How to untie the immigration knot
Monday, 18 June 2007
Clive Crook
THE sponsors of the Senate's stalled immigration reform had braced themselves for a fight, but their compromise bill roused a depth and breadth of hostility that surprised even them. Protests came from both extremes, as expected, but what stopped the plan was the centre. Moderates following the debate were unimpressed at best. The country at large, tracking the issue as attentively as the Paris Hilton crisis would allow, agreed. Too many people preferred the status quo.
The political context did not help. George W. Bush backed the measure throughout and lobbied for it again in the second week of this month - but the president has no political capital. His support may be a net negative. The peremptory way in which the bill was foisted on the Senate by its self-appointed designers, who demanded instant support for a hugely complex law, also poisoned its reception. The Senate's Democratic leadership, given to calling the measure "the president's bill", had its own agenda: it does not want to hand the White House a success.
Nonetheless, the question arises, can America pass any kind of immigration reform that stops short of calling for the deportation of some 12m people - most of whom are working hard and, aside from being illegal immigrants, living within the law? The rallying cry for the bill's opponents was "no amnesty". If that sentiment is the sticking-point, it appears to rule out any resolution short of mass expulsion.
Opposition to amnesty is not a plain expression of prejudice and ignorance, as some supporters of the bill seem to think. It has two main parts. One is indeed an economic misconception that has to be defeated by evidence and argument. The other is a justified concern that ought to be acknowledged and accommodated.
The economic fallacy is to believe that the US would be better off if all illegal immigrants were sent packing. In one form, this is a variant on the ancient lump-of-labour fallacy, according to which every job taken by an illegal immigrant is one denied to an American. The country's low unemployment rate shows it to be absurd.
Not absurd, but still wrong, is the idea that immigrants are significantly reducing American wages. The evidence suggests the effect is very small, even on Americans with no skills. Immigrants are doing jobs Americans do not want. Comparisons of areas with differing proportions of immigrants suggest that their influence even on the wages of high-school drop-outs is minimal. And the effect on the inflation-adjusted wages of skilled Americans appears to be slightly positive (because unskilled immigration holds prices down). In any event, if those 12m illegal immigrants really were sent home overnight, the economic dislocation would be enormous. It is in America's interests to let most of its unlawful immigrants stay and put them on a proper legal footing.
A quite different objection to amnesty, though, has merit. Nobody is calling for open borders. Everyone agrees that immigration needs to be managed. Granting periodic amnesties to illegal immigrants makes any such regime unworkable by providing the strongest possible incentive for illegality. The message is, get in somehow and just hang on. As well as undermining the rules, this is unfair to those who wait patiently - one might say stupidly - in America's endless lines for legal entry. A system that rewards defectors and punishes those who comply cannot command respect.
It is a classic time consistency problem. An amnesty for illegality could more easily be defended as the one and only such dispensation. But this bill's proposed amnesty would not be the first. Why should it be the last? This is a valid concern and the issue should not be blithely dismissed.
The Senate's grand bargain did grapple with the problem. Its plan for illegal immigrants is not outright amnesty - violators have to pay a $5,000 fine and take their place at the back of the long line for permanent residence. In the meantime, though, they are not obliged to leave - which is what the bill's opponents most object to. The bill also promises better border security, so that the flow of new illegal immigrants will be reduced, making a future amnesty less likely. But, again, Americans have been promised a secure border many times before. This is another commitment without credibility.
It is a difficult knot to untie. A possible way forward, one that might also be politically feasible, is to try to reduce the flow of new illegal immigration before addressing the position of existing illegal immigrants. Tighten security both at the border and behind it (through verification of workers' status). Both are provided for in the bill. Also, ease the legal entry of workers, skilled and unskilled, permanent and temporary. Here, the bill needs loosening: it offers too few new visas, with too many strings. Later, once this dual downward pressure on illegal immigration is working, amnesty could be broached again, and the promise that it would be the last might be more plausible.
This approach could conceivably emerge through amendments to the bill. It would leave a big question - the status of existing illegal immigrants - unresolved. It would still face opposition. But it would address America's labour needs and some opponents of reform whose main (and perfectly reasonable) objection is that they oppose the routine forgiveness of law-breaking might come round. A softened opposition, denied for now its "no amnesty" war-cry, might be overcome.
..........................................
— FT Syndication Service
THE sponsors of the Senate's stalled immigration reform had braced themselves for a fight, but their compromise bill roused a depth and breadth of hostility that surprised even them. Protests came from both extremes, as expected, but what stopped the plan was the centre. Moderates following the debate were unimpressed at best. The country at large, tracking the issue as attentively as the Paris Hilton crisis would allow, agreed. Too many people preferred the status quo.
The political context did not help. George W. Bush backed the measure throughout and lobbied for it again in the second week of this month - but the president has no political capital. His support may be a net negative. The peremptory way in which the bill was foisted on the Senate by its self-appointed designers, who demanded instant support for a hugely complex law, also poisoned its reception. The Senate's Democratic leadership, given to calling the measure "the president's bill", had its own agenda: it does not want to hand the White House a success.
Nonetheless, the question arises, can America pass any kind of immigration reform that stops short of calling for the deportation of some 12m people - most of whom are working hard and, aside from being illegal immigrants, living within the law? The rallying cry for the bill's opponents was "no amnesty". If that sentiment is the sticking-point, it appears to rule out any resolution short of mass expulsion.
Opposition to amnesty is not a plain expression of prejudice and ignorance, as some supporters of the bill seem to think. It has two main parts. One is indeed an economic misconception that has to be defeated by evidence and argument. The other is a justified concern that ought to be acknowledged and accommodated.
The economic fallacy is to believe that the US would be better off if all illegal immigrants were sent packing. In one form, this is a variant on the ancient lump-of-labour fallacy, according to which every job taken by an illegal immigrant is one denied to an American. The country's low unemployment rate shows it to be absurd.
Not absurd, but still wrong, is the idea that immigrants are significantly reducing American wages. The evidence suggests the effect is very small, even on Americans with no skills. Immigrants are doing jobs Americans do not want. Comparisons of areas with differing proportions of immigrants suggest that their influence even on the wages of high-school drop-outs is minimal. And the effect on the inflation-adjusted wages of skilled Americans appears to be slightly positive (because unskilled immigration holds prices down). In any event, if those 12m illegal immigrants really were sent home overnight, the economic dislocation would be enormous. It is in America's interests to let most of its unlawful immigrants stay and put them on a proper legal footing.
A quite different objection to amnesty, though, has merit. Nobody is calling for open borders. Everyone agrees that immigration needs to be managed. Granting periodic amnesties to illegal immigrants makes any such regime unworkable by providing the strongest possible incentive for illegality. The message is, get in somehow and just hang on. As well as undermining the rules, this is unfair to those who wait patiently - one might say stupidly - in America's endless lines for legal entry. A system that rewards defectors and punishes those who comply cannot command respect.
It is a classic time consistency problem. An amnesty for illegality could more easily be defended as the one and only such dispensation. But this bill's proposed amnesty would not be the first. Why should it be the last? This is a valid concern and the issue should not be blithely dismissed.
The Senate's grand bargain did grapple with the problem. Its plan for illegal immigrants is not outright amnesty - violators have to pay a $5,000 fine and take their place at the back of the long line for permanent residence. In the meantime, though, they are not obliged to leave - which is what the bill's opponents most object to. The bill also promises better border security, so that the flow of new illegal immigrants will be reduced, making a future amnesty less likely. But, again, Americans have been promised a secure border many times before. This is another commitment without credibility.
It is a difficult knot to untie. A possible way forward, one that might also be politically feasible, is to try to reduce the flow of new illegal immigration before addressing the position of existing illegal immigrants. Tighten security both at the border and behind it (through verification of workers' status). Both are provided for in the bill. Also, ease the legal entry of workers, skilled and unskilled, permanent and temporary. Here, the bill needs loosening: it offers too few new visas, with too many strings. Later, once this dual downward pressure on illegal immigration is working, amnesty could be broached again, and the promise that it would be the last might be more plausible.
This approach could conceivably emerge through amendments to the bill. It would leave a big question - the status of existing illegal immigrants - unresolved. It would still face opposition. But it would address America's labour needs and some opponents of reform whose main (and perfectly reasonable) objection is that they oppose the routine forgiveness of law-breaking might come round. A softened opposition, denied for now its "no amnesty" war-cry, might be overcome.
..........................................
— FT Syndication Service