November 14, 2012
What to Do About Illegal Immigration?
What to Do About Illegal Immigration? Becker
Governor Romney lost the election for many reasons, but one can hardly ignore the mean-spirited and often foolish discussion of illegal immigration during the Republican debates among their presidential candidates. Governor Romney improved his positions on illegal immigration during the presidential campaign, but not by enough. Hispanic voters are the fastest growing segment of voters in the U.S. and Romney suffered a devastating defeat among these voters. He received about 27% of their votes, whereas George W. Bush in 2004 had received 44% (the Republicans share of Asian voters also went down from 2004 by about the same amount).
I cannot say whether the Republican Party will become more enlightened on this issue, but changes in America's approach to illegal immigration are necessary per se, and also as part of a major overall reform of immigration policy. The ideal approach to the illegal immigration issue would be to provide a pathway to citizenship for the approximately 12 million illegal immigrants already in this country, and for others who will come in the future.
As Posner indicates, the so-called Dream Act is a small step in this direction. Once enacted, this Act would enable applicants to start on a path toward citizenship as long as they entered the U.S. prior to their 16th birthday and graduated from high school, or have other education qualifications. Barring a change in immigration policy, some form of amnesty will be granted to other illegal immigrants who have been in this country for at least several years, although every amnesty program has the obvious problem that future illegal immigrants will also expect to be granted amnesty.
How to handle illegal immigration is only part of the problem with current immigration policies. The U.S. does not encourage enough skilled immigrants to come, and also requires legal immigrants to jump over numerous obstacles before they can enter. No wonder an increasing number of highly desirable immigrants are going instead to Canada and other destinations where they are more welcome.
For many years I have argued that the best way to reform America's (and other countries') immigration policy would be to allow all immigrants to enter if they can pay a given monetary fee. For illustrative purposes I have used the figure of $50,000, but the actual fee would be set by the supply of immigrants and America's willingness to accept immigrants (for details see my short monograph, "The Challenge of Immigration: A Radical Solution", 2011, IEA). I have shown why this approach would attract young, skilled, and ambitious immigrants who gain a lot both monetarily and in other ways from coming to America, including better opportunities for their children. This approach would also raise a sizable amount of revenue to the government at a time when additional revenue has a huge value.
Loan programs should and would be developed by companies, and also by the federal government, that would allow immigrants to borrow much of the money needed to pay the immigration admission fee. Immigrants would repay these "immigration loans" over time from the higher earnings here compared to their earnings in their countries of origin. There could be scholarships and discounts on the fees for particularly desirable immigrants, but the fee structure should not be made too complicated.
This approach of using immigration entrance fees would not only make overall immigration policy more sensible, but it would also go some way toward resolving the illegal immigration question. Immigrants who have been in the United States for a long time, and have done reasonably well and are raising families, hate living under the cloud and opprobrium of being here illegally. Many, probably most, of them would be eager to buy their right to citizenship by paying even sizable fees, especially if loans are available to help finance these fees. The perverse incentives that accompany amnesty programs would be eliminated since amnesty would no longer be needed or desirable.
In addition, many of those who might be coming illegally in the future from Mexico and elsewhere would now have a very attractive alternative; namely, to pay the entrance fee that gives them the right to come legally and permanently. Many of them would surely choose the legal option that is presently denied to them.
To be sure, the issue of illegal immigrants would not completely go away. Some migrants might still prefer to come illegally and save the immigration fee, especially if they plan only short stays in the United States. In addition, a small number of others who now come legally might decide not to pay the immigration fee by entering illegally.
Nevertheless, a reform toward allowing anyone to enter if they can pay the entry fee would go a long way toward attracting more immigrants. It would also reduce the hostility to immigrants because they would provide needed "tax" revenue, and they could no longer be said to have a free ride after they come. In addition, the illegal immigrant question would fade into a much more minor issue because the number of immigrants in the country illegally would decline by a substantial amount, and the number of persons entering illegally is likely also to decline, perhaps also by a lot.
What to Do about Illegal Immigration--Posner
The election has provoked a remarkable about-face by Republican leaders and conservative commentators, who apparently believe or pretend to believe that Romney lost the election because the harsh stand of the party on illegal immigration offended Hispanic voters. These leaders and commentators describe Hispanics as natural Republicans because almost all of them are Catholic and they tend to support conservative values on matters like abortion and homosexuality, and also because immigrants are naturally entrepreneurial and willing to work hard to get ahead in their new country.
The exit polls do not support the proposition that Catholics are strongly influenced in voting for President by the Republican embrace of conservative family values. Nor have previous waves of immigrants, such as the Irish, Italians, and Jews, tended to vote Republican, although this will often change as their descendants become affluent or at least thoroughly Americanized. Asian-Americans, despite their economic success, strongly favored Obama in the election. Hispanics are on the whole rather poor, and thus seem a natural Democratic rather than Republican constituency. Yet undoubtedly Republicans would garner more Hispanic votes with the friendlier attitude toward immigrants that George W. Bush, for example, displayed during his Presidency.
But whatever the Republican hopes and motives, the Republican about-face on illegal immigration is welcome. There are believed to be about 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, the vast majority Mexican. There is no question of deporting them. Nor apparently is it feasible to prevent further illegal immigration from Mexico (offsetting the illegal immigrants who return voluntarily to Mexico, as many do), owing to the length of the U.S.-Mexican border and the many crossing points. Apart from the enormous resources that would be expended in serious effort to deport the existing illegal immigrants and prevent further illegal immigration, illegal immigrants are a significant fraction of the American labor force (it is estimated that 8 million of them work, which is 5 percent of the labor force), and the nation can hardly afford to lose so many workers. Illegal immigrants receive some government benefits, but fewer than legal workers, and they tend to work very hard. (In California, the expression "he works like a Mexican" is used to describe someone who works harder than he should.) They fill many jobs, particularly in agriculture, that are unattractive to U.S. citizens. They are a productive part of the U.S. economy.
The current Administration has been energetic in seeking to deport illegal immigrants who are criminals (contrary to a widespread impression, it is not a crime to be an illegal immigrant as such, although of course it's a ground for deportation). But the current Administration has, like its predecessors, left the other illegal immigrants pretty much alone. As a result the the millions of illegal immigrants live in a kind of limbo.
So what should be done? The standard answer is to provide a "path to citizenship." The difficulty is in doing this without reverting to the policy of unrestricted immigration that prevailed in the United States until the 1920s, a policy that would not be feasible now, given the density of the U.S. population today and the enormous size of the world population (7 billion). If government makes it easy for an illegal immigrant to become a legal immigrant and thus a citizen, this amounts to a policy of de facto unrestricted immigration. If one amnesties the entire existing illegal immigrant population (excepting criminals), one encourages further illegal immigration because there will be an anticipation of future amnesties. Coupling an amnesty with an effective policy of preventing future illegal immigration would be optimal if that prevention were feasible, but apparently it isn't.
The DREAM Act (not yet enacted, but the Administration has implemented a number of its provisions by executive order) seems an ingenious and realistic, though incomplete, compromise. It provides the "path to citizenship" to persons who are illegal immigrants by virtue of having been brought here as children by parents who were illegal immigrants. Illegals who having been brought here as children have grown up as Americans are indistinguishable from illegal immigrants' children who having been born in the United States have been U.S. citizens since birth. If you are a Mexican couple with children and are thinking of immigrating illegally to the United States, the fact that your children can eventually become U.S. citizens is an inducement to immigrate, but only a modest inducement because the parents will not be allowed to become citizens.
The DREAM Act is incomplete because most illegal immigrants immigrated to the United States as adults rather than as children. So the question remains what to do about the adults' status. One answer may be to allow them to become citizens, but to impose a penalty sufficient to reduce the flow of future illegal immigrants. Another may be to assist Mexico to raise the Mexican standard of living, since the rule of thumb is that when a nation's per capita income reaches 40 percent of the American per capita income immigration to the United States from that nation will fall to a low level.