Immigration economics, an injection of truth

As we prepare for carefully planned outrage this coming Monday, it is important for conservatives to remember first principles. First and foremost, the overriding understanding must be that immigration is good.

We’ve heard some people, most predictably from the left but too often from the right, making arguments that limiting immigration will provide economic benefits to the United States. These arguments usually take the form that, if we were to more effectively limit integration, the pool of labor for low-end jobs would be tighter and therefore wages would rise for natives.

This is crap. It is precisely the same argument that says buying less-expensive goods from China hurts our economy.

While I understand that there is an intuitive appeal here, I believe it has been widely shown that China’s emergence in the American economy has been a net benefit for many reasons.

Not least, Americans are paying less for high-quality goods, which increases prosperity (aka buying power). Secondly, the widely predicted loss of Americans jobs has not materialized. Our jobless rate has been steadily decreasing over the last 30 years, our wealth has doubled during that time, all coincident with China’s success. Not to mention, hundreds of millions of Chinese have been brought out of poverty and into a consumer class.

(You can apply this same understanding to Japanese automakers, Indian computer programmers and Turkish looms.)

The same dynamic is in place when consenting people and employers agree to an exchange of money for work. The employer benefits via a profit on that labor, and the worker benefits because they earn more than would have otherwise. In Mexico’s case, it is as much as five times what they would earn at home.

So, conservatives, please understand that the basic dynamic here is not unjust. Do not give in to protectionist temptations.

------

It is my belief that the immigration problem can only be dealt with via economic means, long term. Which is to say, the balance of power between the US and Mexico must be equalized.

Mexicans come here for economic opportunity. Their motivations are just, reasonable, and quintessentially American. We should not be fighting this dynamic or impugning their motives.

They are fleeing economic failure in Mexico. If we believe the current state of immigration to be a problem, our best solution is to help Mexico improve its economy.

Mexico is struggling largely because other places in the world have been successful in becoming centers of low-cost manufacturing. Due to corruption and lack of infrastructure, Mexico has become less competitive on the world stage.

The Economist proposes the following:

Lack of roads and railways mean that the benefits of NAFTA have been largely confined to northern Mexico, rather than the poorer centre and south where most migrants come from. A North American infrastructure fund—in which the United States matched Mexican investment—makes much more sense than spending money on a border wall. In the long run, a richer Mexico means a richer and more secure United States.

This is a step toward the right solution. So long as economic inequity exists, the demand in the US will be strong and the supply from the South will be plentiful. (The “war on drugs” will never end, due the same fundamental forces.)

If Mexico can stand on its own two feet, both Mexicans and Americans will be better off. This should be the long-term focus of our immigration policy.

------

Returning to the shorter-term economic arguments: let us remember that immigrants are providing inexpensive labor to American companies on American soil. They are an influx of young labor in an aging society (think Social Security). Lest we wish the European experience on ourselves, we should allow this to continue.

For those who think the focus should be the removal of hard-working immigrants, be careful what you wish for. Conservatives, be on the right side of this argument.

This is not a defense of illegality. We need to decide on just laws and enforce them. It is a reminder, however, that we must keep the correct goals in mind. We should not make punishment a higher priority than a prosperous outcome.

------

Now, I understand that these pie-in-the-sky pronouncements do not address the most visceral parts of the debate. The most legitimate complaint that I have seen to date is that there is a large civic cost to illegal immigration, and I am not in a position to disagree. Towns (and states) that are experiencing an abuse of civic resources such as welfare and schools should have the power and facility to remove such bad actors.

It is also my feeling that these bad players, while costly, represent a small minority of the problem. This is true of crime in general: a small percentage of criminal element can exact a high cost on honest citizens. As in our own society, let us be unremitting in removing such destructive influences. For illegal immigrants, one strike should equal three.

Within this criminal category, I include the destructive identity politics of racial separatist movements. They are truly frightening, and are largely the motivators of the protests that you will see on Monday. You won’t read about them in the MSM.

------

A few modest proposals. The US and Canada must exert their influence in forcing Mexico to reform their economy so that it can improve itself. I do not know enough about the particulars to say what the focus should be: taxes? corruption? labor? I suspect all of the above, your input is most welcome. Any Mexican political bloggers out there?

Regarding the “infrastructure fund”. This is an attractive idea but it is a non-starter here politically. We’ve already got enough nation-building going on in the world. Also, I would not trust that American taxpayers’ money wouldn’t be going straight down the toilet if we grant it to another government.

Rather, I would love to see one of the large, results-focused foundations take a crack at this. Working with Mexican government, “opportunity zones” are created where tax and labor laws are liberalized. (This would be easier politically than any sort of national solution.) In these zones, the foundation invests in the basic infrastructure such as health clinics, schools and perhaps even land development.

I am more likely to trust foundations like Gates because it is private money, and the current trend is to attach honest metrics to their successes.

------

Others smarter than I:

Tom Friedman advocates a High Fence, Big Gate approach (subscription req’d). Krauthammer says, First a Wall -- Then Amnesty.

Comments

[The Gentle Cricket]

Good analysis, particularly in light of recent numbers showing huge growth in hispanic owned businesses (too lazy to find a link). The argument of helping Mexico has gotten lost in the debate, but it is a great concept (very similar to democracy in the middle-east).

I support the building of a fence in order to keep out those who come here for exploitative purposes. However, I think that the current number of 800,000-1,000,000 allowed in legally is too low. Increase the number we let in, but do what we must to protect ourselves.

[TwoHands88Keys]

So... it's expected that the Liberal media is going to ignore a vocal minority today because it suits them?