Immigration Reform--Posner's Comment

I find little to disagree with in Becker's post, except with regard to his disapproval of amnesty--but here our disagreement may be merely terminological, as I shall explain. The path of reform, if one ignores the politics of immigration reform, seems obvious. If there are indeed 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, then since only a tiny fraction will ever be deported, the status of all of them ought to be regularized, which means put on the path to U.S. citizenship. That is amnesty, which for some reason horrifies a lot of people. Amnesties are a long-established device for dealing with social problems. Tax amnesties are especially common. An amnesty need not, and in the case of tax amnesties is not, a get-out-of-jail-free card. The taxpayer has to pay his back taxes in order to be spared criminal punishment. He benefits because paying taxes is a less severe penalty than being imprisoned for nonpayment of taxes, and the government benefits by obtaining additional tax revenues that it would not have obtained had it not offered the amnesty but instead had tried to catch the tax cheats, because it would often fail. Similarly, in the immigration case, the illegal immigrant is offered the chance to avoid deportation at the cost of having to pay a fine (or in Becker’s proposal, a fee for purchasing the right to remain in the United States as a lawful resident.). Hence the program currently before Congress is an amnesty program although the politicians carefully avoid the word. If the fine is too stiff, however, many illegal immigrants will prefer to remain in that status since the probability of being caught and deported is for most of them slight. I would not, save in exceptional circumstances, approve of amnesty for people who commit serious crimes. However, an illegal immigrant whose only violation of U.S. law is entering the country without authorization or overstaying a tourist visa is, though of course subject to deportation ("removal," as it is now called), not treated as a criminal. I agree with Becker that there is no sense in limiting amnesty to a subclass of illegal immigrants. That would just leave several million illegal immigrants in the country, their status unchanged. There is also the difficulty of determining how long an illegal immigrant has been in this country. In the context of legal proceedings potentially involving 12 million persons, anything that requires difficult evidentiary determinations in even a small percentage of those proceedings would place enormous strain on the adjudicative machinery of the federal government. Becker is correct that the downside of an amnesty is that it reduces deterrence by creating an expectation of a future amnesty. But I do not consider that a substantial objection in the present instance. The reason is that there are two parts to sensible immigration reform. Amnesty is only one. The other is sealing our borders against future illegal immigration. If we do not seal our borders--which I do not mean literally, as that is impossible: I mean if we take effective measures to drastically reduce the flow of future illegal immigration--then in a few years we will be back where we are today, with once again millions of illegal immigrants. If we do succeed in drastically reducing the inflow of illegal immigrants, we won't have to worry a great deal about the effect of the prospect of a future amnesty on illegal immigration. For there are two methods of preventing illegal immigration. One is to deter it by threat of sanctions, such as deportation or criminal punishment. The other is physically to prevent the entry of an immigrant who is not authorized to enter the country. It is a substitute for deterrence as a mode of prevention, and if it is effective the need for deterrence is reduced. It is possible too that the inflow of illegal Mexican immigrants will slow drastically. As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts on immigration reform, when a nation's average GDP reaches one-third the U.S. level, illegal immigration to the United States drops to a very low level. Mexico is a potentially wealthy country, held back from realizing its potential by its political culture. If there is anything we can do to help Mexico prosper, it will reduce our problem of illegal immigration. But even without our help, Mexico may turn the corner to prosperity, as so many countries have done in recent years. The problem with sealing the borders, apart from the cost of building, maintaining, and patrolling an immensely long fence on the Mexican border, as well as controlling our coastlines, is that virtually anyone can obtain a tourist visa to enter the United States, and once here can disappear. However, there are other measures for reducing illegal immigration, including requiring all persons in the United States to carry biometric identification, imposing stiffer penalties on employers of illegal immigrants, and criminalizing first-time illegal immigrants rather than just repeats. But what I think would be particularly promising would simply be to make legal immigration from Mexico and Central America much easier. I am not enthusiastic about guest-worker programs. Guest workers may disappear into the illegal-immigrant pool, and if they have children in the United States the children will be U.S. citizens, so that sending the guest workers back to their country of origin may result in breaking up families. I agree completely with Becker that we should allow a million highly skilled workers a year into the United States. Everyone will benefit because workers are usually unable to capture in their wages their entire social product. Even the highly skilled workers already in this country are likely to benefit in the long run, even if their wages are temporarily depressed by the surge in competition from the new immigrants. The reason is that the increased number of highly skilled workers will increase the rate of technological progress in U.S. industry, which in turn will increase the demand for highly skilled workers.

Comments

[jimbino]

I just said, "Muchas gracias y hasta luego” to the three Mexican women who left after 2.5 hours of cleaning my home for $55. Indeed, I give work to any Mexican who shows up at my door looking for work. And, of course, I don’t check their passports, green cards and visas, nor am I required to.

As a childfree, non-breeder, I see no reason for supporting Amerikans and their expensive bratty kids. Today, here in Austin, the talk is about closing a public high-school because the students have failed the statewide tests for three years running, in spite of the fact that each lays claim to over $10,000 in taxpayers’ money in a nine-month period every year . Why should we encourage Amerikan breeding when we can get great workers, already potty trained and with an adequate education, from Mexico?

The immigration policy discussions going on around here show little concern for either fairness or common sense. We either want the Amerikan economy to grow or we don’t. We either need new workers or we don’t.

Supposing we need the economy to grow and for that we need a supply of new workers. Neither common sense nor fairness dictates that we should encourage Amerikan breeding and discourage immigration. Why is it that any Amerikan woman can pop out a pile of kids at our great expense and at the same time turn out a product that can’t even learn anything, let alone keep our houses clean? If we have too many folks on welfare, we ought to limit our breeding, cut out our child welfare and tax credits, and invite in the folks who are ready and willing to work.

Here are some interesting facts that the commenters here don't seem to be aware of: You don't need to be an Amerikan citizen to qualify for Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Here in Austin, Texas, there are lots of people standing around on street corners with signs, appealing for food, work or help of some kind. Once in a while the beggar will be a white woman. All the others are white men. You NEVER see a black or Mexican person of either sex begging on the street corner!

[N.E.Hatfield]

jimbino, Having been in and out of Austin quite frequently, I know of which you write. The issue is, most those guys can't hold down a job for various reasons, both physical and mental. Or if they could, the job would be in the minimum wage category. By panhandling they can make a lot more a day than they ever could by working a minimum wage job. Now, who says even the marginal are stupid? Oh, BTW, you know why you never see them in Houston? Because they're rounded up and bussed to Austin.

[chuks]

to all you that have posted

what differentiates you from other immigrants , except for color and nationality, thats all. if America wasn't a prosperous country wouldn't you want somewhere better, so before you criticize blindly, think what would you do in their situation, especially if your families survival depended on it. so how dare you blame someone for their actions to survive.
I believe in the amnesty, its a good thing, as people talk about immigrants taking the unwanted ,low paying jobs, that is true in a way, as they are willing to get paid at really low wages, not because they aren't smart, but because thats what their food for tomorrow and their family will live on.

have you ever wondered why when you something bad like a car crash some of the drivers run away, its because they don't have their papers, but if they did they will stay and face the consequence. have you thought how voting for the amnesty will make things cheaper and easier for you, if i may say this, a lot of people go to Mc Donald's but do you know how many Hispanics work there, when they are shouted at, they take it calmly,but if a legal citizen were to be shouted on, knowing all their rights they normally retaliate...so before you start judging, have you thought of all the wrongs you have done, or the wrongs you are capable of...

so believe it or not, when you say no to the amnesty, believe me when i say this, u have single handedly killed a human being. so for all the wicked mean words you have said, think about it again, and put your self in their situation, and think, what would you do to keep what you loved and cherished more than anything in this world, alive as long as possible.....now you think about that before you post again..

[chuks]

to all you that have posted

what differentiates you from other immigrants , except for color and nationality, thats all. if America wasn't a prosperous country wouldn't you want somewhere better, so before you criticize blindly, think what would you do in their situation, especially if your families survival depended on it. so how dare you blame someone for their actions to survive.
I believe in the amnesty, its a good thing, as people talk about immigrants taking the unwanted ,low paying jobs, that is true in a way, a sthey are willing to get paid at really low wages, not because they aren't smart, but because thats what their food for tomorrow and their family will live on.

have you ever wondered why when you something bad like a car crash some of the drivers run away, its because they don't have their papers, but if they did they will stay and face the consequence. have you thought how voting for the amnesty will make things cheaper and easier for you, if i may say this, a lot of people go to Mc Donald's but do you know how many Hispanics work there, when they are shouted at, they take it calmly,but if a legal citizen were to be shouted on, knowing all their rights they normally retaliate...so before you start judging, have you thought of all the wrongs you have done, or the wrongs you are capable of...

so believe it or not, when you say no to the amnesty, believe me when i say this, u have single handedly killed a human being. so for all the wicked mean words you have said, think about it again, and put your self in their situation, and think, what would you do to keep what you loved and cherished more than anything in this world, alive as long as possible.....now you think about that before you post again..

[n.e.hat]

chuks, Putting "beans & rice" on the table on a daily basis has always been a problem. As has been said, "The destitute have always been with us, they will always be with us.", but is that justification for the vilolation of National and International Law and Policy?

One question, where is it written that it is the U.S.'s responsbility to take on the responsibilities of other Nations failed or non-existent domestic policies (or is it the case that their aristocracies are plundering their own people and resources for their own benefit?). So please, don't try and justify a forced migration policy onto us here in the U.S. based on a pure, heart felt sentimentality that has no basis in reality or realpolitik.

[Bill]

George Orwell was a brilliant man. The high, the middle, and the low. The American melting pot had avoided this dilemma through selective immigration practices. That all ended in 1965. Now there are presumed University students who ask:

“think what would you do in their situation, especially if your families survival depended on it. so how dare you blame someone for their actions to survive.”

The answer is to integrate. The Founding Fathers set three Orwellian categories in 1776 by default. If you were a male who owned lien-free land, you could vote. If you were a male able to manage your own finances, you could aspire to vote. If you were unable or unwilling to work, you were on your own. Women back then, on average, lived fuller lives than they do today.

As we are on the hook for $70 trillion in unfunded liabilities, growing at $3 trillion per year, with no way to cover our debts, this game will come to an end. When it does, we will likely default to our roots. Come one, come all.

[Ray]

I will remark that immigrants are not uniformly distributed across the American economy. There are, for example, very few immigrants who become constitutional lawyers, while there are quite a few who become computer scientists or electrical engineers.

The result can be that competition in particular skilled fields is so ferocious that relatively few Americans choose to enter into those fields -- resulting in the decay of our institutional ability to "grow" world-class talent in those fields, rather than skimming off the top from other countries. This is not a potential issue, but a very real one -- as anybody who has examined the rosters of graduate students at our research institutions can attest. As the countries who feed us our best scientists grow wealthier and create their own world-class institutions, it is quite conceivable that this flow will slow dramatically, leaving us with a deficit of technical talent.

There is no easy solution to this question -- for our research establishment to be the best in the world, we *must* take the best from around the world. On the other hand, it is very imprudent for a country to rely on foreigners almost exclusively for its core of scientific research and development.

[John Norak Aitek]

Alan: "Condescension makes for *such* good reading, doesn't it? I could tolerate the condescension if it had something to support it, but I'm not seeing support, only a hit-and-run insult."

So what support do you have for your condescension of Posner? Appeal to popularity?

[Jason]

I'd like to point out a couple of interesting points that may merit further inquiry by both Prof. Posner and Becker:

1). Employment is dynamic. It is impacted by the well-being of the economy, globalization, and various political/social factors. It is reasonable to say that most of illegal immigrants are low skilled labors and they fill the lower echelon, labor-intensive jobs, including manufacturing, farming, and some lower service jobs (e.g. restuarant, maintenance). How will the continuing effort to outsource these jobs abroad figure into the current and future immigration issues? In terms of comparative advantage, America as an economy is moving further away from these lower skilled jobs, which will create a widening mismatch between the skills offered by these illegal immigrants and the needs of the economy, which in turn will likely widen the income gap and create excessive unemployment. Once these 12 million illegal immigrants become legalized, the Labor Bureau will have to adjust the unemployment figure up significantly.

2). On an unrelated note, granting illegal immigrants legal status would mean issuing them legal identifications which they currently do not have(e.g. driver's license, social security #). The fact of the matter is that in America, these legal documents are essential in accessing various public as well as private facilities and services. Just imagine an extra 5 million potential fliers that could not get on a plane before. The point is that there are additional realizable spending potential from these immigrants were they to become legalized. Of course, that would also incur huge costs (e.g. social security, health care) down the road. But to be fair, we should not lay the entire blame on these immigrants since the bigger problem lie with our healthcare and insurance companies.

Thanks,

[Keypoints]

Just More Status Quo and With No Real Solutions:

$55 + Jim Beam = More illegal immigration disregarding U.S. laws + Drunk all day with no self-sufficiency (can’t even clean your own home by relying and degrading Mexicans)

Don’t “singled out” Americans: 1) Even rich Mexicans and other foreign nationals have expensive bratty kids! 2) All nationals should consider its economic resources prior to having kids. 3) There are beggars in all nations.

Here Are Some More “True” Workable Solutions:

It’s not necessary for the economy to grow – it can either stay the same or decrease! For example: If there aren’t enough restaurants for consumers, one can just make simple sandwiches and spaghettis at home.

If one’s “survival” economic situation is that dire, one can choose to stay “single” and help your fellow citizens to stand up against the corrupt government.

Amnesty should not be touted to: 1) feed the world hunger, 2) keep prices low artificially (thus, a very "self-fish" capital slavery), 3) be sentimental for illegal immigrants and hindering future legal immigrants waiting patiently in line.

It’s ”racial degrading” to say only Hispanics should work in fast foods restaurants, manufacturing, etc -- a “true” economy needs both skilled and non-skilled workers from its legal residents and citizens (young and old).

[Alan]

John:

I thought I was being sarcastic rather than condescending. I guess I'm just being stupid in thinking there's a difference.

And even if I *were* being condescending to Posner, what I'd have to support it is, he's being very intellectually lazy and gratuitously offensive. It makes no sense to say, dismissively, that people oppose amnesty "for some reason" and then move on. I thought I had made that point clear in my response to his post. I spent almost all of my response explaining what was wrong with Posner's post.

Posner degraded a debate that I had thought was already packed to the brim with demagoguery and couldn't take any more. But I was wrong, as I learned when Posner insulted the intelligence of those who oppose amnesty "for some reason." I've lost a good deal of the respect I had long ago for Posner, and this post is a huge reason why.

[Jasper]

"If we were to just grant the "right" to immigrate to every Tom, Dick, Harry and Juanita; the Nation would be overwhelmed."

Yes, but such a proposal is not on offer.

We have a large "problem" with illegal immigration from Mexico because of three facts: a) the large wealth gap between the two countries; b) the fact that our southern neighbor shares a land border with us; and, c) the fact that this land border is very long.

If you changed any of the three above, you'd have a much smaller inflow of illegal immigrants. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on how you look at it), the US can't really do much about these facts, and hence it will continue to receive large numbers of immigrants from south of the border. The only question is whether or not America decides to provide a legal means for this migration to take place. But these facts are not observable with respect to other places, so, I think it's safe to say, despite the warnings of the restrictionists, we won't soon be overwhelmed with illegal immigrants from Indonesia or Mozambique.

[Anonymous]

مركز تحميل

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

thanksss
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™ ŸÖÿµÿ±
--
دردشة مصرية

[Anonymous]

PDGeaH

[Anonymous]

ÿØÿ±ÿØÿ¥ÿ©
___
صور

[Anonymous]

Good Day. Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
I am from Niger and know bad English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Offer valid for new adt authorized dealer customers only and not on purchase from adt security services."

Waiting for a reply :o, Ultima.

[Anonymous]

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

دردشه

[Anonymous]

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

[Anonymous]

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.

[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]

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.

[Anonymous]

دردشة برق

دردشة الخليج