Immigration Policy Once Again-BECKER

Although we blogged on immigration not long ago (see entry for March 6th), immigration reform is currently being extensively discussed by Congress, and President Bush proposed various immigration reforms. We decided to consider the subject once again. I will defend three reforms. First, the United States can and should greatly increase the number of legal immigrants accepted, with most of the emphasis on skilled immigrants. Second, it is not politically possible to send back the millions of illegal immigrants that are here, but other steps might be taken with regard to their eligibility for various government programs. Third, if a feasible enforcement policy could be worked out, employers should be punished for hiring undocumented workers in order to reduce the incentives for many more illegal immigrants to come here. The case for expanded legal immigration recognizes the great benefits this country has received from immigrants throughout our history. The unlimited immigration of the nineteenth century is no longer an attractive policy because of the artificial incentives to come created by various entitlement programs. Nevertheless, this relatively unpopulated nation can readily and productively absorb many more immigrants. Skilled immigrants in particular should receive high priority- they do not under present policies- because they add highly valued skills that are well paid in the above ground sector, and they contribute much more in taxes than they receive in government benefits from Medicaid, unemployment compensation, and other government programs. In addition, skilled immigrants commit little crime, they have law-abiding and generally high achieving children, and they supply various services that otherwise might be outsourced to countries like India and China. I would also like to admit legally some hardworking unskilled immigrants, and I will discuss this later. Unfortunately, I do not see anything in the president's proposal to increase the number of skilled immigrants, perhaps because all the attention is now on illegal immigrants. But skilled individuals deserve a high priority. One approach is to expand greatly the number allowed to enter under temporary programs, such as the H-1B visa program mainly for high-tech workers. But programs for temporary admission are not attractive (for reasons discussed in my March 6th post), and a more desirable policy would provide permanent admission to many more skilled immigrants. More generous admission of these immigrants should be a fundamental part of any overhaul of the United States' immigration policy. Although the exact number of illegal immigrants in this country is not known, estimates range from about five million persons to close to twelve million. Surely, it is not feasible politically to round most of these up and return them to where they came from. The recent immigrant demonstrations show that this could lead to riots and unrest that would be more destructive than helpful. Moreover, many of these immigrants are well integrated into American life, and it would make little economic sense, as well as be inhumane, to send them back, even if that were feasible. The call by some Republican to send most illegal immigrants back to where they came from seems more like political grandstanding rather than a serious proposal. So I accept that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are here to stay for as long as they want to. The president's proposal essentially to give permanent residency to illegal immigrants who have jobs involves some face-saving because he wants to deny that he is in effect proposing to give amnesty to immigrants who are here illegally. Still, the proposal is basically a major step in the right direction, for it not only recognizes the impossibility of throwing out millions who are here illegally, but the proposal also makes a valuable distinction between those with and without jobs. That part of the proposal is consistent with the approach taken in the H-1B and other programs that gives preference to immigrants who have jobs. If the president's proposed reforms were not to become simply another amnesty program-the previous one was in 1986- that would encourage further illegal immigration, a way must be found to discourage the number of illegal immigrants who want to come. The current policy of returning apprehended aliens is ineffective since the majority of those who are returned simply turn around and come again. Perhaps a wall along the border will help. I doubt if using the national guard to patrol borders (I do not like the use of national guards for that purpose) or many more border agents could greatly stem the tide, given the length of the border with Mexico, and the many persons who specialize in finding new ways to cross over. Most Americans do not wish to give significant jail sentences to illegal aliens who are apprehended. For there is considerable, although not universal, sympathy for immigrants whose only crime is that they come to this country to seek much higher wages, better working conditions for themselves, and brighter futures for their children. What then can be done? As I said in my March post, I favor reducing the benefits available to illegal immigrants, which means denying them access to most health, education, and other benefits. But I recognize that it is unlikely if that would be politically feasible or desirable in certain situations, such as for illegals who have school age children, or those who are ill. So I am not optimistic about the feasibility of doing much along these lines. Clearly, it would help a lot if Mexico developed much faster. Its record during the past several years is pretty good, due mainly to the NAFTA Free Trade agreement, various reforms Mexico introduced to make its economy more flexible, and a booming world economy. Still, Mexico is unlikely to increase its progress sufficiently rapidly to greatly reduce the desire of many Mexicans to come to the United States in the forseeable future. It would be desirable to increase significantly the number of unskilled persons accepted each year, along with the greater increase in skilled individuals accepted, although neither group should be eligible for entitlement benefits for several years. This policy would reduce the number of unskilled persons who want to come here illegally, but it would not eliminate the problem. So is stemming further large-scale illegal immigration a hopeless task? Perhaps it is, which is why I titled my previous entry "The New American Dilemma: Illegal Immigration". But an approach that I dismissed in my March post may be worth exploring further. Although the 1986 immigration law barred employers from hiring illegal immigrants, it has not been much enforced because employers argued they were victims of forged social security cards, green cards, and other ID's that would certify employees were in this country legally. An identity card that is hard to duplicate and that would have to be checked by employers at a central clearing house before hiring someone would be the only really effective method of reducing forgery to minor levels. That would have to be combined with sizeable monetary fines for employers who hired employees without the required documentation. These fines should rise with the number of illegal aliens hired, and with whether an employer was a repeat offender. Even if such an identity and punishment system were introduced and were effective, some illegal immigrants would come here to work for households and at other underground activities. But identity cards would greatly cut back the number of illegal immigrants who would come. That is all any policy toward illegal immigrants can hope to achieve.

Comments

[Carol Wacker]

TAMPER-PROOF ID CARDS FOR GUEST WORKERS

This idea could be mobilized rather quickly. Ask for proposals from private industry (like American Express, Mastercard, Oracle, etc.) to make the ID cards. Why? We know that our government cannot efficiently pull off this kind of huge program. Let the proposals cover such things as:
ÔøΩcost to the foreign citizen (we do not have to pay for this!)
ÔøΩhow is it tamperproof? Does it change color if the plastic cover is exposed to air? How will they make the chip invulnerable?
ÔøΩregistration included on embedded chip should be rigorous (all the information that is needed for a visa plus picture, fingerprints, iris scan, educational data and police record information or clearance.)
ÔøΩhow they will set up stations in cities foreign countries, probably associated with our embassies or at our borders.
ÔøΩhow they will staff stations to handle peak crowds in the beginning.
ÔøΩwhat kind of computer database they will maintain
ÔøΩwhat special provisions will they make for Mexico (because of the huge numbers)? For example, ÔøΩpeople whose last names being with letters A,B,C,DÔøΩ report to their city of origin August 1 to 15 and so on. HOWEVER, THEY MUST GO BACK IN ORDER TO GET THE CARD!
ÔøΩshould the cards also contain an RFID chip to ascertain whereabouts if necessary?
ÔøΩhow they will cooperate with some governmental agency WHICH WILL CERTIFY LETTERS FROM COMPANIES IN THE USA that a job is waiting for the bearer of the letter and how they will FAST TRACK the document and the turnaround of persons back to the USA so that there is little disruption.
ÔøΩthe person may ALSO signup for legal citizenship BEHIND those who already have signed up and are waiting patiently.

The posting of Request For Proposals should have a very calming effect for those who are sneaking over the border right now. Guest workers YES. Amnesty NO.

Also pass a law requiring that employers be heavily fined for hiring illegals.

On another note, there were some Mexicans bragging about the fact that they registered many, many illegals to vote BECAUSE NO ONE CHECKS THAT THEY ARE CITIZENS ON THE APPLICATIONS OR REQUIRES ANY TYPE OF ID AT THE VOTING PLACES. IT IS SUPPOSEDLY A FEDERAL OFFENSE TO CLAIM CITIZENSHIP BUT NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN PROSECUTED FOR THIS, according to the talk show host.

Carol Wacker

[Haris]

Carol

Even if the ID cards for guest workers are tamperproof, what would stop illegal workers from working with forged documents that identify them as US citizens, whose documents are anything but tamperproof.

[John McCarty]

I think the following would go a long way to creating the proper incentives.

1) We only have to meet the illegals part of the way on enforcement. The more secure the border is the more expensive it would be for the illegals to get into the US. Building a 2000-mile fence isn't fruitless because it means that the poor have to pay more for a boat ride. The cost of their coyote goes from say $500 a head to $2000 a head.

2) The current proposal to grant "amnesty" based on length of time in this country is stupid, because it rewards those committing a crime the longest, and encourages fraud. It should be based on level of assimilation and contribution. For example, English proficiency, paying taxes, minimal use of public services, knowledge of US history and government, education level, ability to obey all laws US citizens must, and number of US citizens knowing the illegal for longer than a year and willing to vouch for him or her.

3) Payment of tax and penalties, or reduction in social benefits (ie. 70% of social security payments). Also, if they have been using somebody else's social security number, they should pay first to straighten out the credit record, and second pay the person for the inconvenience. Where the identity theft victim can prove actual damages, they should get them.

4) In order to identify illegal aliens, they would have six months to come forward and apply for permanent status. After that, any illegal caught will be deported. The IRS would be requierd to turn over the information on mismatched social security numbers and names to the DHS so that it can actually find the employers hiring the illegals. This current withholding of this information is total bs.

[Wes]

...playing Mr. Good Guy with other people's money.So how much is it costing to give "democracy" to the Iraqi people? It's good that the hundreds of billions to finance that crusade came from private donations rather than Republicans playing Mr. Good Guy with other people's money.It's also good that the USA doesn't believe that education leads to a better, more productive society but instead only allows those people to be educated who can afford to pay for it themselves. After all, we wouldn't want to be playing Mr. Good Guy with other people's money. Trying to achieve a world where everyone has the skills and resources to be productive members of society is not just wrong it's evil.It is, after all, much better to have a society where most people are uneducated subsistence farmers on the verge of starvation. Speaking of starvation, maybe we should structure our society so that people can get a free education but they don't have access to the basic necessities of life. I bet they'd learn real good if they were starving to death or dying of a bacterial infection.

[Wes]

...we wouldn't want vast government bureaucracies......you pretty much come out and say it; you want the total destruction of America.Right. Lack of vast government bureaucracies will result in the total destruction of America.I have to say, I really don't understand this obsession with whether immigrants are working and whether the government knows about it.For one thing, saddling businesses and workers with vast bureacratic reporting requirements (verifying immigration status, tax status, crimminal record, etc.) seems inefficient not to mention inconvenient. Putting aside my cynicism, it's hard to believe that Americans actually want to subject themselves to even more government bureaucracy.For another thing, any immigrant with a high paying job is already going to be paying taxes so the gain in tax revenue from imposing additional bureacracy is likely to be negligible.Most importantly, it is not at all clear that it is in Americans' best economic interest for immigrants to have jobs.From the perspective of the US economy, the best immigrants do not have jobs and are not collecting government services. Such immigrants will be creating American jobs (without taking them) and transferring wealth to the America from abroad.Next down the list, immigrants that do not have jobs and are relying on government services will be stimulating the economy by creating American jobs (without taking them) but they will not be transferring wealth from abroad as the wealth will simply be taken from rich Americans in the form of taxes and redistrubuted into the lower levels of the US economy.Getting down to a neutral effect on the US economy we have immigrants who have jobs but are not sending their earnings back to their native country. These immigrants are essentially equivalent to a general population increase because the jobs these immigrants take are offset by the jobs they create through their spending.Finally, the immigrants that actually hurt the US economy are the guest workers. These immigrants take US jobs without creating US jobs. Because they are only here temporarily, they send their earnings home rather than reinvesting them in the US economy. This results in a net transfer of wealth out of the USA (Americans get poorer) and an even bigger and more dangerous trade deficit.Ironically, it is numbers of these most economically damaging "guest workers" that the Republicans seem to be trying so hard to increase through the imposition of additional government bureaucracy.

[N.E.Hatfield]

Carol, Just remember, Laws without teeth, is like a tiger without fangs and claws. Hence the problems here in the U.S.; we write voluminus law codes like the USCC and then don't enforce it because it might upset someone. And we wonder why we have problems. ;)

[Hans Gruber]

"Right. Lack of vast government bureaucracies will result in the total destruction of America."

Are you really this stupid? No, I don't think so, because you tellingly omitted the stupidity of your argument in your recent response; you stated that governments shouldn't be in the business of telling ANYBODY where they can live which necessarily means ANYBODY can live in the US. That's an argument for the abolition of the nation state; it's an argument for anarchy and necessarily the destruction of America as a prosperous and free country with a coherent national identity. Do you support total unrestricted immigration because you want to help the world's poor or do you support it because you want to destroy America as it exists today, prospersour and free? I wouldn't put it past you that you sincerely desire both goals, some of the worst policies of the last century are cloaked in good intentions and magnanimity.

[Hans Gruber]

"After all, we wouldn't want to be playing Mr. Good Guy with other people's money. Trying to achieve a world where everyone has the skills and resources to be productive members of society is not just wrong it's evil."

And why can't foreigners get the "skills and resources to be productive members of society" in their home countries? America is special. Flooding America with non-Americans (total unrestricted immigration, which you support) isn't a prescription for retaining that specialness, it's a prescription for destroying it. A lot of immigrants make this country better and stronger, a lot of them don't. Imagine a policy that lets in the former while denying the latter. I know, what a terrible policy! Who wants to live in a prosperous, educated country without crime! These people must be crazy.

And I'm not against helping the foreign poor by buying goods they produce or in carefully planned charitable projects. But the kind of radical charity you describe is more like Robin Hood than anything else. You would bleed the world for charity until it could bleed no more.

And, call me old fashioned, but I think Americans want their government to pursue policies which maximize their collective benefit, not the benefit of foreigners. Forcing a policy which harms them to help others isn't very democratic, Wes. But who needs democracy when you know what the world needs!

[dfgdvbvchdfgdfbv]

human

[Anonymous]

مركز تحميل

[Anonymous]

بنت الزلفي

[Anonymous]

Thank you, you always get to all new and used it
شات صوتي

[Anonymous]

thanksss
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™ ŸÖÿµÿ±
--
دردشة مصرية

[Anonymous]

Hi everyone. Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus, but use all gently. For in the very torrent, tempest, and as I may say, whirlwind of passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness.
I am from Sudan and now study English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Amenities include a tv screen, vcr, small refrigerator, coffee maker and microwave."

Thank you very much ;-). Wilfred.

[Anonymous]

ÿØÿ±ÿØÿ¥ÿ©
___
صور

[Anonymous]

Thank you, you always get to all new and used it
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

دردشه

[Anonymous]

Perfect site, i like it!

[Anonymous]

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

[Anonymous]

Perfect site, i like it!

[Anonymous]

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

[Anonymous]

Great site. Keep doing.

[Anonymous]

thanks to tell me that,i think thats so usefully----
tiffanys
links of london

[Anonymous]

a great post,thanks for shareing-----
ed hardy
tiffany uk

[Anonymous]

دردشة برق

دردشة الخليج

[Anonymous]

Great site. Good info.