My trouble with Judge Posner's suggestion is the cost of administration: specifically, how many U.S. immigration bureaucrats do we really think are qualified to assess the net social loss of a given immigrant, even given perfect information about that immigrant's past (which of course is usually impossible anyway)? The U.S. government has a hard enough time finding individuals of reasonable competency who speak the immigrant's language -- and now we would want them to have a reasonably grasp of economics as well? Even if the bureaucrat were intelligent, he or she would still need the appropriate education/training in how to evaluate "social costs" (starting with what the term even meant). Judge Posner is aware, from experience, that many highly intelligent federal judges often have terrible difficulty in applying elementary economics -- what would we have to pay immigration officials in order to find competent economists? And how would we liquidate the current crop who couldn't learn?

Wouldn't it just be easier to deny immigrants federal social services for a fixed period of time, conduct Prof. Becker's suggested background checks, and then let 'em in? We could leave the state social services issues up to the states, simplifying matters (though this is admittedly a negative externality they'd have to deal with, they could always just follow the federal government's lead, and in any event would have incentives to be less generous than their neighbors).

Charging immigrants a fee to enter, either a flat fee or via auction, will lead to a financing market and immigrants entering with high debt loads which require them to work for years to pay off.

Sounds like... Indentured Servitude!

13th Amendment. I win. Thanks Posner and Becker for reminding us of just how far we have not come since 1776.

"to deny immigrants access to Medicaid and other welfare programs until they had lived in the United States for a significant period of time"

oops, problem is once you naturalize them, this would be denying them equal protection of our laws, we have an Amendment for that too.

What this suggestion amounts to is not giving food stamps to mothers so they can buy milk for their 3 year old child until they "prove their worth" under circumstances that are stacked aganst them precisely because you are not giving them the same access to beneficial social programs that you would give a citizen.

California passed this once, Proposition 207. It was an embarassment to all who lived there, and didn't last long.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your hungry, huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

I guess that has been replaced by "give me your wealthy, your educated, your business men and women, your corporate leaders, your children of privilege, your aristocracy yearning for a Park Avenue apartment."

Is that where the spirit of America has gone?

You're right corey... these solutions are probably unworkable. Cost of living changes completely undo the argument that increased wages will make it easy to pay off an immigration fee, and it would be unconstitutional to deny any public services to a naturalized citizen.

I guess that leaves us with more "practical" problems if you are going to tear down every idealistic suggestion that's presented...

We could eliminate the welfare state and the minimum wage. If the US wasn't a labor magnet, we wouldn't have an immigration flood from Mexico.

We could put sufficient guards on the border and eliminate the lengthy "trial" period for deportation. You're caught at the border? You're on a bus back by lunchtime. It might also help if we had one of those nifty fences like Israel is building. That would be another practical way to control immigration, and it has constitutional validity to boot!

I know you probably disagree with the vast majority of the public regarding whether immigration should be controlled at all. Just remember that most people think something SHOULD be done, and there's nothing wrong with presenting ideas even if they aren't practical under the circumstances. Remember the ideas above and think about how we might have to resort to them if no other ideas are presented.

Interesting ideas. But we seem to forget that it is in the interests of the Nation-States to control population migrations across the globe. Hence the development of various Immigration laws and control procedures. The reality is less developed and overpopulated nations find immigration controls anathema. They can't jettison their surplus population (the tired, the poor, the huddled masses)fast enough. Whereas, the developed nations are trying to control and maintain their population levels in an effort to maintain social welfare programs.

Until this fundamental reality is dealt with; any talk on the subject is empty. The developed nations borders will continue to be swamped with the flotsam and jetsam of the undeveloped world. Who wants to emigrate when life is going well? So much for the selling of visas to the highest bidder.

Hope this helps.
N.E.Hatfield

Just an aside, not particular to immigration:

I had very high hopes for this blog. I respect Judge Posner tremendously; he is an excellent judge and an innovative thinker, even though I often disagree with his academic positions. But week after week, I seem to be disappointed by the posts. Yes, the ideas are innovative and sometimes interesting. Judge Posner is not afraid to go against conventional wisdom, which is admirable.

However, as some of the commentators (most notably Corey) continually point out, there is a subtext behind nearly every one of the posts, which looks like class warfare in reverse. The positions advocated by Judge Posner seem, at bottom, to benefit the rich and powerful while hurting those not blessed by privilege. And Judge Posner's posts are moderate compared to Prof. Becker's; his are almost comical in their agenda. I was hoping for more thinking that is truly outside the box. Just me, anyway..

Just out of curiosity, I'll assume for the sake of argument that the arguments you're talking about are actually "hostile" to the poor. It's interesting that you call it "class warfare in reverse." Is it only "class warfare" when talking about a proletariat revolution? If the "classes" are truly at war, then it's probably class warfare no matter which side you're on. The same argument applies to "reverse racism."

More to the point, you can't expect people to change their opinions just because corey keeps saying how wrong they are. The fact is, almost no one agrees with him. I enjoy reading his arguments because it's rare to see someone so openly socialist who presents his ideas so well, but I think he's wrong on just about every count. (I think he may have convinced me on the medicare topic, though.)

Anyway... continue to present your dissenting opinions, but don't expect the people hosting the weblog to change their tune because corey says so.

Daniel -

Perhaps I was not clear enough; I think you are missing my point. I was hoping that this blog would not be about right vs. left. I was hoping that great intellects like Posner and Becker could transcend traditional politics and give insights that would make anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, stop and say: "wow - that's a good thought - something I never considered." If it is just a rehash of right vs. left (or perhaps in this forum, right vs. far right), dressed up with some economics-sounding words, then this blog doesn't add much.

I'm not asking anyone to change his or her views. But I would like the discussion to transcend politics and be a bit less predictable. I don't need Posner or Becker to tell me what the Cato Institute believes. Instead, tell me something I don't know. But maybe that is too much to ask..

Right Wing Nut Job (either Becnoser or Poseker)said:

In the first stage, the prospective immigrant would be screened for age, health, IQ, criminal record, English language capability, etc.

sounds eerily similar to:

http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/

synopsis:

In the first three decades of the 20th Century, American corporate philanthropy combined with prestigious academic fraud to create the pseudoscience eugenics that institutionalized race politics as national policy. The goal: create a superior, white, Nordic race and obliterate the viability of everyone else.
How? By identifying so-called "defective" family trees and subjecting them to legislated segregation and sterilization programs. The victims: poor people, brown-haired white people, African Americans, immigrants, Indians, Eastern European Jews, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the superior genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists. The main culprits were the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune, in league with America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, operating out of a complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. The eugenic network worked in tandem with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the State Department and numerous state governmental bodies and legislatures throughout the country, and even the U.S. Supreme Court. They were all bent on breeding a eugenically superior race, just as agronomists would breed better strains of corn. The plan was to wipe away the reproductive capability of the weak and inferior.

- - -

Oh, and the reason why their posts and arguments tend to entrench the power of the rich and powerful is because that is what the rich and powerful and their paid-for toadies in academia and conservative think tanks do. (it was Rockefeller, that rapist of the free market that endowed the University of Chicago right?) Neo-classical free-market fantasies like the one's these guy pimp out are just that, fantasies. They forget Mancur Olson -- failure of collective action on the part of the citizenry will lead to governemtn by, for, and of the special interets.

Why don't they put their, I thought, immense intelligence to practical use by coming up with solutions that:

A. Don't rob America of its basic identity as a freedom-loving country open to all.

B. Don't merely justify the status quo.

If ever there was a good argument that tenure is an overrated institution that protects the hidebound and the arrogant...these guys poster children for it.

I do not expect to convert Posner or anyone for whom his ideas seem to resonate internally. I come here and post so that people will at least hear the dissent. If everyone only argues in forums where their ideas are likely to be well received, then we get group polarization and self-reinforcing ideologies.

Unchallenged precepts are bad in many ways, ALL ideas deserve to be tested against the opposite view, and the person who came up with the idea is often least suited to be objective about that. This is the core reason I value diversity in society and in social groups. It is also why Blogs only have social value when the comment feature is turned on.

I was born with an anti-authoritarian streak, and I have always been unable to respect opinions simply because the world has rewarded their author in some way. Posner is doubtless very intelligent, but according to the tests, so am I, and so are most if not all of the people posting here.

What this blog shows us is that even the most respected judges and most lauded economists are occasionally capable of forgetting that indentured servitude is bad, or that concentrations of money distort free-markets.

Anyway, I would never want someone to agree with something I said just because I said it. Either it makes sense to you, or you can find holes in it. There are plenty of places I can go if I feel the need to be agreed with.

Well said, corey

david: Oh I got your point... but isn't the "right v. left" that you see more about world view than partisanship? Judge Posner and Professor Becker are posting their opinions on difficult, and often highly political topics. The fact that the same people tend to disagree with them repeatedly just shows that two people will radically different world views will often come to different conclusions on the same topic.

If you expect them to deviate from their own perspective in the interest of "transcending traditional politics," then you expect them to change their opinions. Honestly, this is the first time I've ever heard of an idea to treat immigration privileges as a commodity, but if you think it's just a rehashing of every conservative think-tank, that's fine.

I of course agree with Corey: I don't want to hear someone parrot my views. In fact, that would be rather shocking, since I'm not very partisan and tend to agree with many people on some things and with very few people on everything. Though I'm definitely left of center for this blog.

The idea of paying for visas is new (to me, at least), but let's be honest: it's silly. It would be like paying for the right to vote. In fact, it *is* paying for the right to vote, since the new citizens can cast ballots. To me, it evokes thoughts of feudal societies where the only ones with rights are those with land and money.

Similarly silly is the idea for IQ testing of immigrants. And, as was pointed out, it smacks of eugenics. Here's one: how about IQ testing for politicians? Presidential candidates, anyone? :)

The notion that immigration should be curbed because of the welfare state is not new. It's pretty much a conservative myth, because immigrants tend to be very productive and thus good for the tax coffers. In fact, that is one reason for Bush's Mexican guest worker proposal: legitimize the workers and make them pay taxes. But painting immigrants as freeloaders is good politics for the xenophobic right and for the labor union left, who oppose immigration for different, and equally wrong (in my view), reasons.

But back to my original point: I haven't seen much in these posts that blew me away as unusual insights. There is some shock value to the posts: one-upmanship on who can come up with a more shocking proposal that has a bottom line of helping the rich. I'm waiting for something to shock me into thinking, "wow - that's a brilliant idea." Something worthy of a Nobel Prize winner. Hasn't happened yet on this blog.

The idea of paying for immigration is only new in the sense that it has been so long disfavored in civilized societies that we have forgotten the reasons for disfavoring it in the first place.

Living in a coastal city and keeping your eyes open will teach you very fast that each wave of immigrants, having established itself in the American economy, immediately turns to protectionism to keep the next wave of immigrants from doing the same thing.

If you ever get the chance, go to Montreal and contrast the vibe there with that of New York or Boston. Montreal is the most diverse city in this hemisphere I believe, due to Canada's comparatively open immigration policy. Yet it is less violent, less segregated, more culturally sophisticated, and more livable than comparable U.S. cities.

Oh, and as for the welfare state argument, if our cars, our electronics, and the clothes on all our backs were made by "foreigners", how can we in good faith exclude those foreigners from participation in social benefits when they decide to improve their standing by coming here. There is a good chance that the person trying to immigrate has been working for GM or Nike longer than the person trying to bar the gate.

I believe Judge Posner's worry about foreign "brain drain" harming Amerian interests is misplaced. Let me consider the example of Iraq, which is probably the example most favorable to Posner's worry.

In Iraq, we observe not a problem of the gifted and talented wanting to flee to the United States or other developed countries, but rather, a surprising number of expatriate Iraqis who wish to return to Iraq and be involved and the reconstruction of Iraqi civil society. These expatriates may not be welcomed by "native" Iraqis, nor are their contributions necessarily positive. Consider Ahmed Chalabi.

In Iraq, and in other LDCs, we ought to leave it to the country to develop its own policy on brain drain. Iraq is surely better able than the INS to determine which Iraqis have expertise in democracy building. Let Iraq, then, develop a policy to keep such people in their country. Similarly, rather than worry about the brain drain, generally, in LDCs, each LDC should develop a policy on the matter. It may either decide that it is not harmed, as closer links with the United States and remittances benefit the home country, or it may decide that it ought to be able to charge an exit fee, to recoup its social investment in such persons leaving. Which path it should pursue, of course, need not be decided by American immigration authorities.

I also disagree with Judge Posner's reasoning on refugees. Not all persecuted minorities have the traits of Jews and Armenians. Some are Gypies. Instead, we ought to consider the value of accepting refugees so as to bolster America's "soft power."

Finally, I would suggest that a variation on debtor's prison would allow a market in immigration loans to successfully develop. Suppose immigrant borrow from banks with zero downpayment. If banks foreclose on the loan, the debtor could be deported back to his home country. This would be even more feasible if the immigration fee were structured so that one could get a partial refund if he left the country "soon," say, within 5 years. The bank would then be eligible to collect the refund due to the deported bankrupt.

Appears to be a human capital issue. Developed nations have a strong interest in robust immigration for economic reasons (low birth-rate developed nations need to replenish labor supply; keep inflation under control; and keep cost of labor down).

Yet developed nations need both high and low wage immigrants. Thus, it may not be advisable to favor educated and wealthy immigrants over poor and uneducated immigrants (net economic benefits to low wage immigration likely outweighs costs). Moreover, the cost-benefit human capital metrics would be speculative and unrealistically complex when formulating and applying immigration law: rules to admit and exclude based on individual immigrants cost-benefit to society. Can you really measure human capital potential of immigrants? One generation of immigrants may be a cost drain and the next generation a cost benefit. A newly admitted poor immigrant may be a cost negative for the first fifteen years and then be a cost benefit for the next twenty.

Example: it is well to remember the U.S. immigration history of the Eastern European Jews in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s: they were initially thought to be “undesirable” immigrants (poor, language deficiency, low IQ test scores) yet became productive cost-benefit citizens over time. And their children excelled in the U.S. educational system and became very successful productive members of society.

Mr. Becker’s proposed fee system would have excluded most Eastern European Jews to the detriment of the U.S. I have doubts about a fee system or purportedly scientific human capital metrics incorporated into immigration law to produce a prudent immigration policy.

Try not to laugh too hard at the undergraduate econ student, but here I go...
Actually, you can pay your way into the U.S., albeit at a cost much higher than 50K. I'm not sure if this policy was changed in the last decade, but in 1996, you could 'buy' a visa into the United States by investing $1 million into the good ol' USA and creating 10 jobs. If you create the jobs in a high unemployment area, you only need to invest $500K. 10,000 were available in 1996, and only 936 were sold. I'm getting this information from the book "Heaven's Door" by George Borjas, a book I used for a paper on immigration I wrote last year. I forget the page number.
I apologize for asking this question, but which part of immigration policy is the fee system or the screening system supposed to replace (in whole or in part): The lottery for visas, the family-reunification policy, both, or neither? If it's replacing part of the family reunification policy, is it better for the system to reward the individual based on his/her merits (monetary or otherwise, depending on the system) or based on who he/she is related to? If it's replacing the lottery, is it more fair to admit someone based on random chance or based on what they're willing and able to contribute to the U.S.? In essence, I'm asking if you think what Becker and/or Posner are suggesting is better or worse than the current system.
I guess I'll leave you with a factoid and a question instead of giving my opinion on anything

Fellow posters (especially Corey)-

I really don't understand how some of you can characterize either Judge Posner's or Professor Becker's views as "right" or "extreme right." They both would probably concede that, absent a welfare state, we should have unlimited immigration as we did in the 19th century. Does this sound like Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh to you? The reason we're discussing charging people in the first place is the unfortunate existence of excessive social services -- you may not agree with this assumption, but it is a libertarian position, not a "right-wing" one. It's also interesting that the two posters to at least implicitly play the race card were N.E. Hatfield and Left Wing Extremist. Hatfield, in particular, seems strangely wedded to the idea that any large group of human beings can be "flotsam." The idea is anethema to both Christianity and free-market classical liberalism, which should in theory cover pretty much every "right wing" person in this country (yet somehow does not include Fox News anchors). More importantly, it's demostrably untrue, as a look the growth of any formerly "flotsam" filled country like Japan or Taiwan or Poland or Chile will tell you. Left Wing Extremist, for his part, seems to think that any policy which has the effect of excluding some non-white people is per se evil, without bothering to justify it. It's almost as though -- and I don't mean to suggest that any specific posters here feel this way -- that both the "left" and the "right" both believe that immigration (particularly non-white immigration, though this historically applied to Jews and Catholics and Slavs and Irish -- how many of us here belong to one of these groups?) will destroy American society, and accordingly the right opposes it and the left supports it. The proposition is flawed to begin with, so neither side makes any sense although both are bizarrely fixated on race. At least Judge Posner and Prof. Becker are getting beyond that idiotic dichotomy and trying to have a real discussion about the issue.

David,

Before concluding that the subtext for Posner and Becker is "class warfare in reverse" on the basis of Corey's rhetorical flourishes, you should consider whether Corey's own reading of them is distorting your own.

For example, Corey chastises Posner's suggestion that social welfare be made available only after living in the U.S. for sometime as a violation of equal protection rights of naturalized citizens. Actually, most immigrants don't naturalize until long after they've been residents, so their status as citizens doesn't guarantee them equal protection. But as it turns out, their status as citizens doesn't matter since plenty of federal courts have recognized equal protection rights even for illegal aliens. Corey is merely begging the question here by arguing that Posner's suggestion is unconstitutional.

Actually, Corey's up to the same trick when he accuses Posner's proposal of violating the 13th's ban on indentured servitude. If Posner's proposal is unconstitutional, then there's at least an argument that many student loans should also be considered unconstitutional since they also take on large debt loads in order to gain access to a subset of society.

Although I am with Corey (I think) in a desire to advance social welfare, especially of the least advantaged in society, the sad fact is that many gov't programs established to benefit the least advantaged might as well have been abolished -- if minimum wage workers had their social security payments in hand rather than "in safekeeping" for their future retirement, for example, they might be able to afford the medical care that they need to live to retirement!

As Posner I thought nicely explained in last week's post, the subtext for Becker's and Posner's proposals is not class warfare, but a belief in the average American's ability to decide for themselves (by voting with their pocketbooks) what benefits they want. Gov't is only justified when it can improve on what individuals would otherwise have without it.

"As Posner I thought nicely explained in last week's post, the subtext for Becker's and Posner's proposals is not class warfare, but a belief in the average American's ability to decide for themselves (by voting with their pocketbooks) what benefits they want. Gov't is only justified when it can improve on what individuals would otherwise have without it."

This is the myth: that average Americans can "decide for themselves" by "voting with their pocketbooks." I agree that this is true with respect to many, many commercial transactions. But for some big societal policy decisions, the market can be skewed so that the "average American" effectively does not have a choice. Or perhaps the average American's choices, barring gov't intervention, are unconscionable.

The fact is that laissez-faire skews the system in favor of those who are -- by virtue of birth, past success, or whatever -- currently higher on the economic ladder. Those who have been less fortunate have a harder time, as a class. I respect anyone's right to believe in pure laissez-faire capitalism, but they should realize whose interests they are serving. That's why we had a New Deal, after all.

I guess my disappointment (maybe expressed over-dramatically in my posts yesterday, I admit) is that every one of these debates seems to come down to right vs. left. Of all things, why should immigration policy be about class warfare or laissez-faire versus intervention? Why not discuss the character and the soul of our nation? If America is just another prestigious, private club that one can buy into, what happens to our moral authority in the world? What happens to the principle of our founding -- as a place for the persecuted to come for freedom and hope? What happens to the dream of a classless society?

Maybe I'm just too idealistic..

"Or perhaps the average American's choices, barring government intervention, are unconscionable."

Unconscionable to whom?

Gee, a one-time only payment of $50K counts as indentured servitude, and thus is unconstitutional? My husband and I (we own our own business) paid over $100K in federal income taxes alone last year; can we have our money back? ;-)
For what it is worth, I like the idea of the up-front payment (note that this does NOT have to be the exclusive immigration route), mainly because it will make border control pay for itself, and you at least have a record of the person who enters and a way to track them down later, especially if it is financed. Anyone who is concerned that this would place a limitation on total immigration has never dealt with a govt bureaucracy -- they'll want to expand immigration based on the revenue dollars it will bring in, and he in Washington with a budget to administer has power. Oh, and for those looking to be "progressive," you could index the original entry fee proportionally to the average income of the person's home country (Canadians can pay the full 50K up front; oppressed Sudanese or North Koreans can pay $300 up front and finance the rest). The Becker & Posner proposal is really no different in principle from you being willing to plunk down more dollars to move to a smaller house in a neighborhood with better schools; so why not ask people looking to get into a country better than the one they left behind (with all the social-welfare benefits along with it) to pay a civilization premium?
For what it is worth, I've also felt that to avoid class warfare on "the rich" (it goes both ways, ya know), the budget for social services available to everyone at no cost and/or where distributed benefits are not means-tested for those truly needy should be added up, divided by the number of adults over the age of 18, and everyone should have to pay an equal percentage of their fair share. Call it "civilizational rent." Just try to expand government services nationwide when everyone realizes that the extra 30 billion spent will mean $100 or more out of their own pocket...

"Unconscionable to whom?"

Now you have asked the $64,000 question! In a democracy, we could say that "to whom" means to 51% of the voters. Taking that logic to its extreme, the rich should only keep as much of their assets as 51% of the population deem reasonable.

I would not go so far. But I would say that, since we are a rich country, we should draw certain lines, below which no one should be permitted to fall. I think Posner would agree with that statement, based on his posts. Though we may disagree on where to draw those lines, and on how many public services the government should provide. But once we have asked the question, the true debate can begin. How unequal a society are we willing to tolerate? I don't mind Donald Trump having 1,000 times my income (I don't know his income - I just threw that number out there). But I would mind if Trump could buy Park Avenue while an unemployed person could not get basic medical care. And, I would find it unconscionable if a persecuted refugee was denied entry to the U.S. for lack of $50,000. Can we start from there and work forward?

"What happens to the principle of our founding -- as a place for the persecuted to come for freedom and hope?"

I am not a pure free-market believer. I think there are legitimate roles for gov't to intervene and reallocate assets. But the history of gov't legislation, including (maybe especially) New Deal legislation, is not a pure win for the poor. Many New Deal laws passed to "protect workers," for example, had the effect of hurting recent immigrants, who were the main competition to labor unions during industrialization.

Freedom and hope, though worthy moral goals of our political system, are hardly commensurable in a way that will allow us to agree on how to promote them.

No we can't start there. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that there is any inherent "right" to citizenship. I'm probably going to shock you here, but I don't even believe that you should be a citizen just because you happened to be born within the borders. I think if someone sneaks across the border in order to have a baby in our country they should be given adequate medical care and sent back home. (If you don't think this is a problem, check the birth statistics in border towns) At the time the 14th ammendment was written, the words "all persons born in the United States..." were necessary to grant citizenship to the free slaves, but it defies reason to reward those who would flout our laws and our soverignty.

Congress has the power to declare who is allowed to immigrate, and then the government has the DUTY to enforce those laws. No one has a "right" to immigrate contrary to our laws, and I definitely wouldn't call it unconscionable to keep someone out if they couldn't meet whatever standards congress decided to set. (even one as arbitrary as a $50k fee)

It's also interesting that we apply the unconsionability of wealth distribution to the opposite ends of the spectrum. I think it would be unconscionable to allow people who are down on their luck to fall below an acceptable standard of living, while you think it is unconscionable to allow the rich to keep wealth above an acceptable level. It's possible that the two ends are related in a sense, but we're definitely comparing apples to oranges here.

Would you find it conscionable to turn away a refugee fleeing Nazi death camps, because he could not pay $50K? If so, may I ask what part of your "conscience" permits you to do so?

BTW, I never said that "conscience" somehow limits the amount of wealth that anyone is entitled to keep. Like you, I said there should be a baseline for the less fortunate.

I would also like to comment on the notion that a person who crosses the border illegally is a "criminal." Drug runners, smugglers, and terrorists aside, we should be flattered that people from other countries are crossing our borders. They are doing so because they come from dysfunctional countries and want our way of life. They want to work and prosper in a just (or more just) country. They are what America is all about.

Before we brand illegal aliens as "criminals," I suggest that each one of us walk a mile in the shoes of a Hatian refugee or Mexican farm worker. See what life is like for them. See how bad their countries and their governments are. Then tell me why you think they should be treated as "criminals."

Sorry if I misunderstood you... you went from "tolerating inequality" to talking about the Donald, so I assumed you were implying that you can't tolerate wealth above a certain limit. My original point is that while most people agree that it is unconscionable to allow people to suffer, the point of suffering is subjective. Using words like "unconscionable" to define how people would act in a laissez faire society is a fallacy because if people would allow others to suffer, it must be conscionable to them.

Labeling an illegal immigrant a criminal, however, is NOT subjective. I did not say they are outlaws, but they have definitely flouted our law. Perhaps if our immigration policy didn't look so much like a prize to be gained for sneaking past obstacles, we wouldn't have such a problem.

And finally... No, I wouldn't think it's conscionable to turn away a holocaust refugee because he couldn't ante up 50 grand. That's why we have asylum. (Not that that system doesn't have its flaws... a topic for another day, Mr. Becker?) I don't think anyone's saying the immigration fee should replace all other methods of acceptance. I do not find it unconscionable to turn away Mexicans crossing illegally for almost any purpose, though. Our immigration laws are carefully considered to be as open as possible without putting an undue strain on public services and to encourage assimilation. There is no right to citizenship for foreigners.

"Then tell me why you think they should be treated as "criminals."

I don't. I think they should be deported or the law should be changed. It's that simple. I don't want them rotting in jail, burning up public dollars.

The idea we have no right, or that it is some how unethical to deport illegal immigrants is simply absurd. Every person born in the world has a RIGHT to be here? And we must oblige them simply because they desire it? That's insanity.

I do feel, however, when our government looks the other way, and allows individuals to live in our society for many years, that we should not deport or criminalize these individuals.

No one responded to what I think is a key point so I will make it again.

You all seem to want to talk about rights and focus on some formality of compliance with national immigration policy in order to justify presence here. This is not the real issue.

Since before 1900, the US has been aggressively expanding its economy into foreign countries. Now, it is difficult to find a single product on our shelves that was not partially or completely manufactured outside this country. Economically, we treat the entire world as one big free market.

But when it comes to social programs, we insist on protectionism. "No you can't have our welfare" we say, "you live in Mexico, and yes you work for GM but just take your $2 a day and don't argue or we will move the plant to Indonesia."

We do the same thing within our country. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause to totally ban States from discriminatory protectionism in the economic sphere, but has simultaneously encouraged States to employ protectionism to protect their citizens in the economic sphere.

The effect of this is that labor and capital are located in the most efficient (cheapest) place possible, and there are no restraints on moving money derived from that labor out of the country or state. It tends to collect in the places where the capitalists live, and is used to fund social programs in those places.

When you have open borders, like we do between States, labor can follow the money to the place where social benefits exist, when you close the borders off, you are being protectionist and immorally exploitative.

Many of you actually believe that it is OK that working for GM in Michigan entitles you to access social insurance benefits but that working for GM in Mexico does not. You will say something like, "it is up to the government of Mexico to provide for its people." Of course this overlooks the fact that Mexico can NOT do that because all of the fruits of Mexican labor are flowing across the border into the US.

It is evil to be simultaneously "free-market" when it comes to exploiting labor and then draw a protectionist line to keep labor from accessing the same benefits it could if it were located here.

If you want to say "This is America, only Americans can experience the freedoms!" then stop asking Indonesians to make your shoes.

"but has simultaneously encouraged States to employ protectionism to protect their citizens in the economic sphere."

I'm sorry, that should read social sphere.

"And we must oblige them simply because they desire it? That's insanity."

No, that was policy, perhaps even at the time when your ancestors immigrated.

"If you want to say "This is America, only Americans can experience the freedoms!" then stop asking Indonesians to make your shoes."

This is ludicrous. We don't owe them anything, and they don't owe us anything. If I buy a computer you helped engineer, do you have a right to move into my house without my consent? NO! Must India allow any American to immigrate because Americans buy their shoes? I really can't fathom where such thinking comes from.

If you don't believe in Nations, if you don't think borders should exist, fine. But don't concoct lame sophistries like this.

"And we must oblige them simply because they desire it? That's insanity."

No, that was policy, perhaps even at the time when your ancestors immigrated.

=====

Yes, and USA had the right as a nation to set that policy THEN, under notably different circumstances. It's a policy under our discretion, not an inalienable right to immigrate! When circumstances change (welfare state, assimilation problems, whatever), it is perfectly reasonable to adjust that policy.

I find it interesting how the responses to my comments run something like: foreigners shouldn't have an inalienable RIGHT to immigrate. However, I am not talking about rights. Of course no foreigner has a natural "right" to immigrate. I would note that Native Americans contest the "right" of people of European descent to live in what we now call the United States. Talking about "rights" here is a misnomer. Ultimately, "rights" are determined at the barrel of a gun.

Getting back to reality: we have an existing political order, and that system gives Congress the power to set immigration policy. My question is how SHOULD Congress set that policy: not as a matter of "right," but as a matter of sound economic and social policy. Surely it makes sense to keep out criminals and terrorists. And surely it makes sense to regulate immigration if the overflow becomes unmanageable or drains our economy. But there is simply no evidence that immigration has created real, enduring hardships for Americans. Quite the contrary, actually. It is part of what makes America vibrant. Why not encourage more of it?

Posner's and Becker's arguments make sense only if immigration truly is a drain on the economy. And then, only if money and/or IQ are the fairest and most desirable rationing systems. They have yet to prove either proposition. Rather, they are using sketchy economics to promote yet another excuse to tear down the welfare state.

I'd say we should loosen immigration laws. Let more Haitians and Mexicans in. Also, if we had open immigration, it might make us start caring more about dysfunctional societies in the rest of the world. It is more difficult to ignore starvation and disease in Haiti if it shows up on your doorstep. If you can simply turn the boats away, it allows Americans to close their eyes while they sit comfortably in their living rooms getting fat on Big Macs.

BTW, I found this one the web: sample Q & A from an econ 101 exam in Rochester. So the idea of selling the right to immigrate is not new after all:

"35. It is possible to buy the right to immigrate to some countries; sometimes it is possible to buy citizenship in those countries. (Some of this trade is illegal.) What determines the price of immigration rights? Do you think that the United States should sell rights to immigrate to the highest bidders?

HERE IS ONE POSSIBLE ANSWER -- YOUR ANSWER MAY BE DIFFERENT. The price of immigration rights is determined by the demand for citizenship in a particular country and the supply of immigration spots available. If citizenship had a price (and it does in some countries), it would be high in a country like the United States where the quality of life is relatively good, and lower in countries with lower incomes, fewer opportunities, or less desirable conditions (due to wars or to bad pollution problems). Perhaps the United States should sell immigration rights to the highest bidders because the people who would be willing to pay the most might tend to be the people who can make the most of their opportunities in the U.S. Or perhaps the United States should not sell immigration rights to the highest bidders because this would not attract the kinds of people that we want to have immigrating to the U.S."

I am not talking about rights; I am talking about policy. What SHOULD Congress do? In my opinion, Congress should allow open immigration unless it becomes unmanageable or significantly drains our economy. Immigration is part of what makes America vibrant - what makes it an icon for the world. Welfare state or not, immigration has historically been good for our economy. Posner's and Becker's proposal to sell immigration rights is unjust for many reasons, one of them being that there is no evidence that immigration costs us anything. In fact, in the long run, it helps tremedously, by greatly expanding the tax base and the labor pool.

Moreover, if we had open immigration, Americans might actually start caring about starvation, disease, and corruption in the rest of the world. It's easier to close your eyes when you can turn the boats away while sitting comfortably in your air-conditioned living room.

BTW, I found this on the web - sample Q & A from an econ 101 exam in Rochester. So the idea of selling immigration rights is not new after all:

"35. It is possible to buy the right to immigrate to some countries; sometimes it is possible to buy citizenship in those countries. (Some of this trade is illegal.) What determines the price of immigration rights? Do you think that the United States should sell rights to immigrate to the highest bidders?

HERE IS ONE POSSIBLE ANSWER -- YOUR ANSWER MAY BE DIFFERENT. The price of immigration rights is determined by the demand for citizenship in a particular country and the supply of immigration spots available. If citizenship had a price (and it does in some countries), it would be high in a country like the United States where the quality of life is relatively good, and lower in countries with lower incomes, fewer opportunities, or less desirable conditions (due to wars or to bad pollution problems). Perhaps the United States should sell immigration rights to the highest bidders because the people who would be willing to pay the most might tend to be the people who can make the most of their opportunities in the U.S. Or perhaps the United States should not sell immigration rights to the highest bidders because this would not attract the kinds of people that we want to have immigrating to the U.S."

Oops - sorry for the double post. Thought it didn't go through the first time, because the site crashed on me..

"If you don't believe in Nations, if you don't think borders should exist, fine. But don't concoct lame sophistries like this."

I think its a pretty clear point. American countries use foreign labor. American people benefit from foreign labor. (lower prices)American companies do not apply American worker rights law in foreign countries. This is much of the reason prices are low. A foreign employee of an American company decides to come to America and you say, "you can't have any of our cake..."

We allow money and commercial goods to flow freely across our border. We do NOT allow people to flow freely across our border. This is fundamentally a mechanism for extracting labor from people and then denying them the right to come and democratically participate in trying to get a fair return.

In this scheme all restraints on immigration are suspect, the INS should have to prove criminal intent (and I don't mean intent to violate immigration laws) in order to deny anyone access
to our society.

As an alternative to a fee based or human capital metric system I suggest a controllable non-immigrant temporary work visa program with oversight and support mechanisms to reduce social disruption and maximize economic gain. The current temporary work visa programs (H-1B; H-2B; H-2A) are flawed and do not work well resulting in high levels of illegal immigration. We should keep our current family based system (public policy favors family unification) and reform the employment based (both non-immigrant and immigrant intent) system.

Note that current immigration law requires an Affidavit of Support (I-864) for most immigrant visas (adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence): this is a contract between a sponsor and the applicant to indemnify the federal government of any financial responsibility for the new immigrant. In this contract the sponsor agrees to provide financial support for the applicant until he/she becomes a U.S. citizen or can be credited with 40 quarters of work (usually ten years). The sponsor must show that he/she has income equal to or greater than 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines for his/her household size. The legal basis for the I-864 Affidavit of Support is Section 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

I wonder if Corey's wholesale endorsement of 19th Century immigration policy includes support for the patently racist Chinese Exclusion Act? Not only does Corey's insistence on adhering to 19th century policy ignore present circumstances, it also fundamentally ignores just how exclusionary (irrationally so) immigration policy was even then. If his idea is to return to the 19th Century immigration policy, I'm not so sure he'd like the results (nor would any right thinking person). So can we please stop with the Ellis Island refrain already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act_%28United_States%29

"If I buy a computer you helped engineer, do you have a right to move into my house without my consent?"

Actually, there is a good chance you did buy such a computer, but the difference is I was paid a fair compensation for my engineering, I was able to collect on my unemployment insurance when the company laid everyone off, I was able to move from L.A. to Boston for a better job, I could access the courts if anyone mistreated me, and I could vote for Gore because I believed he would be good for the technology industry.

Now my old job is being performed in India, by someone who cannot vote here, who is getting paid less in real terms, and who has significantly worse access to beneficial social programs. An even bigger irony is, the guy was educated here and used to work with me here, but after the layoff he lost visa status and was deported. Then he was rehired at the India design center of the same company! This is a true story.

"I wonder if Corey's wholesale endorsement of 19th Century immigration policy includes support for the patently racist Chinese Exclusion Act?"

No

"So can we please stop with the Ellis Island refrain already."

No

It's really quite interesting that someone claiming unrestricted immigration is great for American and always will be would simultaneously argue that it would make Americans more cognizants of the world's ills, including "starvation, disease, and corruption," because "It is more difficult to ignore starvation and disease in Haiti if it shows up on your doorstep."

Alrighty then. No tension between those beliefs.

The main problem with this ludicrous proposal (besides the typical lack of humanity that is typical of Judge Posner) is that it would relegalize slavery. Daddy Warbuck's currently undocumented Costa Rican maid of course could never come up with the 50K all by herself. DW has been paying her minimum wage for all these years but after deductions for room and board, social security and worker's comp (which he never actually filed but she doesn't know that), medical insurance (she doesn't really have that either), the fine china she broke and had to pay for, and that jewelry that went missing and she had to pay for(actually it wasn't lost but the police report was real and the insurance payment was sweet), she hasn't saved a dime. But he kindly lends her the 50K so now she is legal.

Problem is that for some reason when she gets her paycheck it turns out she actually owes money. She is stuck in a nightmare where she can't pay off the loan and will spend the rest of her life as a wage slave to her employer trying to pay off her immigration loan.

"It's really quite interesting that someone claiming unrestricted immigration is great for American and always will be would simultaneously argue that it would make Americans more cognizants of the world's ills, including 'starvation, disease, and corruption,' because 'It is more difficult to ignore starvation and disease in Haiti if it shows up on your doorstep."

Actually, unless I missed something, Corey made the argument that we ought to have open borders out of moral responsibility (as he is wont to do) and David made the argument that open borders made good policy, for selfish reasons. Both made reasonable arguments. Neither said what you have inelegantly laid out above.

What you have done is constructed the worst kind of peice-meal strawman. Congratulations.

Immigration produces net economic benefits for the United States as a whole but slightly reduces the wages and job opportunities of low-skilled American workers, especially high school dropouts according to a two-year study by a panel of 12 experts published by the National Academy of Sciences for the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. The researchers found that:

* Immigrants add about $10 billion annually in net economic output due to the increased supply of labor and resulting lower prices.

* And a typical newcomer pays in $80,000 more in taxes than he or she receives over the course of a lifetime.

However, immigrant households are costly at first because they tend to be younger and have school-age children using public education; after 15 to 20 years, they produce fiscal benefits as their children leave school.

The researchers said revenue from the future earnings of immigrants far outweighs the fiscal impact of benefits they receive, since immigrants receive proportionately fewer benefits from programs such as Social Security and Medicare, but proportionately more from programs such as Supplemental Security Income, Aid to Families with Dependent Children and food stamps.

Source: James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, editors, "The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration," National Academy Press (Washington, D.C., 1997).

For the full text of this study see http://www.nap.edu

An idiot said:
---
It's almost as though -- ... --- that both the "left" and the "right" both believe that immigration (particularly non-white immigration, though this historically applied to Jews and Catholics and Slavs and Irish -- ... --- will destroy American society, and accordingly the right opposes it and the left supports it.
---
Thank you for calling me an Un-American traitor. Your friends Benito, Adolf, and Franco would be proud of the way you called those who disagree with you "un-American".

But, I digress. The basic injustice of schemes like the slavery...'er..."immigration" market these two academic nutjobs are proposing rests on their notion of "voting" with one's pocketbook. Since individual's pocketsbooks are unequal, so too would their votes be unequal. With unequal votes comes unequal voice, which, as public-choice political economy informs us, leads to government policy that benefits and sustains those with the most influence. From there you get, gosh, an arrogant, self-perpetuating elite. Why not simply allow those making a certain income to have, say, 100 times the votes as a worker? What is the difference between this system and the indentured servant market being discussed here? Either everyone has the opportunity to come here, or some are "more equal than others." If that's the case, then why not simply say "some are more equal than others" in domestic politics too?

Putting a price on entry into this country telegraphs to others that a Cuban doctor is more equal and derserving to be an American than a poor peasant in Guatemala. I thought free market fundamentalists like Becnoser and Posecker were in favor of free and open competition, not rigged markets set up to favor economic incumbents.

See also http://books.nap.edu/html/newamer/

Some comments have referenced our nation's inaliable right to cut off immigration in whatever way it sees fit. For instance, if it does not like poor people, or yellow people, our proud nation may exclude those types. That's because we're free.

Indeed, if we see fit we may restrict immigrants based on income, such that we only allow in millionaires. Similarly, we could decide only to let in hot chicks. I propose only lettting in (1) millionaires and (2) hot chicks. The fact that this may or may not be unfair/immoral (or even bad policy) is of no consequence because we have the right to do it.

Not enough has been said about our right to export people. Just as we may exclude people from entry, our freedom entails that we may export those who displease us. For instance, the U.S. labor market is very tricky. It costs an awful lot to employ workers when they live in America, but not if they live in some other place (often fun, tropical type places). If we fire the workers, we have to traain new ones overseas, and then we have an unemployment problem that we have to cover up by changing the standards for unemployment.

I propose we export our workers, and import more millionaires. The millionaires we import will create jobs that we can then export: a balance of trade. Because we will all be millionaires, we won't have to worry about unfair policies that warp the market in favor of the millionaires. The millionaires will be us. And hot chicks.

For anyone who thinks my plan violates some or other provision of the Constitution, I say to you: I pay taxes and/or student loans. Does that violate the Constitution? How silly.

This discussion has degenerated. Please keep the discussion above a certain level of civility and insight or else or hosts will be tempted to disable comments. I think I've made every point I can possibly make, and I'm going to withdraw from the "back and forth" that this discussion has turned into.

BTW, Check out the following website at the DOJ:

www.doj.gov

and dig up the latest (FEB.) news releases. Specifically, "Three Visa Brokers Sentenced for
Widespread International Bribes For Visas Scheme". Looks like we've got a much further road to travel before we can sell visas to the highest bidder.

While we're at it, perhaps we ought to scrap the entire system of Immigration Law and develop one that brings the U.S. into line with the 21'st Century and its problems. Maybe then, we can get control of the emigration/immigration problem. But we still need to get the root of the problem. Why are people immigrating in mass in the first place?

Hope this helps.
N.E.Hatfield

Come now, what level of insight could this thread ever have claimed?

I recall a scene from one of Isaac Asimov's Foundation novels in which people navigated through a vast concourse by following colored lines on the floor. That is what immigration is like. Through some sort of capillary action, a person leaves some obscure spot in the old country and ends up at some obscure spot in the new country. But what is the impetus to start the journey to begin with and to follow through to the end?

Immigration is only the second half of a closed loop. The first half is a flow of information from the destination country to potential emigrants, and possibly later a repatriation of income. The information flow provides the impetus to migrate.

It is likely that the quality of information (about conditions at the other end) at the beginning of a migration is low, which puts the "importers" of labor--prospective employers--at an advantage, rather than the labor itself. If a charge is to be made for immigration, could the charge to be made to fall on the party who has better information, the importers of labor, rather than on the laborers themselves?

It is interesting how no one cares about migration from Maryland to New York, or Iowa to Chicago, or Oregon to Los Angeles. (Vice versa causes a little resentment, but mostly because of big-city ways or funny accents - nothing substantial). Yet when we talk about migration from Canada to Buffalo or Mexico to San Diego, people get up in arms. They start arguing that our way of life will be destroyed, or that the immigrants will depress the labor pool, or that the new migrants will freeload on our welfare benefits. Of course, the economic statistics don't back up those claims, aside from maybe temporarily depressing wages for low-skilled employees (which the business people here should like).

I can't help but think that this is largely about bias of one sort or another. The U.S. Constitution forced us to think of the 50 states as one, but it still allows us to view the rest of the world as "the other." Nationalistic sentiment -- a sense of entitlement based on one's place of birth -- can be overblown, even to the point of causing wars. Just look at history. I think we need to take a hard look at just why we restrict immigration and make sure that our laws serve rational, and not irrational, ends.

"Of course, the economic statistics don't back up those claims, aside from maybe temporarily depressing wages for low-skilled employees (which the business people here should like)."

Most people don't care too much about legal immigration, though some sensible changes are due. The cause of concern, for most, is illegal immigration. And the statistics, in the case of illegal immigration, DO back up the claims that illegal immigration is a net nagative.

Of course illegal immigration is a net negative, because illegal immigrants cannot hold legitimate jobs and do not pay taxes. If their status were legalized, they would be a net benefit. Hence, we should legalize more immigration.

Of course, the immigration laws that are necessary should be enforced; we should prosecute and/or deport the terrorists and criminals. But the problems caused by overly restrictive immigration laws are not themselves a reason to restrict immigration. That is circular logic.

Another aside: because of their illegal status, we cannot accurately measure the positive impact on the economy of illegal immigrants. I would guess that illegal migrant workers greatly help the farming industry. Not to mention the illegal nannies that too many of our political nominees seem to have used. :) All that show up in the statistics are the costs (e.g., medical care or other services provided to illegal immigrants by the states). So it is possible that even illegals provide a net benefit to the economy, though that benefit would be greater if they paid taxes and could hold legitimate jobs.

Paying state and federal income tax would reduce some of the negative impact, but I am not convinced it would eliminate it. The assumption that immigration is always a positive is an invalid one, especially considering the welfare state. I have already written enough about that, however.

And you ignore the statistics and studies, which were cited by others earlier. Sadly, this is an ongoing theme of the Posner/Becker posts. There are a lot of economics terms flung about, but precious few real statistics or citations to thorough studies. My father is an economics professor, and really, he might as well be a statistics professor. Thorough economic study requires getting your hands dirty. You can't just assume that x+y=z.

"And you ignore the statistics and studies, which were cited by others earlier."

If you read that exchange carefully, you would already understand that the commenter which cited those statistics, after he was confronted with conflicting evidence from the report he cited, conceded they did nothing to prove the beneficience of illegal immigration. He now claims he's not interested in the question of illegal immigration, and is not keen on "bashing illegal immigrants." When facts are unflattering, I guess that is "bashing." So, like good little PC drones, we should just ignore it.

Also, there have been statistics posted on this thread which demonstrate the opposite of your claim. I guess you can ignore statistics all you want? Not that this "proves" anything, as the saying goes, "there are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Johnnie's brought an idea to light that's interesting that Asimov has touched on. That is, the underlying reasons for migration be it emigration or immigration are psychosocial in nature affecting the basic psychodynamics of the individual. Is it the case that there is a concious propaganda effort to create dissatisifaction at a basic psychological level that leads to behaivors leading to migration? Now I don't believe there is, but it could very well be that through the marketing of the mass media on a world wide scale; is having such an unintended affect. That is, the portrayls of the "superiority" of Western (industrial) lifestyles be it material or otherwise, is creating anxiety and dissatisfaction in the populations of the world creating the desire for getting their share of the percieved lifestyle. Maybe Goebbels "19 Principles of Propaganda" are truer than we would like to imagine.

These principles maye be closer to the primary cause of migration than the ones I was thinking of; be they social, political, economic, religous or the basic fight against boredom in life (the desire for something new, different and hopeful). If this is the case, perhaps it's time to develop a Ministry of Information that controls information releases. But somehow this seems to run afoul of our Constitution. Maybe it needs to be modified too; if we're ever going to solve the problem.

Hope this helps.
NEHatfield

(1) The US abandoned free immigration (huddled masses longing to be free, Ellis Island etc etc) long ago, so what has that got to do with Becker or Posner arguments? It is the current system with which comparison should be made. Is a film like "El Norte" not representative of the fate of some illegal immigrants under the current system? Is that better than what Becker and Posner propose? I would say No.

(2) What payments do many illegals make to enter the US oe EU now? The 50+ intending illegal immigrants to the UK who suffocated to death recently in a truck waiting to cross the English Channel had paid for heavily in cash to their gangland courier - is that better than paying the state? I would say No.

(3) Indentured labour holds a worker to a specific employer and for a term of years. This is indeed illegal. But immigrants would pay off any loans at varying rates, and could move employers. There could be a legal maximum interest rate and other simple mechanisms to prevent debt poenage (which people seem to think is indentured servitude) through lack of sufficient capital to buy day to day necessities.

(4) In an article in the Financial Times yesterday Martin Wolf wrote supporting a similar idea to Becker's for the UK. He made a crucial initial point: "[The following argument presumes that] the interests to be served are predominantly those of the citizens of the receiving country, though humanitarian obligations should also be taken into account. But we should separate the two considerations."

Most of the replies above seem to have taken the interests of the intending immigrant as those that should be served, and have not separated them from the interests of existing citizens. Yet the Wolf dictum has always traditionally been the way in which Americans have discussed immigration - the fact that they or their ancestors might (or these days, might not) have benefitted from different and more open arrangements has never been considered especially relevant, and would not be now. One can make accusations of hnypocricy, but apart from making one feel self-righteous, they don't address the issues at all.

(5) If the US sold residency/right to work and eventual citizenship, other advanced economies might follow suit and there would be a range of prices and destinations to suit all - including those who wish to move between equivalent economies, and those from advanced economies who want to go to poorer countries (which might be quite cheap after all).

Palooka: I simply provide evidence suggesting immigration is good for the U.S. and contradicts erroneous assumptions. Becker and Posner offer suggestions to improve immigration policy that merit consideration yet would not likely improve the system or solve the problem of illegal immigration.

I subscribe to free trade philosophy and think current immigration policy flawed resulting in unacceptably high levels of illegal immigration causing social disruption. In my opinion, the current system does not best serve U.S. national security and economic interests. I suggest a solution to minimize social disruption and maximize economic gain that would reduce illegal immigration and strengthen national security. I may be wrong.

It appears you focus on illegal immigration yet offer no solutions to improve immigration policy other than to restrict immigration. The evidence suggests that restricting immigration would harm U.S. interests.

Michael,

I do not favor the proposed fee system. I do favor having more merit criteria (primarily education level and/or English language skills) interjected into the formula.

I do not favor continuing our present policy of essentially tolerating massive illegal immigration. I think the law should be changed, or the law should be enforced. I agree with you that Becker's proposal would not begin to alleviate the illegal immigration problem.

Where we ran into conflict is that I take issue with anyone who suggests that immigration (legal and illegal) is always and forever a positive to the economic and social fabric of the nation. That simply defies logic and defies the facts. Some immigration is bound to be a economically negative (the present situation with Mexican immigration), and some immigration is bound to be less positive than other possibilities.

Whether or not immigration is a positive depends on whose perspective you are looking at things from - (A) a segment of the population, (B) the whole US economy, (C) the people entering or (D) the countries of immigrants' origin. One assumes the various symmetries are not zero sum - a well educated professional is a loss to a poor country but might be little use in the US, while an unskilled criminal in a poor country with work and incentives might be a very productive labourer in the US.

Immigrant influxes would reduce the cost of labour - unwelcome to native workers, welcome to employers, and questionable in terms of impact on tax revenues terms, investment, and dollar value GDP.

But as soon as the business is extended to second and third generations, there is almost certain to be a strong positive for all concerned. Historically there always has been - is there any reason that would not happen now, irrespective of how immigrants entered? So does it matter how immigrants enter, so long as it does not undermine the legal and political values of the US? If that is the case there is a very strong reason for finding some way of reforming the present system - any suggestions beside the rather different ideas of Becker and Posner?

Let free market dynamics work for immigration policy. The premise is that robust immigration is, on balance, in the U.S. interest – with conditions (national security and minimize social disruption). Let economic labor demand and private enterprise determine the scope of immigration – with reasonable limits and private business accountability. Let markets and free enterprise determine human capital – not the government. Let markets determine numerical limits – not a government mandated arbitrary cap. Design intelligent yet simple immigration support mechanisms to reduce social disruption and maximize economic gain.

Screen out criminal and national security threats. National security demands utilizing technology: give all visitors and immigrants (tourists, business visitors, temporary workers and newly admitted residents) traceable identification cards. Create a specialized administrative legal enforcement mechanism for work visa compliance (including market wage, tax and social benefit compliance).

That said, I suggest a cost-efficient and controllable non-immigrant temporary work visa program with Department for Homeland Security oversight and support mechanisms. The current temporary work visa programs (H-1B; H-2B; H-2A) do not work well for private enterprise. A simple market based work visa program with high-tech ID cards should significantly reduce illegal immigration and strengthen national security.

Reform the employment based immigration system based on market forces. If the temporary workers prove themselves to employers grant them eligibility to apply for residency after a reasonable period of time. Many temporary workers have no desire to apply for residency and a prudent program would allow them to legally enter and work in U.S. (and exit) at minimal transaction cost.

In short, if the goal is to reduce social disruption and maximize economic gain we should reform the employment based system to correspond with market forces and keep our current asylum and family based systems (human rights and public policy support asylum and family unification).

مركز تحميل