Immigration "reform"

As a nation, we scarcely have an immigration policy--certainly nothing that commands any widespread consensus. My own views on immigration have been all over the map over the decades. Congress makes noises about "comprehensive" reform, which seems to be a euphemism for legislating the border out of existence. Before the second Trump administration we routinely heard that the existing legislative structure was unsustainable, though conservatives argued that it was merely unenforced, a conclusion that seems to have been borne out by events of the last six months.

I used to be rather a fan of amnesty for anyone with a clean rap sheet and a credible work record. Later, I came to believe that there must be a third requirement, which was demonstrating that the illegal immigrant was not on the dole. I believe we cannot have both open borders and a welfare state. I concluded some time back that the welfare state can't be eliminated, at least for citizens, which left only sealing the border to all but immigrants we reasonably concluded were not here for the purpose of launching a criminal career and/or a lifetime habit of going on the dole.

In the background, there always were the arguments about the impact of cheap illegal immigrant labor on the wage scale for working citizens, especially on the low end of the scale. These arguments echoed the endless debate over the minimum wage. I've never favored a minimum wage, believing it only converts low-paying jobs into outright unemployment. As a result, I was never swayed much by complaints, coming from the progressive side of the debate in the past, that the real problem with open borders (legal or otherwise) was the downward pressure on wages, and my views didn't change when, to my surprise, the same argument was embraced by the newly populist GOP.

My views changed when it became obvious that the solution proposed for the downward pressure on wages was to blow the doors off the welfare state. Imagine my amazement when Congress began to inch toward legislation withholding welfare from illegal immigrants and beginning to deport them in serious numbers.

I read an article today accusing the GOP of misrepresenting its rationale for deporting illegal immigrants. The thinking goes: we can't deport immigrants because we can't get citizens to do their jobs at the prices employers want to pay. But hasn't that always been the argument for the minimum wage? Who says employers are entitled to a supply of laborers who are willing to work for an infinitely low wage? If the business can't be sustained without workers willing to work at that low wage, the business will not stay in business. Whatever Americans wanted offered at that price won't be available. That's always been true; it's why we can't afford house-servants of the sort that rich people used to think were necessary to a civilized life. Nor are we likely to solve the problem by making up the difference by paying lots more taxes so that impoverished workers can afford to work for us and still have a lot of basic but expensive needs met by welfare. We can't legislate a free lunch into existence; anything "free" is paid for somewhere, by someone. Not even confiscating all the wealth of Bill Gates or Elon Musk will change that more than temporarily.

What I'm left with is this: we'll find out what jobs free Americans will do at the price employers can afford to pay. If those jobs can't be done, we'll figure out how to adjust to new prices for goods and services that used to be available to us at the old price, which depended on a combination of crippling levels of taxes to support a welfare state and unfair employer leverage over a workforce required to live in the shadows. We'll alter our priorities about the goods and services we are and are not willing to forgo. Maybe we can't have as many avocados or houses as large as have become customary in recent decades. But also maybe a lot of teenagers and adults new to the workforce will be able to find work for a change. People don't tend to stay in entry-level jobs at entry-level wages forever, but they sure can stay in the unemployed welfare underclass forever.

6 comments:

Christopher B said...

We've likely have the worst of both worlds.

DataRepublican(small r) via Instapundit put together some figures showing immigrants (both legal and illegal) are more likely to use a variety of different welfare programs than citizens, as well as the downward pressure they put on wages.

E Hines said...

My own view on immigration has been fairly constant over the years. Maybe I'm just stubborn.

I believe we cannot have both open borders and a welfare state.

We cannot have open borders. Full stop.

I used to be rather a fan of amnesty for anyone with a clean rap sheet and a credible work record.

The problem there is that the adults who came across our border illegally only have a clean rap sheet because they've not been caught yet, no matter any credible work record. By breaking our laws at the outset, and maintaining that illegal status since, they've held themselves outside our social compact, and they're eligible for deportation as soon as they're caught.

They already have amnesty, though, and money in their pockets. If they self-identify and leave voluntarily, they get $1,000 on arrival back home, and they're free to come into our nation again, providing they do so legally that second time. No do-overs after that, though, and if they're caught before the turn themselves in for departure, they forfeit that rather generous amnesty.

On the other hand, I strongly favor a Big Beautiful Wall all along our borders, with the wall pierced every mile with a border crossing facility for legal entry.

That legal entry should be devoid of quotas of any sort, and the entry visa applicants must be properly vetted before granting the visa. Proper vetting:

-the home nation freely passes along to SecState all the information requested about the applicant
-the applicant produces documentation proving the existence of a paying job or acceptance at a college or university
--those who graduate in the program's established number of years plus one (or two), I'd offer a 5-year visa allowing them to stay and find work (but remaining ineligible for unemployment insurance). If they don't graduate on time or don't get a job in those 5 years, they're sent home)
-those not meeting either of those criteria must show proof--or their Stateside family must show proof--that they have the full support of their Stateside family and will not ask for any welfare of any sort.

I'd also revive something closely akin to the earlier bracero program where vetted persons could come across the border to work the ranches and farms, and then go back home at the end of the season.

Regarding minimum wage requirements: government mandating minimum wage by statute is not different from government mandating minimum wage by manipulating the labor supply. Both, in my not very humble view, are wrong.

Eric Hines

Anonymous said...

When labor for harvesting tomatoes became scarce at one point, mechanical tomato harvesters suddenly became economical. (We will not discuss what became of the soft, flavorful tomatoes.) When workers were deported from a meat-packer in 2017 (IIRC), locals lined up to apply for jobs because the wages and benefits went up.

The US government needs to look at what worked with the 1965 immigration changes, remove what has been a dismal failure, and make the borders less porous. Fixing the E-Verify system is included in that, as is, perhaps limiting the resources adult, legal immigrants can draw from for the first X years of their residence, with full benefits only after citizenship, and if they are employed legally. Minors need to be the genetic or legally adopted (with documents) offspring of legal immigrants. I suspect that those two provisions would cut down on the desirability of the US for those who are benefits-shopping, so to speak.

Beyond that y'all know a lot more on the topic than I do.

LittleRed1

J Melcher said...

Augmented Intelligence is going to make many formerly unemployable humans employable. In the recent past only humans with very good memories and spatial awareness could get certified as taxicab drivers. Learn the maps, recognize the landmarks, and get customers to destinations efficiently, NOW, with a GPS enabled phone attached to an air vent, any car is a taxi and any licensed driver is providing the service. What happens when any x-ray TECH is boosted with image/pattern recognition software to do the work of an MD radiologist? When beauty shop operators are prescribing and dispensing (the correct dosage of! ) "cosmetic" pharmaceuticals? When Lyft and Uber like operations are operating taxi-drones in the sky?

I suspect there's going to be downward pressure on wages to upper level skilled workers but a lot of now "minimally" skilled workers discover the power to cheaply deliver valuable services in ways we have only begun to imagine,

Thomas Doubting said...

I pretty much agree with everyone above, but I'd like to add a friend's perspective that's relevant, although I wouldn't change any of the suggestions above to remedy it.

He is a highly skilled tradesman who sells his stuff to construction companies who build or remodel for well-to-do corporations. He has his own shop and employs a small team of less-skilled workers who take the material and do the first stages of work on it, then pass it to him for the work he does best. This is what he told me about it.

He starts with unskilled workers and trains them to a basic level. Then it becomes a kind of apprenticeship where they improve on the job. He pays them the industry standard for their work.

He was completely opposed to illegal immigration and followed the law. He hired Americans, typically high school graduates or those who'd only been out of high school a few years. He would train them on the basics, make sure they could do the work, and leave them with the material and tools so he could get to his work. He'd come back when he was ready for more and find they hadn't done half the work he'd expected. In fact, they were regularly just sitting around the shop on their cell phones. He'd give several chances, but either they'd quit or he'd fire them, and he'd start over. He went through this cycle several times.

Once he got a really good contract. He explained to his American workers the importance of the job and what they needed to do and they went to work. But, again, they worked about half the pace he expected and he repeatedly caught them hanging around during work hours talking to girlfriends on the phone and so forth. There was no way they'd make the deadline. So he fired them.

Reputation matters in his industry and so he was desperate not to fail on this contract. He went to where he knew he could hire Mexicans (etc.), hired a team without checking anything, trained them, paid them the same as Americans, and then tried this with them. They did good work and actually worked the whole day, took a short lunch, worked late, showed up early the next day, and kept doing this day after day until the contract was fulfilled. He's never hired Americans since.

He may be a one-off. Maybe he's bad at hiring or just got unlucky. However, it fits with what I hear from teachers and professors about teens and early-20-somethings.

The lack of work ethic in American youth is something professors have been grumbling about for a couple of decades now. The ones I know have been making their classes ever easier. (It apparently looks bad to give half a class an F. Everyone - including administration - starts blaming the teacher.) It's so bad that, from the stories I hear, I wonder whether many of these college students can read anything harder than an article of a few paragraphs written at the 8th grade level.

This isn't everyone in these generations, of course. There are some hard workers and bright minds who want to learn. But there seem to be quite a few who are allergic to doing anything difficult or boring and that it is it's own kind of worker shortage.

Once we solve the illegal worker problem, we'll need to address rebuilding the American work ethic in schools, etc. Paradoxically, that will become harder after we empower parents. In the public schools, parents are often the ones angrily complaining to teachers about how much homework is expected or how hard the material is.

To be clear, I don't support amnesty, nor do I oppose immigration Trump's enforcement, and I certainly think parents should be empowered in the education system. I just think there are problems that are going to become much more apparent once we solve the illegal worker problem and maybe we should think about solutions now.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I will add that the seeming contradiction between encouraging low-wage immigrants and minimum-wage legislation is that they are both founded on the idea that there are plenty of rich people out there who got that way by cheating others. If we just make those bastards pay, we can have it all.

They don't believe that wealth has been created and must be created to increase. Some better-informed liberals give lip service to wealth creation and support it at the margins, but in the main, they believe the money is already there and only needs to be divided up "fairly."