceptable to send people to their deaths. Politically, you have to look at Florida as a swing state and look at the number of voting Cubans/Latinos living in southern Florida. As they pointed out in the recent movie "Recount" it was very bad for the Gore Campaign in '98 that Clinton sent Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba. Also, you don't want to do too many favors for the Castro family.
I think the most rediculous idea is to take 12 million people, send them back to Mexico to register in their hometown, pay $1000 that they don't have, and then HOPE that we let them back in.
Unfortunatly I saw today that unemployment had its biggest jump in 20 years. This gives more fuel to the anti-immigration people.
I don't think it realistic to send 12 million people back from where they came. It'd take the US loads and loads of money (in our rough economy right now) to ship people back. WHo'd cover that cost? Taxes?
I just don't think giving full amnesty and a clean slate is the answer either. I agree that would cause a surge of people sneaking in.
I doubt I am the only person who notices this, but discussion about illegal immigrants most of the time comes back around to addressing Mexicans. I know they are a great number of the illegals here, but I am sure there are many other groups that are here illegaly. Sure its harder to fly in or cruise in on boats without paperwork, but there are many people that are still here after their visas have expired. Yet the discussion comes back to Mexico. I am too lazy to do the research, but can anyone(in general, not one of us) provide stats on what proportions of certain groups represent the illegal populations? I am curious about it.
I'd like to mention an article I read on CNN.com or some other news website. It talked about how the recession US is effecting other countries economies. While that is understandably so, the article sited that the money being sent back to Mexico by people living here in the US reaches millions and millions and millions of dollars every year. The Mexican government complained that due to our recession, their economy has lost 1 million dollars this last year.
You should have seen the blog comments on the article. People were pissed off. Noone felt pity while our own businesses are closing, schools and hospitals are suffering, and people are losing jobs here.
Mooks, a couple unreliable websites put the immigration numbers at about 60/40.
60% cross the border without inspection.
40% have overstayed their visa.
I am a little late on this one, but one comment I have is in regard to the idea that cracking down on our illegal workforce and making businesses pay an honest minimum wage to all employees would hurt our economy. I agree that it would based on the simple idea that the cost of goods would increase, and therefore the sales price of goods would increase. However, that is simply how an economy is supposed to work. Just like our current oil price situation, people will have to make changes in their lives to compensate for the increase in costs. Maybe every condo in Chicago doesn't get marble counter tops and stainless steel appliances. OMG we might die from that! If not using illegal immigrants means my lettuce and milk triple in cost, maybe I don't get to go to 6 cubs games and spend $100 on beer each time. OMG Soriano might not get to make all his millions. People are so dead set on the idea that we as Americans should not have to make sacrifices that they fail to see that we have it better then anyone else in the world. I have no sympathy for people who are here illegally. We have a system that will allow them in, they choose to not follow that system. I understand that a portion are fleeing unspeakable conditions, but another portion is not. And we do not owe anyone the right to come here for whatever their reason is. We choose to give them the right. And we have gotten to a point where the entire system is broke and violated. We have only ourselves as a nation to blame. I don't have the answer on how to solve it, but I do believe that the first step is to stop the bleeding, then find out how to cure the cancer. A fence is retarded. Cracking down on business owners is appropriate and can lead to deterring illegals from entering. Cracking down on demonstrators is appropriate (it is like walking down the street with a gun clearly hanging out of your pants) since it will show illegals that we are no willing to grant them any rights as if they were citizens.
hmm... something happened to the rest of my post. Maybe I didn't paste the entire thing.
I don't remember all of it, but I wrote something along the line of:
I know that my examples of sacrifice above are the result of my comfortable life style and that I will be less hurt by rising costs then those that just scrape by. However, those that just scrap by are in that position because they don't the job that gets them enough money. They are GENERALLY in this position do to education, disability, circumstances, or over reaching.
Lack of education = their fault.
Disability = we as a thriving society should assist them to a point that they live as comfortable a life as most people do (i.e. welfare, aid, charity).
Circumstances = for example you worked at an auto plant and it is now closed. Either teach yourself a new skill or move yourself to a place where your current skill set is needed. Don't sit there and expect a hand out from the government. Don't bitch that some illegal took your job. Fight for the correction of our illigal work force and fill the economic need that the market creates.
Over reaching = it sucks that you got caught up in the over spending that many people find themselves in now, but you only have yourself to blame. If you can't handle $5 gallons of gas, maybe you shouldn't have bought that $30k SUV that gets 10 mpg.
Post a Comment