A sensible proposal for American immigration

Living Is Easy With Eyes Closed
M. Harrison

It is believed by many that America's thorny immigration issue is one simply not disposed to compromise. The pundits and activists on either side do little to quash this perception. National-security advocates such as Pat Buchanan argue that any amnesty for employed illegals will invariably harm the Nation's security interests. Their opponents, the liberals who value the cultural diversity that immigration provides, allege that any of the border security measures are invariably racist and/or inhumane. Despite the lack of apparent common ground, however, common-sense and economics can produce some very appealing proposals for the benefit of America and the world exporting its citizens to us.

Security first: Secure the border and deport the criminals

Enhanced border security is unequivocally necessary for the well-being of the United States. It can take the form of augmented manpower, enhanced law-enforcement capabilities, the construction of physical barriers, or other methods. Whatever method we choose, of course, should be analyzed by costs and benefits. But all of them have merit, and should be employed as much as they are economically and politically feasible.

An enforcement of existing immigration laws in no way impedes the right to legal, documented immigration. Remember, the law-abiding immigrant goes through U.S. Customs, he's not wading the Rio Grande and hopping into unmarked trucks.

Some argue against border security because terrorists haven't yet substantially availed themselves of our 2000-mile unguarded Mexican doorstep. If they haven't yet attacked it, they argue, why should we expel so much energy for its defense? Such arguments are foolish. The unguarded border is clearly, to any rational observer, ripe for exploitation by terrorists. Should we wait until terrorists attack us before we protect against the methods by which they obviously could easily attack us?

Second, reform the system to easily allow economically-intelligent entry.

The current system (the Bureaucracy Formerly Known As the INS) does a woefully inadequate job of admitting a supply of immigrants to meet the demand for labor. We know this because 7 million illegal immigrants are currently employed in America. Every job - whether construction, farming, or manufacturing - filled by a poor, unskilled illegal is a job that could be filled by an equally-poor, equally-unskilled legal immigrant.

Most of the current hordes storming the American border, by most estimations, are willing workers and aspiring legal citizens. It is an ineffective immigration system that prevents productive labor, rather than criminal intent, that induces most of them to enter illegally.

With this in mind, an offer of employment by a legal American company should become the prerequisite for immigrant entry into the United States. And once it is gained, entrance should be duly expedited and eased. Such a policy would create jobs, facilitate competition and mobility among the labor force, and reduce welfare dependency (because entrants are already working).

Clearly, exceptions to this rule would have to be intelligently made for immigrant children, elderly, and others. But a similar policy effort, in contrast to the hysterical proposals from grandstanding demagogues in the House of Representatives, would help equalize labor supply and demand, and thus help fuel the American economy.

The immigration debate should not make the mistake of focusing solely on low-skilled immigrants, however. America's technological competitive advantage, in many ways, now depends on our importation of the best foreign minds. Yet many of them, as a result of excessive security measures, are being denied entry with similar bureaucratic incompetence.

We should accelerate the entry of immigrants whose contributions benefit the American economy. Coupled with increased border security, this policy can preserve all of the empirical benefits of immigration while also protecting against its risks.

Finally, let America's communities address the social impact

There remains still the complicated social issue of whether protracted immigration, despite its economic attractiveness, is to the long-term cultural benefit of American society. This issue should ultimately be addressed, not by national policy, but by America's states, counties, cities and communities.

In some cases, localities resist immigration. Affluent communities, for example, understandably resist the development of poorer, immigrant communities near to their communities, which tend to devalue property and increase crime. Others oppose it because their positions are profoundly influenced by the commentary of Pat Buchanan.

But in other cases, communities desire more immigration. They do so to spark economic growth, enhance cultural diversity, or for many other worthy motives. The "diversity is always good" school of thought has gained considerable influence across America.

But the point is that the needs and preferences of these communities is far from uniform, and thus federal legislation on the subject is misguided.

How should we allow communities to reflect different attitudes toward immigration, without harming the economy or security concerns?

The answer lies in a Pigouvian tax, which taxes individuals directly for the harm that their individual actions cause for society. An example of a Pigouvian Tax in practice is emission taxes on gasoline. They also can be applied, as PI proposed, to tax all environmentally-damaging action directly.

In the case of immigration, states or localities who wish to curb immigration could levy a Pigouvian tax on those who employ, house, or otherwise harbor immigrants. They would not be prevented from doing so, they would just simply be charged for the perceived harm that their community believes excess immigration causes. The tax will, in effect, make it more expensive and thus less appealing for businesses to employ immigrants. As employment should be required for immigration, the tax deters immigration to that specific community.

Likewise, those communities who desire more immigration, for purposes of economic growth, cultural diversity or other legitimate reasons, can create Pigouvian tax incentives that likewise encourage the employment (and thus entry) of immigrants.

With the other two proposals, America's immigration policy still could encourage legal, productive immigration, but in a way that is also sensitive to the needs of individual communities.

The question of the social value of immigration is rightly contentious, and most certainly should be resolved among the states with concern for economic impact, and certainly not superseded by an homogenizing diktat levied by the federal government.

But it is undeniable that America's history has demonstrated the positive impact that immigrants can have on American society. It is for this reason that it should never be completely banned or restricted nationally.

Just as the value of immigration varies in its local impact, so should its legislation.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed