Ceteris paribus

I see that Arnold Kling is sounding themes related to those I touched on in my last post and in my post from yesterday on the pro-illegal alien demonstrations in his Tech Central Station article.

Arnold comes to a rather different conclusion from mine and I suspect that’s at least in part because of his professional training. He doesn’t have a systems viewpoint. Economists are predisposed to consider one factor in exclusion from others i.e. ceteris paribus, “other things being equal”. Unfortunately for social scientists everywhere the ceteres are never paribus.

That’s why I was so insistent yesterday on restricting the discussion of immigration to what’s really relevant. In the question of immigration there are actually a number of distinct questions:

  • what should our policy be?
  • what means are best suited to effecting the policy?
  • are the current enforcement mechanisms working?

Assimilation, the desire of immigrants for a better way of life, that the United States is a nation of immigrants, the value of immigrants (legal and illegal) to our economy and society, and the problems in other countries are all issues relevant only to the first question.

It’s obvious that the current enforcement mechanisms aren’t working; we don’t need to belabor the issue. So, unless you in fact believe we need to retain completely open borders, you must accept the measures required to effect the policy whatever it may be.

Arnold isn’t considering the issue broadly enough. The issue is contraband which, admittedly, covers a very broad category—everything from illegal migrants to narcotics to bogus pharmaceuticals to biological weapons. We can’t control other forms of contraband without controlling illegal migrants and, at least to me, it’s clear that things have changed.  We need to get some kind of control over what’s coming into the country.  And to do that we need to control migration.

3 comments… add one
  • LaurenceB Link

    what should our policy be?

    1. Stop future illegal immigration by increasing visa quotas to Latin American countries.
    2. Provide a path to legality for desirable illegal immigrants already in the country.

    are the current enforcement mechanisms working?

    Of course not. For anyone paying attention, the idea that a bigger wall and more border agents will stop illegal immigration has been conclusively disproved over the last ten or fifteen years.

  • Unlike many I’m unconcerned about an eternal flood of Mexican migrants (check Mexico’s demographics). Mexico is no longer a poor country: it’s a middle class country and will probably be importing workers from Central America to solve its own labor problems. The real concerns I have about Mexico actually aren’t terribly different about my concerns about this country: corruption and income distribution.

    I think that whatever we can do to encourage political and economic reform in Mexico should be a keystone of our immigration policy.

  • LaurenceB Link

    Amen Dave.

    Please add “encourage political and economic reform in Mexico” to my list as #3. 🙂

Leave a Comment