Minor Thoughts from me to you

Yesterday, Colorado's legislature and governor reached a deal on what looks like a very good immigration reform package. The legislature passed HB 1023, restricting welfare to citizens and legal immigrants.

Here's what's in the bill:

How would an applicant get public assistance?

Applicants for taxpayer-funded benefits would be required to show they are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. They would also be required to sign an affidavit attesting to their legal status.

What is the penalty?

If an applicant falsely signs an affidavit, he or she would face a misdemeanor charge of perjury in the second degree.

Each offense would carry a maximum penalty of 18 months in jail, a $5,000 fine, or both, and a minimum penalty of six months in jail, a $500 fine, or both.

What would be curtailed?

Any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, post-secondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar payment.

The bill would also ban any grant, contract, loan, professional license or commercial license provided by an agency of state or local government.

This is a very good bill and I applaud the Colorado government for passing it.

Police officials in North Platte, Nebraska are moving dangerously close to an act of pure insanity:

In response to a recent report from the U.S. Surgeon General about the dangers of second-hand smoke, local police officials report they are preparing to crack down on drivers who expose their children to second-hand smoke.

The report shows second-hand smoke is particularly harmful to young children whose developing bodies are especially vulnerable. Second-hand smoke can cause a number of life-threatening childhood illnesses such as asthma.

"With that in mind, we are researching to determine whether law enforcement has probable cause to arrest anyone exposing children to second-hand smoke inside a vehicle," Gutschenritter said. He added the police department is working with the county attorney to determine if smoking in a vehicle with children present would be considered child abuse.

Child abuse in Nebraska is punishable by a year in jail and / or a $1000 fine. Failing to buckle-up your child is punishable by a $25 fine.

Says Michael Siegel

Do you mean to tell me that to prevent the mere risk of some ear infections and respiratory infections, the Lincoln County Tobacco Coalition is willing to support the imprisonment of parents, removing them from their kids for a period of up to one year? You can't be serious. It is far more devastating, to be sure, for children to have a parent removed from them, than for the child to be at increased potential risk of an ear or upper respiratory infection.

There's no other way to put it. If the North Platte police department goes ahead with this, they will prove themselves to be complete idiots. Second-hand smoke is nowhere near as dangerous as these "experts" make it out to be. I should know. My parents are not smokers, but my aunt is. Some of my fondest childhood memories involving going outside with my aunt, while she smoked. She smoked while driving me around town on many occasions. My lungs have suffered no ill effects. Whatever risk of heart disease I may face is due to my weight -- not to her cigarettes.

It is (or should be) absolutely unbelievable that her behavior is worthy of either an immense fine or jail time. "The land of the free" is being destroyed by these hysterical public health "experts". How else do you describe a country where you have the freedom to do anything except for that which might possibly harm you in some ill-defined manner?

I'm a fan of Congressman Ron Paul. The Washington Post provided a nice profile of him today. Also, check out Reason magazine's 1999 interview with him.

(Links from Hit and Run.)

The AP reports on the legal challenges to Georgia's shiny new photo voter ID requirement.

The new law requires that every voter who casts a ballot in person produce a valid, government-issued photo ID. Elections officials had already distributed several dozen of the new voter photo IDs to people, primarily seniors, who don't have a driver's license, passport or other qualifying photo ID.

The [state] seeks to stay the temporary restraining order issued Friday by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Melvin Westmoreland. In his sharply worded ruling, Westmoreland said the voter ID law "unduly burdens the fundamental right to vote rather than regulate it" and would cause "irreparable harm."

Maybe, maybe not. I'm willing to accept that obtaining a new ID can be "a burden" -- I recently moved to Wisconsin and had to get a new driver's license, after all. I'm not willing to accept that requiring a photo ID is an "undue burden", however. We're not talking about the right to play bingo, check out library books, or eat at Chinese buffets. We're talking about the right to cast a vote. The right to decide the current and future direction of our various governments. This is, or should be, a serious responsibility.

Most responsibilities come with their own built-in burdens. That tends to be a central element of of having responsibilities and privileges -- something my parents continually warned me about with each new privilege they gave me. Owning a car, owning a house, having children, managing business projects, managing money, even owning a dog -- all of these responsibilities come with their own unique burdens. I can't understand why voting should be any different.

Theoretically a voter has spent (at least) the month or two leading up to the election contemplating the various issues and candidates at hand. Is it unreasonable to expect that sometime during that period the responsible voter also ensures that he or she meets the requirements necessary to vote? The State of Georgia is asking that each prospective voter register beforehand and obtain a photo identification. Both of these goals can be accomplished with one visit to a government office. Does Georgia really have a significant population of people that are both committed to voting and completely unable to visit a government office sometime prior to an election? Does any state?

Here's my opinion: if you can't muster up the ability to register to vote and obtain a photo ID, you're not serious enough about voting to participate in the election. If you're one of the rare people that has absolutely no means of getting to a voter registration office, drop me an e-mail -- I'll be happy to give you a lift. Just don't try to tell me that democracy isn't worth the effort.

Jenna is worried about the effects of immigrants on our social services:

Mexico is a very destitute country, especially when compared to the United States. With completely open, unfettered borders, we would become, as I said before, the bassinet of the world, handing out our social dollars to those who are not citizens of our country. While I am not an isolationist, we must be autonomous.

Joe also argues that with open borders, the immigration flow will subside, as the workforce market becomes saturated. That too I disagree with. With open borders, cheap labor will become the preferred choice, and American citizens will see their jobs vanish. As well, while the illegal immigrants are taking American jobs at an ever increased rate, immigration will never subside. Once they hear not of our saturated job market, but of our strong social net and welfare dollars, they will quickly enter the United States to take advantage of this. Instead of moving away from socialism, as Joe prefers, we would move towards it, with multitudes more people living on the taxpayers' buck.

There's so much I disagree with here, that I'm not sure where to start. Jenna argues that an influx of cheap labor will destroy American jobs. This is a common idea, but a wrong one. Many of Mexico's immigrants are unskilled. As such, they're hardly likely to be taking the jobs of American software engineers, pharmacists, doctors, professors, or the jobs of anyone else working in skilled professions. Many, many Americans are in no danger of competition from Mexican immigrants.

Additionally, cheap labor doesn't destroy jobs, it creates them. How many times have conservatives bemoaned the labor market in Madison -- so weighed down by regulations and government edicts that labor is too expensive to hire? General Motors is on the verge of bankruptcy thanks to labor unions making labor too expensive. As a result, General Motors is shedding jobs as fast as possible in an effort to save money and remain open for business. Ford is facing similar problems. Good, hard working American workers are losing their jobs because their labor is too expensive for their employer to keep.

Cheap labor allows existing business to create new jobs, offering new services to the public. Cheap labor allows new businesses to spring into existence, creating wealth where none existed before. As cheap laborers become skilled laborers, demand for their services will increase. Their wages will rise. As a result, we'll have a new company where none existed before. The employees of that company will be constantly increasing their skills and abilities and their wages will rise commensurately.

Jenna proposes a vision where every company hires the cheapest labor possible. Why? What company in their right mind would do that? An unskilled carpenter may have a low salary, but he offers little expertise and ability to his employer. Employers will always have room for both skilled and unskilled labor, for both cheap and expensive labor. No company can long exist while employing only cheap, unskilled labors. No laborer will long work for a company offering only low wages and no benefits. They'll either leave for another employer or take their skills and become their own employer.

This is basic Economics 101. For someone who describes herself as an economic libertarian, I'm surprised to see Jenna repeating such Marxist ideas.

Secondly, We don't need immigrants to bring socialist ideas to our shores -- Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Jesse Jackson, and Russ Feingold are doing that already. It's true that immigrants use social services at a slightly higher rate than the native-born population does. Should we punish them for taking advantage of what's offered or should we focus our energies on the politicians who continually dip into our pockets?

Why assume that every immigrant will vote in favor of more welfare? The ones that actually make the journey to the United States -- across the desert sands of the southwest -- are hardly the laziest of Mexico's workers. Some immigrants will vote for a higher welfare state, some will vote for more freedom just like native Americans. The good news is that immigrants start their own businesses at a much higher rate than native Americans do. Given that small business owners generally vote for smaller government, I see reasons for optimism.

After all, why do immigrants migrate to America? They migrate because they have few opportunities for success in their native land. Mexico is not poor because its people are stupid, lazy, or illiterate. Mexico is poor because its political, legal, and social institutions prevent people from using their human capital to generate wealth. Immigrants migrate to America because America gives them the opportunity to succeed, when their native land won't. Given those conditions, how likely are they to support policies that would turn America into an imitation of Mexico?

The second question Jenna raised is the question of national borders.

We must have controlled borders in our nation to be a nation. We must have rules and regulations on whom can enter to be an autonomous United States of America. ... Is there any nation in this world that has completely open borders? I believe not. To do this would completely degenerate the underlying fabric of our nation, that which ties us together.

What is the underlying fabric of our nation? What is it that ties us together? I would argue that it is a common ideal. The idea that all men are equal under the law. The idea that anyone can become anything that they want. The idea that status and prestige are not linked to who your family is or what job your parents had, but to your own achievements, character, and efforts. America is more than just land with a certain outline -- it is an idea that has inspired millions around the globe.

Maybe there aren't any nations in the world with completely open borders. That's hardly a compelling argument against the very idea of a nation with completely open borders. Before 1776, had there ever been a nation that offered representative democracy to everyone? America has been unique throughout its entire history. Let's not fall into the trap of trying to make America more like other nations or arguing that America should follow the example of other nations. We should be providing the example for everyone else to follow.

Why would an open borders policy completely degenerate the underlying fabric of our nation? Are you worried that those who would enter the country wouldn't believe in the American ideals of social equality, equal justice under the law, and unlimited opportunity? Those are the very ideas that have drawn millions of immigrants to America. The vast majority of American immigrants came because they were unable to enjoy the "blessings of liberty" in their native lands. Our immigrants have tended to hold the American ideal in higher regard than most Americans do.

Finally, why must we have rules and regulations on whom can enter? And why would these rules, or the lack of them, affect our autonomy? Autonomy is completely separate from the concept of borders. Autonomy is freedom from external control. As long as America's laws are created by America's citizens, America will remain an autonomous nation. In the final result, borders have little to do with how we govern ourselves. Many people that are inside of America's borders are not allowed to vote -- children, felons, the insane, etc. Many outside of America's borders are allowed to vote -- the military, those vacationing on election day, those living overseas at the request of their employers, etc.

Borders delineate the area over which a nation's laws extend. If you live inside of those imaginary lines, you follow one set of laws. If you live outside of those imaginary lines, you follow another set of laws. I would like to think that we can enforce America's laws inside of America's borders without needing to control who lives on which side of the border.

Next, Jenna brought up the issue of citizenship.

Immigration clearly has ties to economics, which is where Joe sees an issue. However, immigration first has ties to our nationhood, and our system of laws, and our definition of citizen. And we must respect that.

Being a citizen means being a member of a political community -- having the right to vote and a voice in making a nation's laws. Given voter turnout over the last several decades, it would seem that many of America's citizens don't think citizenship is anything special.

Citizenship is a separate issue from borders, involving the question of who can vote and where they can vote. It's true that many precincts are subject to voter fraud. This isn't an argument for kicking out immigrants -- it's an argument for creating an election system that actually works. I'm all for requiring positive identification before allowing someone to vote. After all, if you can't be bothered to get a State ID, how committed to citizenship can you possibly be? That goes for both immigrants and for native-born Americans.

We must make a clear distinction between people who live in the United States and people who are allowed to affect the future and direction of the United States. Learning America's history, learning America's language, learning America's culture and ideas must be prerequisites for becoming an American citizen. That is the source of America's common ties and social fabric. As long as we restrict citizenship to those who are committed to American ideals, I don't fear immigration.

Jenna argues that even if our per-capita resources are higher than they were doing the last wave of immigration, that still doesn't mean that we can accomodate another large wave of immigrants.

We should not deduce our ability to handle a large flow of legal immigrants in comparison to the past. The two time frames have no bearing on each other whatsoever. In 1920, the US population was just over 100,000,000. Today, we are reaching 300,000,000. So yes, our infrastructure has expanded since the early century, but that is to accommodate current US citizens. Resources are higher, even at a per capita, but that is not indicative of an ability to drastically increase our domestic population. That is indicative of our lifestyles.

Perhaps so. I know I enjoy having lots of open spaces and uncrowded roads. But I don't buy the arguement that immigrants are making the country more crowded. Immigration opponents will point to two main negative effects of immigration: crowded schools and crowded emergency rooms. Both of these things have something in common: government intervention. Your local public school monopoly is under the direct control of government. Local emergency rooms are forced by the government to treat everyone who walks through their doors. The negative effects of these policies are all too easy to predict.

Public schools are completely unable to allocate resources in a rational manner. By its very nature, the school must cater to every constituency -- including the teachers unions. Schools are unable to handle sudden population changes because of their bureucratic nature. Emergency rooms face a similiar dilemma. The government mandates that they provide service to everyone. Unfortunately, government reimbursements for those services are somewhat on the stingy side. As a result, emergency rooms are a huge drain on a hospital's resource. The hospital responds by rationing care in the only way they can: lengthy wait times.

Immigration -- legal and illegal -- is revealing the down-side of government provided services. The solution isn't to limit the number of people who can come into the country, but to allow market incentives to provide what those in the country need. When was the last time we heard of shoe shortages? Or clothing shortages? Or shortages of kitchen supplies, office supplies, or any of the other thousands of items that litter our lives? There is no rational reason why medical care and education should be subject to sudden shortages. The solution isn't to limit immigration, it's to remove the barriers that prevent the market from working. After all, isn't that one reason why we're supporting Mark Green for governor?

Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens (supposedly a Republican) seems dedicated to wasting money -- he's setting aside Federal money for the development of baby food made from salmon. I'm not sure why this is a Federal issue. Millions of children have grown up without the benefit of baby food made from salmon. I do know that it's just one more wasteful use of my tax dollars. If you want to know why my wife and I complain about losing $600 a month to the Federal government -- this is one of those reasons.

Senator -- if you believe in the project so much, please put your own money into it. Don't put my money into it and then try to tell me that you're doing it for my own good.

(Hat tip to Radley Balko.)

My telephone service is about to get more expensive -- thanks to the FCC.

The Federal Communications Commission voted to boost the amount that cell-phone companies must pay to a fund that subsidizes phone service in rural areas, and to require Internet-based phone companies to contribute to the fund for the first time.

Under the FCC's proposal, cell-phone and other wireless providers would have to contribute as much as 3.9 percent of revenue from customers for the third quarter, while providers of Internet-based phone service would have to contribute as much as 6.8 percent of revenue.

We use Vonage for our telephone service. As an "Internet-based phone service", I expect they'll have to jack rates by a couple of percentage points in the next month or so. I'm close to getting another cell phone. Looks like that'll be getting more expensive as well.

How long has it been since rural phone service has truly needed a subsidizing? All that's happening now is that people who choose to live in the sticks get artificially cheaper telephone service -- at my expense. Hope they're enjoying it.

The Wisconsin State Journal has a decent article on the pitfalls of regulation. The article correctly points out that many regulatory investigations are simple abuses of power and that regulation targets anyone with innovative, new, or disruptive ideas.

I do have one comment, however. The article points out that the state legislature makes decisions about what to regulate.

"What often happens is that constituents contact their local legislators and talk to them about the need," Martin said. "Often the professions themselves approach the legislator, asking to be regulated."

True enough. But there is a good reason why professions ask to be regulated -- and it's not for the good of the consumer. Professions can face competition from new businesses, new practitioners, or new ways of doing something. By regulating a profession, the members of that profession can ensure oversee who enters the profession. They can ensure that no new methods of doing business are introduced without their approval. They can limit the number of new practitioners that enter the profession. In short, they can limit competition and better insure their own business success. This is not aimed at protecting the consumer, but at protecting the existing businesses or practitioners.

After all, are you really at risk from unlicensed barbers or interior designers? In Wisconsin, these privileged workers are protected from undue competition. I seriously doubt that Wisconsin consumers were ever really at risk from either profession.

The United Automobile Workers Union recently held its annual convention. While in Las Vegas, they discussed what steps were necessary to grow union membership.

Mr. Bailey [president of Local 2865] told fellow members that organizing could often take a long time, saying that it took nearly two decades to change California law to allow academic student workers to organize.

"We all know that the industrial sector is flying away to right-to-work states, where it's going to take time and big-time financial resources to win campaigns," he said, referring to states with laws that do not favor unions.

This is why the unions need to spend big money on recruitment:

The union is about to lose thousands more members in manufacturing. Ford Motor and General Motors want to reduce their hourly work forces by 60,000, and suppliers represented by the U.A.W. also are cutting jobs. Delphi, G.M.'s largest supplier, plans to close 21 of its 29 United States plants by 2008 and cut its hourly work force by thousands

So. High costs of labor is forcing many employers to lay off union workers and move to non-union states. The solution: follow them to non-union states and force them to keep paying ever higher wages. Sounds like a winner to me.

Please don't tell me that I actually have to explain why this is a bad idea:

Scott Silverman, Chairman of the Board of VeriChip Corporation, has proposed implanting the company's RFID tracking tags in immigrant and guest workers. He made the statement on national television on May 16.

Silverman was being interviewed on "Fox & Friends." Responding to the Bush administration's call to know "who is in our country and why they are here," he proposed using VeriChip RFID implants to register workers at the border, and then verify their identities in the workplace. He added, "We have talked to many people in Washington about using it...."

The VeriChip is a very small Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag about the size of a large grain of rice. It can be injected directly into the body; a special coating on the casing helps the VeriChip bond with living tissue and stay in place. A special RFID reader broadcasts a signal, and the antenna in the VeriChip draws power from the signal and sends its data. The VeriChip is a passive RFID tag; since it does not require a battery, it has a virtually unlimited life span.

RFID tags have long been used to identify animals in a variety of settings; livestock, laboratory animals and pets have been "chipped" for decades. Privacy advocates have long expressed concerns about this technology being used in human beings.

(Hat tip to Southern Appeal.)

Captain Ed joins the ranks of conservatives that sound like socialists, when discussing immigration.

We never argued for shutting out all immigration, but what we wanted was controlled and sensible immigration that would benefit us and the world.

... We still need to know how this nation will assimilate two million people every year, both economically and culturally.

... Where will they all go, and what will we do to house and educate them?

It sounds like Captain Ed wants the Senate to have a plan for housing and educating immigrants. It sounds like Captain Ed wants to control and direct the labor market, planning it for the maximum amount of good.

How is this attitude different from socialism? All the big government socialists want is a planned and directed economy. And, yet, a planned economy never works out well. Why should immigration be a special case?

Having open borders and unlimited immigration creates a free market in labor. Immigrants will continue to enter the country as long as jobs are available and will leave (or stop coming) when jobs are no longer available. As long as immigrants keep coming, home builders and construction workers will continue to provide housing for them; Nike and Reebok will continue to provide shoes for them; local barbers will continue to provide hair cuts for them; and grocery stores will continue stocking food for them.

Whether in labor or housing, the free market will send the right signals and ensure that everything keeps working -- whether or not the Senate actually knows what its doing.

Now I don't to pick on Captain Ed too much. He does have legitimate concerns, that I share.

By 2026, over ten percent of our population will have emigrated here within the past generation. What kind of impact will that have on our economy, our culture, our politics? Has the Senate even bothered to find out?

I think the effect on our economy will be positive. But the effect on our culture and politics is harder to predict. It's a question worth considering, I don't think it should be mixed in with socialist concerns about how "we" will provide for everyone that comes in.

Oh. One final thing. Ed asked where they would all go given that "that level of immigration would be the equivalent of adding eight Minnesotas to the nation within a generation without adding any more territory." Well, 97 percent of the United States is empty space, so I think we can find somewhere for them to go.

That's certainly what this retroactive tax hike sounds like. Because 2006 taxes aren't officially due until April 2007, this isn't an ex post facto law. But I bet it certainly feels like one to the people paying the taxes.

This is exactly what I don't trust government with the authority to tax. Chief Justice John Marhsall said: "The power to tax involves the power to destroy." I think Congress may have destroyed a few jobs this month.

(Part of the Intra-Madison Immigration Debate.)

(Welcome, Carnival of the Badger readers. Thanks for visiting. Feel free to look around and explore the rest of the site, while you're here.)

Update: Jenna responds to this post.

In my last post, I talked about America's ability to absorb immigrants. I believe that not only are we capable of absorbing vast numbers of immigrants, but that we need immigrants to keep our economy running. I don't mean we need immigrants to "do jobs that Americans won't do". I mean that we need immigrants to do jobs that Americans will be unable to do.

The Great Retirement is growing ever closer. In 2011 -- just five years from now -- the Baby Boomers will start retiring. Over the following 18 years, 79 million Americans will retire. Every American household owes the Baby Boomers more than $500,000 in promised retirement and medical benefits. But the problem extends far beyond promised retirement benefits. Over the next 23 years, 79 million jobs will be left empty. During that time span, businesses will need to hire a vast number of new employees.

These are not jobs that Americans can fill. There simply aren't enough young Americans entering the workforce to compensate for all of the older Americans that will be leaving the workforce. Immigration is the only conceivable means of filling those 79 million open jobs.

It's not just the future that is worrying. It's the present as well. Consider the story of Marshalltown, Iowa.

I grew up in Marshalltown, Iowa. I'll tell you, they're not running out of space in Marshalltown. From the historic courthouse at the center of town, a ten to fifteen minute drive in any direction will put you in a cornfield. Over the past decade or so, Marshalltown has seen an influx of Mexicans "” many from a single village, Villachuato "” who came to work at the Swift meatpacking plant, or in the fields in the summer. This has caused a bit of friction in a middle-class town with a largely German and Scandinavian heritage "” but just a bit. In fact, many small Midwestern towns like Marshalltown have been fighting for decades to hold on to a dwindling population. This is a real problem. Marshalltown businesses, for example, receive less than one application for each new job opening.

[Villachuatans] account for about half of the 1,900 employees at the largest employer in Marshalltown, a Swift & Co. meatpacking plant that also generates 1,200 additional jobs at related companies. Mexicans also have opened several new businesses in town, and their children have propped up sagging enrollment in Marshalltown schools. Not surprisingly, Mayor Harthun was eager to learn more about them "” in part, because he wanted them to stay. "I was being self-serving," he admits. "We need people."

Nor is Marshalltown the only place in the nation with these problems. Consider North Carolina:

In North Carolina, the immigrant population has nearly tripled since 1990, the biggest increase of any state in the nation, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan group in Washington. By far the biggest group of new immigrants in the state is illegal Mexicans.

Stephen P. Gennett, president of the Carolinas chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, which represents commercial builders, said Mexican immigrants filled an important gap in the labor market.

"We have a problem here: a people shortage," Mr. Gennett said. "In the 90's, we began to feel the stress of an inadequate work force," he said. "The Hispanics have been filling those jobs."

As I've been reading about immigration the last several weeks, I have seen this statement echoed in many articles. All around the nation are cities and towns that have a shortage of workers. Often, Mexicans are filling that shortage. If we try to hold down the number of immigrants moving across the border, we will do real economic harm to many communities across the United States. (As well as physical harm. Cracking down on illegal immigrants in the Northwest would leave many areas vulnerable to forest fires during the coming year.)

These are facts that our current immigration laws do not recognize. Indeed, the more that I think about our immigration laws, the more socialist they seem. The theory behind socialism and fascism was that the government could do a better job of planning the nation's economy than the free market could.

Our immigration laws reflect that theory. We have a complicated system of visas and quotas. Congress has established limits on the number of immigrants that can enter in each year, along with limits on how many people from each profession will be allowed to immigrate each year. In it's infinite wisdom, Congress decides how many lawyers, doctors, programmers, engineers, teachers, and "unskilled workers" will be allowed to immigrate each year. The goal is to have a well-planned immigration system that will give us highly skilled (highly taxable) workers that will not need to use our social services.

Unfortunately, Congress's infinite wisdom is usually anything but. Instead of a well-planned economy, we have a system where many businesses wage a constant battle to hire new employees and keep the employees that they already have. If their needs exceed what the government quotas allow for, the business is simply out of luck and will have to struggle along the best that they can.

The current treatment of Mexican immigrants typifies this insanity.

The United States offers 5,000 permanent visas worldwide each year for unskilled laborers. Last year, two of them went to Mexicans. In the same year, about 500,000 unskilled Mexican workers crossed the border illegally, researchers estimate, and most of them found jobs.

"We have a neighboring country with a population of 105 million that is our third-largest trading partner, and it has the same visa allocation as Botswana or Nepal," said Douglas S. Massey, a sociology professor at Princeton.

As Mexican immigration has accelerated, the United States has cut back on the permanent-resident visas available to unskilled Mexicans and shifted the system progressively away from an emphasis on labor, to favor immigrants with family ties to American citizens or legal residents, or who have highly specialized job skills.

In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement unleashed a surge of cross-border trade and travel, but at the same time the United States initiated the first in a series of measures to reinforce the border with Mexico to block the passage of illegal workers.

Businesses and workers are both sending clear signals that Mexican labor is in great demand. Rather than accomodating this demand and supplying the needs of the American economy, the government has been working in opposition to the demand. In fact, the greater the demand for foreign labor, the more the Federal government works to restrict that labor. This is centralized planning on a grand and unsustainable scale.

Earlier, Jenna asked how I would change our immigration laws. My answer is simple. I would make our laws better reflect the law of supply and demand. No limits, no quotas, and no complicated immigration categories. People would be free to move the United States (as long as they passed a criminal background check), regardless of socio-economic status, job skills, or education.

We need not worry that the supply of immigrants would outpace the supply of jobs. As the U.S. labor market became saturated, potential immigrants would hear from existing immigrants that work was becoming scarce. Once that happens, the flow of immigration will slow down. All of this will occur without government intervention or direciton. Indeed, this is how everything else in our economy from the supply of shoes to the suppy of medical equipment already works. The government is not involved in determining the "correct" levels of production for consumer goods and need not be involved in determining the "correct" amount of labor for the economy.

That leaves only the question of how to handle the 11-20 million people that have already immigrated illegally. I'm going to throw the question back to Jenna. How would you handle the illegals already here? Are you opposed to amnesty? If so, how do you define amnesty? Do you advocate mass deportations or do you have another plan?

Finally, I know I've put forward a lot of economic arguments and statistics. Feel free to postpone the amnesty question for a few days if you have followup questions or comments about the economic side of immigration.

(Part of the Intra-Madison Immigration Debate)

Update: Jenna's response to this post.

When I last wrote about immigration, I was talking about the gross disparity between the number of green cards issued and the number of people wishing to immigrate. I advocated lifting the green card limits and giving residency to anyone who wishes to immigrate -- regardless of skill levels, country of orgin, or anything else.

Can We Absorb Them?

Jenna challenged that idea, quoting Jib. Both Jenna and Jib argued that large-scale immigration is unsustainable in the long term. Jib argued that large-scale immigration would cause a crisis at the lower economic rungs of society. He reasons that the influx will create a huge demand for low-paying jobs. This demand will drive down the wages in these jobs, causing a strain on the social safety net (as more and more low-income people use Medicaid / Badger Care). Jib ends his argument by stating:

Bringing in that many legal immigrants is anything but compassionate for poor legal immigrants looking for a better life. If anything, it is going to keep them buried at the bottom of society. I'm all in favor of robust legal immigration at the skilled and unskilled ends, but let's do it at sustainable numbers, shall we?

I'd like to begin my counter-argument with the idea of "sustainable numbers". Our nation has absorbed several waves of immigration during its history. I think it would be useful to compare immigration then with immigration now.

The nation's first immigration quotas were established in 1921. Prior to that time, Congress only limited the types of people that could immigrate (the insane, criminals, anarchists, etc), not the numbers. According to the U.S. Census Bureau:

As a percentage of total population, the foreign-born population rose from 9.7 percent in 1850 and fluctuated in the 13 percent to 15 percent range from 1860 to 1920 before dropping to 11.6 percent in 1930.

Today the foreign-born population is estimated at 9.7 percent of the total population. (That estimate is from 1997. The percentage may be slightly higher today.) Although the modern immigration numbers seem high, they're actually right in line with historical standards. Right now we have fewer immigrants, as a percentage of our population, than we did during the 60 year period from 1860 to 1920.

Not only is our foreign-born population lower than in the past, our ability to absorb immigrants is dramatically greater. Our per capita resources are greater now than they were in the early 1900's:

Consider that in 1915 the typical dwelling in America housed 5.63 persons; today it houses fewer than half that number -- 2.37 persons. Combined with the fact that today's typical dwelling has about 25 percent more square footage than its counterpart had back then, our ability to absorb immigrants into residential living spaces is today more than twice what it was a century ago.

In many other ways America today can better absorb immigrants. For example, compared to 1920, per person, today we:

• have 10 times more miles of paved roads
• have more than twice as many physicians
• have three times as many teachers
• have 540 percent more police officers
• have twice as many firefighters
• produce 2.4 times more oil -- as known reserves of oil grow
• produce 2.67 times more cubic feet of lumber -- as America's supply of lumber stands grows
• have conquered most of the infectious diseases that were major killers in the past.

Our current situation is far from critical. During the late 1800's we absorbed a proportionally greater number of immigrants, while benefitting from far fewer resources. I think the evidence shows that America can not only absorb the immigrants we already have, but that we are capable of absorbing far more than we ever have before.

A Drain on the Economy?

The second half of the "sustainable numbers" argument is that immigrants are creating a pile-up on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Jib worries that a continuing inflow of immigrants will drive down wages. He linked to a column by Robert Samuelson that expanded upon this theme. Mr. Samuelson fears we will create a drag on our economy by gaining immigrants who consume social services without generating sufficient tax revenue to pay for those services. JoeFriday left a comment on my previous article claiming that:

the real incentive to come here illegally is to bypass the tax system and be absorbed into our government as a citizen.. they know that would take a chunk of the change they send back home to their families in Mexico (an amount that surpasses the national foreign aid we give Mexico).. meanwhile, they use our schools and health care benefits, while staying "off the books" intentionally

Is it true? Does immigration drive down wages? Are immigrants stealing from the American people by using social services but not paying taxes? Are immigrants creating a drag on our social services? No. I think the evidence demonstrates otherwise.

Wages

Let's look at the first claim: immigration drives down wages. At first glance, this argument seems logical: a greater supply of labor will lead to a lower cost of labor. The economic theory is sound, but the assumptions underlying the claim are bad. Claiming that immigration drives down wages is to claim that the number of jobs (the demand for labor) is fixed. But the demand for labor is not fixed. There is not a limited supply of jobs that must be carefully parcelled out. There never has been. Rather as the price of labor falls, the demand for labor generally rises (new jobs are created, using the cheaper labor), thus pushing the price of labor back up.

This has been true throughout American history, whether discussing the wages of native-born or foreign-born workers:

Would New York City (or any other city) be richer today if it had held its population to what it was in 1850? 1900? 1950? 1980? Does the inflow of people into New York lower the wages of the people already there? Does it make them poorer? Does it matter whether rich or poor people, high-skilled or low-skilled people are the ones moving into New York?

This is not just idle speculation. Recent research has indicated that once job creation is taken into effect, overall wages are unaffected by immigration and wages for high-school drop-outs are pushed down by -- at most -- 0.4%. Over the long run, immigration does not appear to pose a threat to the high wages that Americans currently enjoy.

Taxes

Are immigrants coming here illegally because they can work "off of the books" and avoid paying taxes? No, they're not. They're coming here illegally because they have no other way to come here. Last year, the U.S. offered 5,000 visas for unskilled workers. Last year, the U.S. gave two of those visas to Mexican immigrants.

Contrary to popular belief, most immigrants do pay their taxes.

It is impossible to know exactly how many illegal immigrant workers pay taxes. But according to specialists, most of them do. Since 1986, when the Immigration Reform and Control Act set penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, most such workers have been forced to buy fake ID's to get a job.

Currently available for about $150 on street corners in just about any immigrant neighborhood in California, a typical fake ID package includes a green card and a Social Security card. It provides cover for employers, who, if asked, can plausibly assert that they believe all their workers are legal. It also means that workers must be paid by the book - with payroll tax deductions.

Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes," said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration.

Because these taxes are paid with fake Social Security Numbers, it is "free money" for the IRS and the SSA. During the 1990's, the SSA's "earnings suspense file" increased by $189 billion.

Far from getting off tax-free, the vast majority of illegal immigrants do pay taxes and may, in fact, be responsible for keeping Social Security solvent.

Economic Drag?

Finally, do poor immigrants (legal or illegal) create a drag on our social services? Undoubtedly, they do. But I think it's fair to say that it's a short-term drag, not a long term one. Once in the United States, immigrants move rapidly up the socio-economic ladder. True, first generation immigrants are often poor and uneducated compared to native-born Americans. But by the third generation, they are on nearly level ground with native-born citizens both in education and in income.

Claiming that immigrants create a drag on social services is to misunderstand the type of people that choose to immigrate:

America is an amazing natural experiment -- a continent populated largely by self-selected immigrants. All these people had the get-up-and-go to pull up stakes and come here, a temperament that made them different from their friends and relatives who stayed home. Immigrants are the original venture capitalists, risking their human capital -- their lives -- on a dangerous and arduous voyage into the unknown.

Not surprisingly, given this entrepreneurial spirit, immigrants are self-employed at much higher rates than native-born people, regardless of what nation they emigrate to or from. And the rate of entrepreneurial activity in a nation is correlated with the number of immigrants it absorbs. According to a cross-national study, "The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor," conducted jointly by Babson College and the London School of Economics, the four nations with the highest per capita creation of new companies are the United States, Canada, Israel and Australia -- all nations of immigrants. New company creation per capita is a strong predictor of gross domestic product, and so the conclusion is simple: Immigrants equal national wealth.

Immigrants may create a short-term drain on social services. However, their children and grandchildren will be most likely be valued, successful members of America's middle class. Moreover, today's immigrants will be creating jobs and business that will employ tomorrow's workers.

Limiting immigration will prevent a short-term drain on social services, but will cost America many valuable entrepreneurs and future middle class workers and investors. I think the trade-off is a worthwhile one.

In conclusion, high levels of immigration cause little to no long-term economic harm for the United States. The United States is much more likely to be harmed by preventing high-levels of immigration than by allowing it. I think I've demonstrated that America is more than capable of absorbing and assimilating immigrants. Next I'll tell you why I think that the U.S. must encourage higher levels of immigration.

The U.S. Treasury department laid to rest a long-cherished friend today. The federal excise tax on long-distance phone calls was officially declared dead by Treasury Secretary John Snow. The tax was first enacted in 1898 as a temporary measure designed to "soak the rich". Along the way it has managed to soak the middle-class, the poor, the indigent, and the homeless.

This tax, sadly, outlived my grandfather. He saw long-distance service go from an expensive luxury to something that cellular companies gave away as a free benefit. Nevertheless, the federal government continued to tax everyone who used long-distance service as part of "the rich".

Keep that in mind the next time someone wants to tax "the rich". In another generation or two, we might all be "the rich".

Jenna responded to my last essay. At this point, we agree that immigration, when legal, is a good thing. We agree that immigrants should be able to immigrate just because they want to be Americans, whether or not an employer is "sponsoring" them.

Jenna and I still disagree on one small point. I was planning to overlook it, until I realized that it was the perfect segue into the next stage of the debate. Here's what Jenna had to say:

The number of people breaking a law does not necessary invalidate the purpose of the law. Millions of people speed, don't where their seat belt, smoke marijuana, engage in public drunkennesss, remove the tags from their mattresses (I'm kidding), and engage in other types of illegal behavior.

Does their pure disobedience warrant the abolishment of those laws? Not necessarily.

I agree. Pure disobedience does not necessarily warrant the abolishment of laws. However, wide spread disobedience may indicate that the law was ill-considered, may indicate that a majority of people don't actually consider the "crime" to be a crime. Does that mean we should automatically change or abolish the law? No, absolutely not. But wide spread disobedience might indicate that the law is toothless, ineffectual, ill-advised, poorly implemented, or otherwise flawed.

It's worth noting that poorly written laws (or laws that are just plain stupid) create just as much disrespect for the law as outright law breaking does. (For instance, Wisconsin's new mandatory booster seat law is causing me to lose respect for both the Wisconsin legislature and the governor. It's both poorly written and just plain stupid.)

Of course, immigration laws are a trickier subject. They are enacted by the citizens of one country in the expectation that they will be obeyed by the citizens of another country. In the case of America's immigration laws, the biggest law-breakers are Mexican citizens. The INS estimates that an average of 150,000 Mexicans have been illegally immigrating every year, over the past two decades. As I mentioned in a previous post, America only issues 10,000 green cards to Mexican immigrants each year.

Jenna says:

I believe Joe makes a good point when he says that the number of those wishing to enter our country far surpasses those we allow in. That may play a small role in why some choose to enter illegally: increasing the number allowed in may alleviate a tiny percentage of illegal immigration violations.

I think this understates the truth quite a bit. When we give out 10,000 green cards and 150,000 people enter illegally, I tend to think that those 150,000 people entered illegally because it simply wasn't possible for them to obtain a green card. If all 150,000 people waited for a green card, they people at the end of the line would have to wait 15 years for their chance to immigrate. And that's just for the people who illegally entered in one year. If everyone that has entered illegally, during the past two decades, had waited to immigrate legally, the people at the end of the line would have to wait over 1,000 years for their chance to get in.

When a person is faced with the desparate poverty of their home nation combined with a 15 year wait to legally improve their status, I can well understand the decision to risk illegal immigration. After all, their family's very survival may be on the line. Rather than alleviating a tiny percentage of the illegal immigration problem, I believe increasing the green card numbers would alleviate the vast majority of the illegal immigration problem.

I'll stop here. I think this post nicely sets up my response to Jenna's questions, but I'll have to wait until later in the day to post it.

While I have issues with the current state of our immigration laws, the Senate's attempt to fix those laws is looking uglier by the day. Thanks to an ACU alert which lead me to a Bob Novak column, I found a Heritage report detailing a few of the flaws in this immigration bill. Simply put, the Senate is attempting to mandate wages and working conditions for the new legal immigrants. As if that wasn't bad enough, the mandated wages and working conditions will be better than what American workers receive:

The Senate has devised a guest worker program that would extend bureaucratic control over some 5 percent of the labor force, via wage controls on the private sector. Rather than establish a simple cap on the number of temporary visas issued each month (which could be distributed fairly in a simple monthly auction), the Senate bill would create of a new Department of Labor bureaucracy that would be nothing less than a central planning agency for the U.S. labor market.

This new bureaucracy would include:

• "a 'Temporary Worker Task Force' with ten members (all political appointees from the federal government, none from states). More explicitly, the Secretary of Labor would determine which occupational categories in the U.S. have unmet demands for labor."

• "Dramatically Expanding Prevailing Wage Rules. Centrally controlling wages for every possible occupation is a breathtakingly ambitious project but would be mandatory for guest workers under the S. 2611."

The "prevailing wage rules" are the Davis-Bacon Acts requirements. This law requires that workers on Federal job sites receive whatever the "prevailing wage" is for their job. While it sounds like a harmless requirement, "prevailing wages" are often far higher than a worker's normal wages. This can lead to definite problems in the free market.

My dad worked quite a few jobs, in Norfolk, as an electrician. Every now and then, his employer would send him to job sites on the Norfolk Naval Base. While he worked those sites, his salary would increase dramatically. We all enjoyed the extra income, but it came with a price: reduced profits for his employer. He knew, and we knew, that his employer simply couldn't afford to pay him that wage on a regular basis. Had they been forced to pay that salary to my dad all of the time, he wouldn't have had a larger income; he would have been laid off.

I have to wonder who inserted the original provision into Section 404 of the Senate Immigration Bill. It's quite possible that it was an attempt not to make immigrants better off, but to make sure that immigrants couldn't find any work. After all, immigrant workers often work for lower wages than American workers. If employers were forced to pay immigrants far higher wages, they might never employ them at all.

Whatever the reasoning, this bill is a turkey. In its current form, I cannot support. Several of its provisions are worthwhile and desperately needed. However, I cannot tolerate its interference with free market wages.

Update: Jenna responds to this post here and here.

Jenna has already responded to my earlier post about immigration. In her response, she makes two arguments for why we should have border laws and immigration laws. The first is that American citizenship is valuable -- too valuable to simply be handed to anyone and everyone:

The first is that my citizenship of the United States of America means something to me. We truly are the greatest nation of the world, however cheesy that line is, and I am proud to be part of it. I believe that there is some valuation to that citizenship, not necessarily monetary, but on some level, it is worth something, and should not be automatically granted to all.

The second is that before becoming an American citizen one should show respect for our laws by immigrating legally:

Our laws are intrinsic to our nation and the opportunities available. For this reason, for someone to come and take advantage of our great nation, they must respect our laws and our country. To sneak across the border, to break our laws, to subvert our system as one's first act in our country shows great disrespect for the very thing which makes our nation great.

I agree with Jenna that American citizenship is a wonderful and valuable thing. I love my American citizenship and would not trade it in for any other country's citizenship. We are one of the few countries in the world that says that all authority passes from the people to the government. We are one of the few countries in the world that has a written constitution which only gives the government specific, limited powers. American citizenship requires that someone be willing to defend that Constitution and uphold those principles. In fact, our oath of citizenship requires it:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same

So, no. Our citizenship isn't free. It shouldn't be given away to anyone. Rather, it should be purchased (through the Oath of Allegiance) by anyone willing to uphold its meaning. And I do mean anyone. I think U.S. citizenship is the best thing going and I'd love to grow "our team" as rapidly as possible. As we attract more of the world's talent, creativity, ingenuity, labor, and dedication we can make this country even better than it already is.

As Jenna says, historically speaking we have grown our team by leaps and bounds.

Our nation understands that others will want to become a part of our country, and we have created legal methods for them to do so. Millions of people have taken advantage of those venues over the years, my ancestors from Germany being some of them in the late 19th century.

Prior to 1918, immigrants had to pass two qualifications only: prove their identity and find someone to vouch for them. Ninety-eight percent of the immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island were passed through. The Mexican border was unguarded and people freely crossed in both directions. It would be more accurate to say that prior to 1918, there was no such thing as illegal immigration. I doubt Jenna's ancestors had to put up with the mess that is legal immigration these days.

And it is a mess. I share Jenna's desire for immigrants to move her legally. I share a desire for orderly, law-abiding conduct. But when 11 million people are law breakers, I begin to question whether is the people or the law which is in the wrong. (It's worth noting that most of our current immigration laws were enacted during times of national crisis: The Great Depression, the post World War II era, and the Civil Rights era.) Rather than the free-wheeling, open-acceptance immigration laws of our past, we have a Byzantine system of regulations, requirements, fees, tables, and preferences.

The National Foundation for American Policy published a report today about the waiting period that would-be legal immigrants face. When it comes to obtaining green cards, the restrictions are severe. The current annual limit is 140,000 total green cards per year. Most would-be Mexican immigrants fall into the "Other Workers" category for green card applications. This category is statutorially limited to 10,000 green cards per year. Waiting times for siblings average 11-12 years and waiting times for spouses and children of green card holders averages 7 years. Just obtaining a visitor's visa can take anywhere from a month to half a year.

Even for those who do, finally, obtain green cards (after an average 5-year waiting period), citizenship is a far from easy road to travel. Russian-born attorney Ilya Shapiro has little hope of ever becoming a U.S. citizen:

The problem for high-level professional workers is that our visas don't work that way.

Under provisions that won't change, we can work for a particular employer for six years. After that, unless the employer agrees to the root canal surgery that is green card sponsorship, and can prove that no American possesses the minimal qualifications for that job, we have to leave the country.

There is no so-called "path to citizenship" "” and thus, for me, no way to fulfill my dream: to serve my adopted country.

Despite living here my entire adult life, my fancy degrees, despite having worked for a senator, a federal judge, and a presidential campaign, I can't apply for the legal and policy making jobs for which this country has trained me.

Given these laws, restrictions, and delays I'd be tempted to cross the border illegally as well.

One final point. Current immigration law is heavily biased towards only letting people into the country after they've obtained a job and their employer can demonstrate that no American worker can fill that job. In what way is that a just immigration policy? Both Jenna and I agree that the United States is a land of opportunity. I think we should allow in anyone who wants to create a better life for themselves. If they want to move in with a family member and then look for a job, we should let them. If they want to immigrate in the hopes of starting a business or creating jobs, we should let them. Once they've learned English, learned our laws, and are ready to swear allegience to the Constitution, we should grant them citizenship.

Here's my questions: Why put numerical caps on immigration, especially when those caps are set far, far below the number of people who wish to immigrate? Why is it just to punish illegal immigrants for breaking the law when those laws are written in such a way as to practically invite law-breaking? Finally (if you agree with the rest of this essay), what is more honorable: to strictly enforce our own bad laws or to admit that our laws are bad and then find a way to clean up our mess?

(Hat tips to Cafe Hayek and Poliblog.)