As the semester closes, a student came in to collect his final and we got to talking about immigration. He's concerned about illegal immigration, largely for security reasons. Keep out the illegal immigrants and you'll to keep out the terrorists. It only takes one to make a disaster, after all.
But the optimal amount of terrorism (or pollution, accidents, illiteracy) is not zero. It might seem so because we really don't like seeing bad things happen (terrorist attacks being some of the most tragic) but complete prevention is a very costly thing to do.
Reducing terrorism requires the command of a vast amount of resources. Thus increasing security reduces the amount of things we can do (workers are busy patrolling borders). This "opportunity cost" is can actually cost lives: doctors tend soldiers with heat stroke instead of citizens with heart attacks. Terrorism reduction through border control also reduces the number of people who peacefully work in the US (the vast majority of them) so our opportunity cost deepens. We not only have fewer people producing other things, we have fewer people producing at all.
The cost of terrorism reduction increases faster than it falls. Picking out the obvious amateur is pretty easy, but once all the easy guys are caught, tracking down the elusive expert is much harder. For each percentage point closer to zero we get, that single point costs more and more. Our "increasing marginal cost" puts a tremendous amount of strain on our economy without obvious benefit beyond that one more person captured.
Preventing terrorism in the U.S. is particularly expensive. The country's size makes it that much harder to find terrorists. Its decentralization means any terrorist attack will have a small impact on the functionality of the country. Its productivity means that we are giving up so much more when we wander the desert looking for illegals. The accounting costs are very high. The opportunity costs are very high. The benefits are pretty low. Zero is not the optimum.
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Jobs Americans Won't Do: Win Oscars
All acting Oscars went to foreigners this year, and foreigners also won various other awards. I'm waiting for some nonsensical rant from an anti-immigrant zealot to declare the end of the American film industry since non-Americans are doing so well.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
A Multitude of Villianies Do Swarm Upon Us
Set aside the rampant talk on the campaign circuit about universal health care. Table arguments for protection at the cost of fundamental civil liberties. It is possible there is a candidate who would bring yet more nonsense to next year's election: Lou Dobbs.
Right now trade and immigration--especially immigration--are in party platforms. Despite that these issues are pretty much the same (both move jobs to foreigners), each of the parties treats them differently. Democrats don't like free trade, Republicans don't like illegal immigration. A crude line to draw, but useful.
Lou Dobbs, on the other hand, doesn't like either. At least he has the virtue of consistency. But if he would enter the race, his popularity would surely encourage candidates to call to assuage both instead of neither. Dobbs doesn't even have to be a viable candidate, he merely needs to make enough noise on the campaign trail. And when you're as popular and opinionated as Dobbs is, such a feat is as second nature as breathing.
HT: Mike Mills
Right now trade and immigration--especially immigration--are in party platforms. Despite that these issues are pretty much the same (both move jobs to foreigners), each of the parties treats them differently. Democrats don't like free trade, Republicans don't like illegal immigration. A crude line to draw, but useful.
Lou Dobbs, on the other hand, doesn't like either. At least he has the virtue of consistency. But if he would enter the race, his popularity would surely encourage candidates to call to assuage both instead of neither. Dobbs doesn't even have to be a viable candidate, he merely needs to make enough noise on the campaign trail. And when you're as popular and opinionated as Dobbs is, such a feat is as second nature as breathing.
HT: Mike Mills
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Bordering on Efficient
Sometimes the slow pace of government work can be a good thing.
Mike Madden writes of the failing attempts to restrict border crossing. While satisfying the isolationists that something is being done about immigration, people continue to cross over into the States. A trial system of cameras, sensors, and other equipment was supposed to be ready by now, but the "virtual fence" still has glitches. Some of this certainly due to adapting the new technology but it's hard to believe none can be blamed on good ol' reliable government waste.
Mike Madden writes of the failing attempts to restrict border crossing. While satisfying the isolationists that something is being done about immigration, people continue to cross over into the States. A trial system of cameras, sensors, and other equipment was supposed to be ready by now, but the "virtual fence" still has glitches. Some of this certainly due to adapting the new technology but it's hard to believe none can be blamed on good ol' reliable government waste.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Lou Dobbs Thinks I’m Dumb
Last year the Independent Institute issued a letter on immigration. The letter argued that immigration is not all bad for the country and in fact makes us better off as a whole. I signed the letter, agreeing with its premise. It was a short and simple, and now over a year later Lou Dobbs picked up on it. Economist Alex Tabarrok from George Mason University appeared on his show recently, and can be seen here. Dobbs took the arguments given by simply responding that the signers are "idiotic," "dumb," "jackasses," and "completely out of their minds." I can’t say I agree with Powell’s extreme open border position, but I still think more immigration will make America better, even if that makes me dumb.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
In Defense of Amnesty
Lou Dobbs Tonight once again referred to the immigration bill in the Senate as "amnesty" in spite of the rest of CNN calling it something else. A lot of people are upset about Lou Dobbs. I am not.
Amnesty--or a general pardon of offenses--is exactly what we need for illegal immigrants. Yes, they broke they law but they didn't do anything wrong. They shouldn't be treated like criminals.
The word, however, has a negative connotation (which is good reason to be mad at Dobbs and is probably why it appeared on his show). But it shouldn't, at least not all the time. People get arrested for all kinds of dumb reasons. Suggesting that they didn't do anything wrong (by making them innocent people) is something we should see more of.
Amnesty--or a general pardon of offenses--is exactly what we need for illegal immigrants. Yes, they broke they law but they didn't do anything wrong. They shouldn't be treated like criminals.
The word, however, has a negative connotation (which is good reason to be mad at Dobbs and is probably why it appeared on his show). But it shouldn't, at least not all the time. People get arrested for all kinds of dumb reasons. Suggesting that they didn't do anything wrong (by making them innocent people) is something we should see more of.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Criminal Survival
Alvaro Vargas Llosa has a wonderful piece at Tech Central Station concerning the obsession with calling undocumented workers "criminals." So what if they broke laws? That does not make them immoral (no more than it made Prohibition-era alcoholics immoral). Why is it wrong for someone to enter the country so they can have a better life for themselves? Why is it immoral for one person to hire another?
Even if we assume that immigrants really do "take our jobs" (and Llosa reasonably argues they do not), why are not anti-immigration activists destroying factory robots and other high-tech machines? When Alberto replaces Paul, the job still goes to someone. But when an assembly line replaces Paul, people call it progress (as they should).
The immigration debate isn't really about the economy. It's about statism. It's about xenophobia. It's about crimminalizing survival.
Even if we assume that immigrants really do "take our jobs" (and Llosa reasonably argues they do not), why are not anti-immigration activists destroying factory robots and other high-tech machines? When Alberto replaces Paul, the job still goes to someone. But when an assembly line replaces Paul, people call it progress (as they should).
The immigration debate isn't really about the economy. It's about statism. It's about xenophobia. It's about crimminalizing survival.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
On Their Terms, Not Theirs
When some people approach illegal immigration, they demand that the people coming into this country do so on "our terms, not theirs." So were the words I heard one politician (I can't remember who) speak on my way home from work. Today Sen. Edward Kennedy, et al announced new immigration legislation. The Senate has drafted a bi-partisan bill which would make it not as difficult for illegal immigrants to become citizens. They would "pay a fine, pass a background check, and learn to speak English. Then, after a probationary period that could be as long as eight years, they would be eligible for a green card."
These are not "our" terms. These are the terms of politicians and their handful of supporters. They do not speak for everyone and certainly not for me. The items I listed in the bill are awful requirements. Living in a free society is not a privilege to be earned but a right to be recognized. Forget that immigrants improve our economy. Forget that if we made it easier to enter the country, we could avoid the underground economy. Forget that it would combat worker abuse as well. People who dwell in this country have the right to be here. Everyone has the right to escape tyranny, bloodshed and poverty. Our immigration policy should reflect the reality that most of the world is a horror to live in and everyone is damn lucky to have places to escape to. Those are my terms.
These are not "our" terms. These are the terms of politicians and their handful of supporters. They do not speak for everyone and certainly not for me. The items I listed in the bill are awful requirements. Living in a free society is not a privilege to be earned but a right to be recognized. Forget that immigrants improve our economy. Forget that if we made it easier to enter the country, we could avoid the underground economy. Forget that it would combat worker abuse as well. People who dwell in this country have the right to be here. Everyone has the right to escape tyranny, bloodshed and poverty. Our immigration policy should reflect the reality that most of the world is a horror to live in and everyone is damn lucky to have places to escape to. Those are my terms.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
The Nature of Liberty
A think tank in England--Civitas--is handing out a pamphlet expressing concern about immigration. The "seemingly reckless pace" is causing the UK to reach a point where it is no longer a single nation--whatever that means.
According to the Civitas website, they are a "classical liberal" think tank, much like this blog is classical liberal. I've never seen such a self-described organization call for more government control. Civitas complains that housing prices are increasing, makes Dobbsian arguments concerning a loss of jobs for natives and expresses concern about changing culture.
I am unsure how a classical liberal organization could be so sloppy in their economics. Immigration may cause housing prices to increase in the short run, but it also makes so many other things cheaper, including, in the long run, housing prices. A more efficient (cheaper to run) society means a richer society because we can spend more resources on other things. Technology, too, eliminates jobs "for natives" but I doubt Civitas are Luddites.
Concerning culture, Civitas writes on their blog: "All free peoples are entitled to protect their institutions by ensuring that newcomers share their ideals." Yet free people also know that true freedom means experimentation, the risks of bad ideas, and the rewards of novelty. They detest the very notion of requiring that others need their approval to be included in something as wonderful as a free society.
According to the Civitas website, they are a "classical liberal" think tank, much like this blog is classical liberal. I've never seen such a self-described organization call for more government control. Civitas complains that housing prices are increasing, makes Dobbsian arguments concerning a loss of jobs for natives and expresses concern about changing culture.
I am unsure how a classical liberal organization could be so sloppy in their economics. Immigration may cause housing prices to increase in the short run, but it also makes so many other things cheaper, including, in the long run, housing prices. A more efficient (cheaper to run) society means a richer society because we can spend more resources on other things. Technology, too, eliminates jobs "for natives" but I doubt Civitas are Luddites.
Concerning culture, Civitas writes on their blog: "All free peoples are entitled to protect their institutions by ensuring that newcomers share their ideals." Yet free people also know that true freedom means experimentation, the risks of bad ideas, and the rewards of novelty. They detest the very notion of requiring that others need their approval to be included in something as wonderful as a free society.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
An Immigration of Change
With the party make-up of Congress shuffled around like a Thanksgiving tossed salad, a whole new spin of old issues is on the horizon, notably the administration's plan to give immigration reform another chance. This seems like a good time to understand the economics of immigration as a lot of people get it wrong.
To be sure, the debate rages. On the pro-side is Berkeley professor David Card. On the con-side is Harvard professor George Borjas. Borjas claims immigration lowers low-income wages through basic supply and demand analysis. Card argues the situacion is more complex. Immigrants buy things, too, and the economy "absorbs" their impact. There's downward pressure in some places and upward pressure in others. Borjas has a hard time believing that the economy can correct that well or that quickly.
In sum, Bojas focuses on the slope of the demand curve for labor (which is negative: as supply shifts rightward, the more people you have and thus the lower the wages). Card focuses on the shifting of the demand curve (which is rightward: the more people you have, the more stuff they want in virtually all other markets). Both parties are correct and both miss part of the story. The Borjas story is great for the short term. Price changes tend to happen very quickly. But the long-term impact is better told by Card. The lowering of wages increases social totals and everyone ends up buying more things. There are losers, but there are winners and society as a whole is better off.
To be sure, the debate rages. On the pro-side is Berkeley professor David Card. On the con-side is Harvard professor George Borjas. Borjas claims immigration lowers low-income wages through basic supply and demand analysis. Card argues the situacion is more complex. Immigrants buy things, too, and the economy "absorbs" their impact. There's downward pressure in some places and upward pressure in others. Borjas has a hard time believing that the economy can correct that well or that quickly.
In sum, Bojas focuses on the slope of the demand curve for labor (which is negative: as supply shifts rightward, the more people you have and thus the lower the wages). Card focuses on the shifting of the demand curve (which is rightward: the more people you have, the more stuff they want in virtually all other markets). Both parties are correct and both miss part of the story. The Borjas story is great for the short term. Price changes tend to happen very quickly. But the long-term impact is better told by Card. The lowering of wages increases social totals and everyone ends up buying more things. There are losers, but there are winners and society as a whole is better off.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Broken Dobbs
With immigration a hot topic in the political debate, Lou Dobbs of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight continues to demonize people entering the country to work (the title comes from his show's segment on the subject, "Broken Borders").
Dobbs is wrong about the harm immigration does to our economy (see this post I wrote), just as he's wrong about the dangers of outsourcing (see parts 1, 2 and 3 of a series I wrote when his Exporting America book came out). "Lou Dobbs Democrats" are a strange bunch: anti-war but anti-trade. Trade re-enforces peace, just as you are less likely to start a fight with the grocer you go to every week.
The Nation has an excellent piece on Dobbs and how he runs his show, here.
Dobbs is wrong about the harm immigration does to our economy (see this post I wrote), just as he's wrong about the dangers of outsourcing (see parts 1, 2 and 3 of a series I wrote when his Exporting America book came out). "Lou Dobbs Democrats" are a strange bunch: anti-war but anti-trade. Trade re-enforces peace, just as you are less likely to start a fight with the grocer you go to every week.
The Nation has an excellent piece on Dobbs and how he runs his show, here.
Friday, October 20, 2006
The Most American of Us
The US was founded and built on the capacity of the individual and the dangers of centralized power. These basic sentiments run counter to the politicians' popular view of the illegal immigrant, claiming they leach off the American people and drag down the economy.
But a Washington Post article notes that the average Mexican immigrant is more like an entrepreneur, working hard, risking much and doing what it takes to get by (even leaving behind family members when they immigrate). They really do pull themselves up by their bootstraps. These tempest-tost stretch their budgets in virtually every dimension allowing them to purchase cars and homes, a testament not only to the wealth created in a free society but their determination to take full opportunity of its advantages.
When I see the average immigrant working as hard as our heroic pioneers and entrepreneurs while native-borns repeat claims of victimhood and accusations of theft, it is clear that this generation's foreign population are our next great citizens. Risking everything so they have a chance to risk everything once more, they are clearly more American than virtually every soul fortunate to be born here.
But a Washington Post article notes that the average Mexican immigrant is more like an entrepreneur, working hard, risking much and doing what it takes to get by (even leaving behind family members when they immigrate). They really do pull themselves up by their bootstraps. These tempest-tost stretch their budgets in virtually every dimension allowing them to purchase cars and homes, a testament not only to the wealth created in a free society but their determination to take full opportunity of its advantages.
When I see the average immigrant working as hard as our heroic pioneers and entrepreneurs while native-borns repeat claims of victimhood and accusations of theft, it is clear that this generation's foreign population are our next great citizens. Risking everything so they have a chance to risk everything once more, they are clearly more American than virtually every soul fortunate to be born here.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Earned Freedom?
People's memories are surprising short. On July 5th, I watch Hardball where Jim Gilmore, the RNC Chairman, spoke out against an "automatic path to citizenship." Forget that millions of Americans, including Gilmore, got an automatic path to citizenship by the simple act of being born here. He embraced an even more unreasonable argument.
The day before I engaged in my annual ritual and reread the Declaration of Independence along with its recognition of unalienable rights. The sad truth is for most of the world's people enjoying these rights means becoming an American citizen (or citizen of another freedom-loving country). To suggest this path shouldn't be automatic is inhumane, unpatriotic and antagonistic to the day the country just celebrated.
The day before I engaged in my annual ritual and reread the Declaration of Independence along with its recognition of unalienable rights. The sad truth is for most of the world's people enjoying these rights means becoming an American citizen (or citizen of another freedom-loving country). To suggest this path shouldn't be automatic is inhumane, unpatriotic and antagonistic to the day the country just celebrated.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Border Control
Welcome back! I hope weather is better by you than in Irkutsk, where we rang out May with a snowstorm, and rang in June with a rainstorm (I gather the phase change was planned by the central weather commission of the Supreme Soviet... I mean Russian Legislature. Thanks for not snowing us in again, your upper-mongolian Comrades thank you!
But if you've been tuning in, you'll know that I didn't plan on blogging the weather. Come on, I know my life is boring, but that'd be serious, even for me. As advertised, I'm going to say my two bits on immigration, and hopefully I'll piss a few people off (pissed of together with me, not at me or on me). Pissed off people make for regular reader.
First, the context about immigration. I gather that there's a little bit of talking going on stateside with regards to this right now. Some people, like Kim du Toit, seem to want to flush billions of taxpayer dollars down the toilet by building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants. I'm not one of those people, and I'm not even going to say the obvious, that it won't work. I don't care if it would work, and I'm not even going to talk about the economics of it all. I'm going to stick to my principles, and tell you where I'm coming from.
Here it comes: The US has no right, nor does any other country, to keep people out (or in, for that matter).
I've been thinking about this a lot. I was recently stranded in Mongolia on the Russian border, but couldn't cross because my passport had been stolen. After an expensive and lengthy process to fix things, it turns out that the best the US would do to help was to say that I was at least lucky I hadn't been beaten up for it, and that I'm on my own. In short, the Mongols ransomed me, not letting me leave until I paid a fine. While the fine wasn't that bad, the ambassador indicates it could have been anything they wanted, and they said they couldn't and wouldn't do anything about it, even if I were unable to pay. Charming, but in the words of a better man, you're fired.
My aim is to deligitimize the power governments have taken upon themselves in setting border and immigration restrictions. Their basis for this power is even part of the conventional poly-sci definition of a state: an organization that has a monopoly of force in a given geo-political territory. Taking out of their incompetent hands this tool is just as sensible as taking the car keys from a drunk. If you want to talk about how this could change things, just comment away, I'm always happy to chat or post again. But for now, I'm happy just planting that landmine and walking away.
Yours truly,
Tim
But if you've been tuning in, you'll know that I didn't plan on blogging the weather. Come on, I know my life is boring, but that'd be serious, even for me. As advertised, I'm going to say my two bits on immigration, and hopefully I'll piss a few people off (pissed of together with me, not at me or on me). Pissed off people make for regular reader.
First, the context about immigration. I gather that there's a little bit of talking going on stateside with regards to this right now. Some people, like Kim du Toit, seem to want to flush billions of taxpayer dollars down the toilet by building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants. I'm not one of those people, and I'm not even going to say the obvious, that it won't work. I don't care if it would work, and I'm not even going to talk about the economics of it all. I'm going to stick to my principles, and tell you where I'm coming from.
Here it comes: The US has no right, nor does any other country, to keep people out (or in, for that matter).
I've been thinking about this a lot. I was recently stranded in Mongolia on the Russian border, but couldn't cross because my passport had been stolen. After an expensive and lengthy process to fix things, it turns out that the best the US would do to help was to say that I was at least lucky I hadn't been beaten up for it, and that I'm on my own. In short, the Mongols ransomed me, not letting me leave until I paid a fine. While the fine wasn't that bad, the ambassador indicates it could have been anything they wanted, and they said they couldn't and wouldn't do anything about it, even if I were unable to pay. Charming, but in the words of a better man, you're fired.
My aim is to deligitimize the power governments have taken upon themselves in setting border and immigration restrictions. Their basis for this power is even part of the conventional poly-sci definition of a state: an organization that has a monopoly of force in a given geo-political territory. Taking out of their incompetent hands this tool is just as sensible as taking the car keys from a drunk. If you want to talk about how this could change things, just comment away, I'm always happy to chat or post again. But for now, I'm happy just planting that landmine and walking away.
Yours truly,
Tim
Sunday, May 29, 2005
The Bad Boy of Europe?
Today France became the first country to vote against the new EU constitution. Since all members need to ratify the charter to make it a reality, the results single a depressing defeat for the organization. NPR predicted the outcome this morning and speculated its importance, calling France the “undisputed bad boy of Europe.”
The vote was certainly significant, but “undisputed bad boy?” France? France hasn’t been a bad boy since the Napoleonic Wars, and all that instigator got was an ice cream and a psychological complex. (Fun fact: Napoleon was actually slightly taller than the average man of his era; his popular 5’2 was actually measured in French feet. By English feet, his height was just over 5’6.)
So what inconceivable event rocketed a people better know as chefs and surrenders to a nation of bad boys? The short answer is overwhelming statism. The new law restricts immigration barriers and better politically integrates the EU members. The far left complained about overwhelming capitalism, the far right spread fears about loosing national sovereignty, and with it, cultural identity. But it’s nothing more than hype and fear.
Like nature itself, economies and cultures are evolving bodies. They operate best in climates favoring freedom: climates of adaptation. History’s peaceful changes have always been generated by the people and by their will alone. Those who wish to deny economic or cultural evolution deny their fellow man fundamental freedoms, even if they deny it to themselves.
It’s far too easy to reject something when you don’t know what you are missing. So let me illustrate how unreliable paranoid statism can be with a historical example.
Over a hundred years ago, a nasty-looking structure rose above the skyline of a major city. The city wanted it torn down after it served its purpose, a feat belayed as engineers discovered it was ideal for radio transmissions. Otis Elevator Company (an American firm) built the machines that let people explore the building with ease, increasing its popularity. The construct I’m talking about is the Eiffel Tower, France’s best known symbol. If the naysayers had their way in 1889, there would be no Eiffel Tower or at least it would be a bitch to get to the top.
It’s easy not to see glorious possibilities and only fall for reactionary scares. It’s easy to forget centuries of history and progress just to embrace the latest call for authority. It’s easy to treat your fellow man as ingrates that need to be controlled instead of people that want to be liberated. These are the acts of cowards, not bad boys.
The vote was certainly significant, but “undisputed bad boy?” France? France hasn’t been a bad boy since the Napoleonic Wars, and all that instigator got was an ice cream and a psychological complex. (Fun fact: Napoleon was actually slightly taller than the average man of his era; his popular 5’2 was actually measured in French feet. By English feet, his height was just over 5’6.)
So what inconceivable event rocketed a people better know as chefs and surrenders to a nation of bad boys? The short answer is overwhelming statism. The new law restricts immigration barriers and better politically integrates the EU members. The far left complained about overwhelming capitalism, the far right spread fears about loosing national sovereignty, and with it, cultural identity. But it’s nothing more than hype and fear.
Like nature itself, economies and cultures are evolving bodies. They operate best in climates favoring freedom: climates of adaptation. History’s peaceful changes have always been generated by the people and by their will alone. Those who wish to deny economic or cultural evolution deny their fellow man fundamental freedoms, even if they deny it to themselves.
It’s far too easy to reject something when you don’t know what you are missing. So let me illustrate how unreliable paranoid statism can be with a historical example.
Over a hundred years ago, a nasty-looking structure rose above the skyline of a major city. The city wanted it torn down after it served its purpose, a feat belayed as engineers discovered it was ideal for radio transmissions. Otis Elevator Company (an American firm) built the machines that let people explore the building with ease, increasing its popularity. The construct I’m talking about is the Eiffel Tower, France’s best known symbol. If the naysayers had their way in 1889, there would be no Eiffel Tower or at least it would be a bitch to get to the top.
It’s easy not to see glorious possibilities and only fall for reactionary scares. It’s easy to forget centuries of history and progress just to embrace the latest call for authority. It’s easy to treat your fellow man as ingrates that need to be controlled instead of people that want to be liberated. These are the acts of cowards, not bad boys.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Just Turn the Page
Friday’s Des Moines Register published this editorial by Clarence Page where he claims that immigration is only sort of good for the American economy, but controls need to be put on it in order to protect our low-wage jobs.
I never thought I’d hear someone say wages need to be kept low, but there are surprises around every corner.
These low wage jobs are disappearing, but being replaced with higher wage jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more positions will be added to the top quartile of wage earners than all other quartiles combined over the next seven years.
This is happening because our economy is, on the whole, still free and nimble. Entrepreneurs and inventors create new ideas and constantly allow participants to do more with less. Every person adds to that capacity in ways we don’t always see or understand. Page wants our immigration to be “controlled and orderly;” hardly words that fit in with a dynamic, successful economy.
I never thought I’d hear someone say wages need to be kept low, but there are surprises around every corner.
These low wage jobs are disappearing, but being replaced with higher wage jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more positions will be added to the top quartile of wage earners than all other quartiles combined over the next seven years.
This is happening because our economy is, on the whole, still free and nimble. Entrepreneurs and inventors create new ideas and constantly allow participants to do more with less. Every person adds to that capacity in ways we don’t always see or understand. Page wants our immigration to be “controlled and orderly;” hardly words that fit in with a dynamic, successful economy.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
I Love Mexicans
In preparation for Why Lou Dobbs is Wrong Part II, I’m watching his show this week. Tonight on Lou Dobb’s Moneyline, Lou taught us about the evils of immigration from Mexico, calling it an “invasion.” The Mexican government even created an illustrated booklet explaining how to avoid border patrols and sneak into the US to work illegally.
Lou attacks the 20 million illegal workers in the US because they enjoy American government program without paying taxes. But he isn’t asking to make it easier for immigrants to become legal—he pushes for stronger border patrol, magnifying his juvenile understanding of labor in the global economy. After all the viewer e-mails praised Lou’s interpretation of economics, I resolved to write my own message to Mr. Dobbs:
Thank you Mexican government for sending your workers to us! Foreign workers save companies money, which they either spend or save, allowing banks to loan it to people who spend the savings. This spending creates jobs. Meanwhile wages are spent here or sent aboard—pumping dollars into Mexico which are either spent on American exports or invested in American companies. Our economy grows.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
The Humanity of Open Borders
Don Bordeaux posted this article about immigration at Café Hayek today. He points various very true statement: immigration is good for the US economy, people have a great deal more (on average) than people of times of immense immigration so there is little reason to believe there’s not enough to go around and there are unavoidable restrictions to immigration (like finding a place to live and transportation costs) that guarantee it won’t be a chaotic surge.
But it’s around here he stumbles. He asks you to consider California to illustrate the last point.
Okay Don but there’re some things that Mississippians lack that most immigrants do not: a tyrannical government trying to kill them or a devastating economic that’s starving them or both. Of course Mississippi isn’t emptying to fill California; moving sucks. And if you don’t have a pressing reason to leave (like you need to go or you die), then it’s not an accurate analogy.
This doesn’t speak to the logic of immigration law, but to their lack of humanity. Immigration is not only good for the economy, it’s not only something the US can “absorb,” it’s also the right thing to do. People, through no fault of their own, are born into repressive, nightmarish conditions. To turn them away because they seek to rid themselves of such poverty is exactly what libertarians are often accused of being: heartless. Classic liberalism isn’t just about freedom and progress; it’s about dignity and compassion.
But it’s around here he stumbles. He asks you to consider California to illustrate the last point.
It is completely open to people from Mississippi. California’s median household income is a whopping 54% higher than is Mississippi’s. Californians enjoy environmental and social amenities – beautiful beaches, snow-capped mountains, fabulous weather, big and exciting cities, professional sports franchises – that Mississippians lack. And yet, despite being free to move to California en masse, Mississippians don’t do so. Nor do West Virginians, or Arkansans, or Alabamians.
Okay Don but there’re some things that Mississippians lack that most immigrants do not: a tyrannical government trying to kill them or a devastating economic that’s starving them or both. Of course Mississippi isn’t emptying to fill California; moving sucks. And if you don’t have a pressing reason to leave (like you need to go or you die), then it’s not an accurate analogy.
This doesn’t speak to the logic of immigration law, but to their lack of humanity. Immigration is not only good for the economy, it’s not only something the US can “absorb,” it’s also the right thing to do. People, through no fault of their own, are born into repressive, nightmarish conditions. To turn them away because they seek to rid themselves of such poverty is exactly what libertarians are often accused of being: heartless. Classic liberalism isn’t just about freedom and progress; it’s about dignity and compassion.
Saturday, August 28, 2004
Crossing the GOP Border
With the Republican Convention looming in the distance, I think it’s time we start setting the record straight in a pathetic attempt to hold back the tidal wave of mere rhetoric that will be spilling though the television over the next week. The general public has a misconception that Republicans are all about small government—an ideology libertarians hold at the core of their being. And as much as I would love to believe that there is a vocal entity shedding the repressive and obsolete laws of the secluded past, that’s simply not true.
There are really too many big government policies the GOP enjoys to explore in detail—farm subsidies, prohibiting gay marriages, tariffs (like the steel tariffs President Bush pulled out a few years ago)—but the politics and economics around immigration continue to one of those branches of government Republicans love to inflate.
Until recently.
The Des Moines Register reported yesterday that the GOP is divided over the issue of the President’s plan to offer a work program for illegal immigrants, legalizing eight to ten million foreigners. From an economic stand point, this is fantastic. This country, after all, was built by immigrates and economic activity increases when the number of its legal participants increase (as long as it’s a free market economy). But the economic virtues of immigration are really a discussion for another article. This post is about the politics.
Some conservatives are angry about the President’s proposal, saying it rewards people for breaking the law. Delegates pledged to fight it at the convention (so I might actually watch part of it). Rep. Tom Tancredo says the proposal is un-American—whatever that means—and plans to hold a news conference on Monday denouncing it. Nevada delegate Bonnie Weber, responding to Rep. Melissa Hart’s defense of the change, swept aside any concern for unlawful entries into the US with the always thoughtful argument “Illegal is illegal.”
You’d think that the party that claims the government is too big would understand that just because it’s legal doesn’t mean its right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
