May 21, 2006 to May 28, 2006
Illegal Immigration
The Illegal-Immigration Quandary--Posner
I have been surprised at the virulence of the response to the President's proposals for dealing with the problem of illegal immigration. I had not realized there was so much hostility to illegal immigrants, who are mainly from Mexico and Central America. Many Americans seem to regard anything short of expelling the entire illegal-immigration population, which may be as large as 12 million (though my guess is that it is much lower), as a form of "amnesty" that would be immoral because it would reward illegality.
Well, that is what amnesties do; they forgive crimes. But they are a conventional policy tool, and should not be despised. They are particularly common as a means of dealing with tax evasion. Tax evasion is extremely common because it is so difficult to detect. A tax amnesty in effect sells the tax evader immunity from punishment in exchange for payment of back taxes due. The amnesty is attractive to the government because it raises revenue and to the tax evader because it enables him to buy his way out of the risk of being prosecuted should he be caught. It is a mutually beneficial trade. The objection to amnesties is that they increase the incentive to commit the amnestied crime in the future by holding out the prospect of future amnesties. The objection is superficial. The government will (if it is being sensible) trade off the gain in revenue from the amnesty against the future loss of tax revenues that is likely to be caused by the prospect of future amnesties, and so it will set the amnesty "price" at the level that maximizes the net gain in revenue. For example, if it reckons that the prospect of future amnesties will lead to significantly more tax evasion in the future, it can condition the amnesty on the tax evader's paying not merely the back taxes he owes but a substantial penalty as well.
It is the same with an immigration "amnesty," if one wants to describe the President's plan in those terms. In exchange for not risking being deported, illegal immigrants can be required to pay not only back taxes due but also a fine greater than the $2,000 currently proposed. Of course, the stiffer the penalty, the fewer illegal immigrants will step forward and acknowledge their status, and so the less effective the "amnesty" will be. I would not favor a stiff penalty. The Americans who for one reason or another are most concerned about illegal immigration are not much or maybe at all concerned about legal immigration, and so converting illegal to legal immigrants should be regarded by them as a highly beneficial step.
There is antipathy to "rewarding" legal immigrants, who have jumped the queue of people trying to immigrate to the United States--a queue that can take many years to get to the head of legally. But what is the alternative? It is not feasible to deport millions of people from the United States, and those who would like to do this should accept as a second-best solution regularizing the status of the illegal immigrants. Nor is it clear that the people waiting patiently in the queue are "better" people or would be better Americans than the illegals. Many of them may be in the queue not because they want to be Americans but because they want to preserve the option to relocate to the United States should conditions or opportunities in their home country worsen.
It would be desirable in principle to get control of our borders, but it probably is impossible. Our border with Mexico is almost 2000 miles long, and that figure ignores our Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Mexico coastlines, which are proximate to Mexico and Central America. Fencing and patrolling a border sound like straightforward measures, but in practice are extremely costly; imagine the interruptions in the extensive commerce between the United States and Mexico that would ensue from erecting a Berlin Wall, with checkpoints at which vehicles are carefully searched, between the two countries.
If all Americans were required to carry biometric identification, if any clandestine entry into the United States were punished as a serious crime, and if the employment of an illegal alien were made a federal felony with a mandatory minimum punishment of 10 years in prison, the problem of illegal immigration would be solved more or less overnight, and the millions of illegal immigrants would be on their way back to Mexico and Central America (and in lesser numbers to China and other poor countries that supply us with many illegal immigrants). This exodus--this de facto deportation of the illegal immigrant population--would disrupt the economies both of the United States and of Mexico.
Once something is identified as a problem, Americans, not being fatalists, insist that there be a solution. But there is only one worthwhile solution to this particular problem, and it is one over which Americans have little control. The solution is for Mexico and the other poor countries from which illegal immigrants come to become rich. As soon as per capita income in a country reaches about a third of the American level, immigration from that country dries up. Emigration is very costly emotionally as well as financially, given language and other barriers to a smooth transition to a new country, and so is frequent only when there are enormous wealth disparities between one's homeland and a rich country like the United States. The more one worries about illegal immigrants, the more one should favor policies designed to bring about greater global income equality.
Immigration Policy Once Again-BECKER
Although we blogged on immigration not long ago (see entry for March 6th), immigration reform is currently being extensively discussed by Congress, and President Bush proposed various immigration reforms. We decided to consider the subject once again.
I will defend three reforms. First, the United States can and should greatly increase the number of legal immigrants accepted, with most of the emphasis on skilled immigrants. Second, it is not politically possible to send back the millions of illegal immigrants that are here, but other steps might be taken with regard to their eligibility for various government programs. Third, if a feasible enforcement policy could be worked out, employers should be punished for hiring undocumented workers in order to reduce the incentives for many more illegal immigrants to come here.
The case for expanded legal immigration recognizes the great benefits this country has received from immigrants throughout our history. The unlimited immigration of the nineteenth century is no longer an attractive policy because of the artificial incentives to come created by various entitlement programs. Nevertheless, this relatively unpopulated nation can readily and productively absorb many more immigrants. Skilled immigrants in particular should receive high priority- they do not under present policies- because they add highly valued skills that are well paid in the above ground sector, and they contribute much more in taxes than they receive in government benefits from Medicaid, unemployment compensation, and other government programs. In addition, skilled immigrants commit little crime, they have law-abiding and generally high achieving children, and they supply various services that otherwise might be outsourced to countries like India and China. I would also like to admit legally some hardworking unskilled immigrants, and I will discuss this later.
Unfortunately, I do not see anything in the president's proposal to increase the number of skilled immigrants, perhaps because all the attention is now on illegal immigrants. But skilled individuals deserve a high priority. One approach is to expand greatly the number allowed to enter under temporary programs, such as the H-1B visa program mainly for high-tech workers. But programs for temporary admission are not attractive (for reasons discussed in my March 6th post), and a more desirable policy would provide permanent admission to many more skilled immigrants. More generous admission of these immigrants should be a fundamental part of any overhaul of the United States' immigration policy.
Although the exact number of illegal immigrants in this country is not known, estimates range from about five million persons to close to twelve million. Surely, it is not feasible politically to round most of these up and return them to where they came from. The recent immigrant demonstrations show that this could lead to riots and unrest that would be more destructive than helpful. Moreover, many of these immigrants are well integrated into American life, and it would make little economic sense, as well as be inhumane, to send them back, even if that were feasible. The call by some Republican to send most illegal immigrants back to where they came from seems more like political grandstanding rather than a serious proposal.
So I accept that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are here to stay for as long as they want to. The president's proposal essentially to give permanent residency to illegal immigrants who have jobs involves some face-saving because he wants to deny that he is in effect proposing to give amnesty to immigrants who are here illegally. Still, the proposal is basically a major step in the right direction, for it not only recognizes the impossibility of throwing out millions who are here illegally, but the proposal also makes a valuable distinction between those with and without jobs. That part of the proposal is consistent with the approach taken in the H-1B and other programs that gives preference to immigrants who have jobs.
If the president's proposed reforms were not to become simply another amnesty program-the previous one was in 1986- that would encourage further illegal immigration, a way must be found to discourage the number of illegal immigrants who want to come. The current policy of returning apprehended aliens is ineffective since the majority of those who are returned simply turn around and come again. Perhaps a wall along the border will help. I doubt if using the national guard to patrol borders (I do not like the use of national guards for that purpose) or many more border agents could greatly stem the tide, given the length of the border with Mexico, and the many persons who specialize in finding new ways to cross over.
Most Americans do not wish to give significant jail sentences to illegal aliens who are apprehended. For there is considerable, although not universal, sympathy for immigrants whose only crime is that they come to this country to seek much higher wages, better working conditions for themselves, and brighter futures for their children.
What then can be done? As I said in my March post, I favor reducing the benefits available to illegal immigrants, which means denying them access to most health, education, and other benefits. But I recognize that it is unlikely if that would be politically feasible or desirable in certain situations, such as for illegals who have school age children, or those who are ill. So I am not optimistic about the feasibility of doing much along these lines.
Clearly, it would help a lot if Mexico developed much faster. Its record during the past several years is pretty good, due mainly to the NAFTA Free Trade agreement, various reforms Mexico introduced to make its economy more flexible, and a booming world economy. Still, Mexico is unlikely to increase its progress sufficiently rapidly to greatly reduce the desire of many Mexicans to come to the United States in the forseeable future.
It would be desirable to increase significantly the number of unskilled persons accepted each year, along with the greater increase in skilled individuals accepted, although neither group should be eligible for entitlement benefits for several years. This policy would reduce the number of unskilled persons who want to come here illegally, but it would not eliminate the problem.
So is stemming further large-scale illegal immigration a hopeless task? Perhaps it is, which is why I titled my previous entry "The New American Dilemma: Illegal Immigration". But an approach that I dismissed in my March post may be worth exploring further. Although the 1986 immigration law barred employers from hiring illegal immigrants, it has not been much enforced because employers argued they were victims of forged social security cards, green cards, and other ID's that would certify employees were in this country legally. An identity card that is hard to duplicate and that would have to be checked by employers at a central clearing house before hiring someone would be the only really effective method of reducing forgery to minor levels. That would have to be combined with sizeable monetary fines for employers who hired employees without the required documentation. These fines should rise with the number of illegal aliens hired, and with whether an employer was a repeat offender.
Even if such an identity and punishment system were introduced and were effective, some illegal immigrants would come here to work for households and at other underground activities. But identity cards would greatly cut back the number of illegal immigrants who would come. That is all any policy toward illegal immigrants can hope to achieve.
More Thoughts on Illegal Immigration--Posner
The comments on my post indicate strong feelings and powerful disagreement, mirroring the strong feelings and powerful disagreement in Congress and in the nation as a whole. It should, however, be possible for Congress to work out a compromise along the following lines:
-
By a combination of sticks and carrots, it should be possible to induce the vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country either to step forward, admit their illegal status, regularize it, and thus enter the path to eventual citizenship (without having to leave the country), or depart for good. The only objections to this course that I can see are "unfairness" to would-be immigrants waiting patiently in the immigration queue--and I do not think the interests of foreigners should weigh heavily in U.S. public policy--and the injustice of "rewarding" illegality (the "amnesty" issue). But illegal immigration is not so serious a crime as to demand obeisance to Kant's claim that even if a society were about to dissolve, justice would require that it execute any condemned criminals. I take a more relaxed, pragmatic view of the dictates of legal justice.
-
By a combination of mandatory biometric ID for all people in the United States (a measure that would have independent value in crime control and terrorism prevention) and heavy penalties on employers of illegal immigrants, future illegal immigration could be largely halted without need to build an expensive Berlin Wall between the United States and Mexico.
-
Reform of immigration law and reorganization of the various agencies in the Department of Homeland Security that administer the law would shorten the queue for legal immigrants (and thus alleviate the "fairness" objection to "amnesty"), adjust the supply of immigrants to the demand of American employers, and switch preferential teratment from foreigners who have family connections in the Unied States to foreigners who have valuable skills.
Comment on Immigration Policy-BECKER
I have been writing about immigration policy for quite a while. Each time I am impressed by how much interest there is in this subject, and the strong beliefs and emotions involved. I will respond to some of the many comments, although I will not do all of them justice.
I strongly believe in either enforcing laws or changing them. I am not happy with the position we face with regard to illegal immigrants. It is not good precedent to ignore immigration laws in deciding how to treat illegal immigrants, but we do that too with tax amnesty opportunities. With so many illegal immigrants here, it is unrealistic to believe we can throw them all out. We should have faced the issue many years ago, as I, along with others, were advocating, but we did not.
So we have to adjust to what we have. I believe amnesty at this time, with a few fines and payment of some back taxes, is probably the best of bad alternatives, but we can take steps to reduce problems with future illegal immigrants. A relatively secure identity card that is needed to get a job, combined with serious fines to employers that hire with workers without these cards, seems like the best available approach.
We should, however, greatly expand the number of legal immigrants accepted. This would include unskilled as well as skilled, but I would put great emphasis on the skilled. This country can easily accommodate and benefit from substantial increases in the number of legal immigrants admitted. To be sure, workers that the immigrants compete against would have their earnings lowered, but that effect would be relatively small, and the gains to others would be far greater- the excess of gains over losses can be easily demonstrated by simple economic analysis.
I do not deny that immigrants come for many reasons: higher earnings, freedom, better opportunities for children, etc. But it is unrealistic to deny that some come to take advantage of free and good medical care, free and good schools for children, and other benefits. Moreover, incentives to come due to the generous entitlements would become much greater if we tried to return to the nineteenth century of unlimited immigration.
To Robert Book, I do agree that the first best might be to deny illegal immigrants access to various benefits. I discussed that in my earlier post on immigration. But that policy has been tried and failed politically. It is hard politically to enforce denying medical and other benefits to sick adults, and even more so, to sick children. So what I taught in Econ. 301 is right, but has to be expanded to take account of political economy considerations.
A common fallacy is to assume a fixed number of jobs, so that if immigrants take some, native-born Americans have fewer. Or if older workers keep their jobs because they work until later ages, younger workers have fewer jobs. The number of jobs that can be created is very elastic, and depends on wages, productivity, etc. What is true is that immigrants will lower the earnings of natives with similar skills. I addressed that issue above.