Legalize Everybody!

Former U. S. Ambassador to Mexico Jorge Castaneda and employer advocate Tamar Jacoby argue for open borders:

When the economy begins recovering, U.S. housing starts will climb, restaurants will fill up again, Americans will take the vacations they’ve been putting off and more. Revitalized businesses will once again need foreign workers for jobs that increasingly educated Americans do not want.

Meanwhile, in Mexico, for five to 10 more years at least, the working-age population will continue to grow faster than the number of decent-paying jobs, and young workers will continue to want to go where they can make a better living. It’s supply and demand — to the benefit of both countries.

The United States can recognize this reality and harness it — or pretend it doesn’t exist and live with the costs of denial. If these workers cannot enter the United States legally, they will find ways to enter illegally, no matter how much border and work-site enforcement is in place, no matter how dangerous the trip or how high the price. Hoping that people will stop coming is as illusory as thinking that those already in the United States will pack up and go home.

The bottom line is that the only way to stop illegal outflows from Mexico is to legalize them, adapting the law to reality, not the other way around.

I think this may be a hard sell.

Additionally, I’m not sure how to reconcile this with the Obama Administration’s plan for universal health insurance coverage, at least not at a cost that we could afford. Universal world coverage?

7 comments… add one
  • Daniel Link

    Though I tend to agree with most of Castañeda’s remarks on immigration, I also believe this is a hard sell. However, legalizing everybody, at least those who are in the U.S. now, would entitle them to all the benefits a regular citizen currently enjoys; would that be fair? (tough call). That would even put more pressure into the system given that there exists a surplus of direct (through fake ssn) and indirect taxes paid by illegal immigrants. This reform should come BEFORE that for Healthcare; 11 million souls are in the shadows, and who knows where their expenditures in the U.S. end up (much goes back home, cell phones, beer, tv’s, etc). Free riders exist everywhere, and those illegal immigrants that consume resources that by law are not entitled to only represent a small percentage (so do criminals). We have to remember that during the Clinton administration, immigration laws became stricter, so, many immigrants, who came to the U.S. temporarily and then went back to Mexico (back and forth) STAYED IN THE U.S. So, if these illegal immigrants are going to be here no matter what (maybe because many employers are willing to give them jobs) we ought to tax them–not by making them citizens, but at least think of the option of a temporary visa and keep track of those who are willing to contribute to society. Or we can always spend millions inefficiently more in patroling the borders or chasing down human trafficking mafias. Then, after then we can think about healthcare reform; maybe counting legitimate funds from 11 million people could make a slight difference.

  • Nonesense, Dave. All we need to do is tax the rich a wee bit more and we can provide health care to the known universe, along with a Coke and a smile.

  • Brett Link

    We have to remember that during the Clinton administration, immigration laws became stricter, so, many immigrants, who came to the U.S. temporarily and then went back to Mexico (back and forth) STAYED IN THE U.S.

    It goes back further, actually, to the 1986 Reforms – but this is a good point, and one that gets missed because it is pretty counter-intuitive at first.

    Back in 1967-1985, after the Bracero Program had collapsed but before the tightening of border enforcement in 1986 (particularly in certain corridors like San Diego-Tijuana), an estimated 28 million Mexicans came to the US. 23.5 million of them went home, leaving an estimated 4.5 million here in the US. Why was that? It was because of the loose border enforcement – illegal immigrants could easily come across to work, earn money, then go back to Mexico, and do this multiple times.

    After 1986, though, and with stronger border enforcement later on, it suddenly became much more difficult and expensive to cross the border. Instead of simply walking across, you had to hire a coyote to get you across, and they usually cost in the thousands of dollars. Because of this, illegal immigrants who came over tended to stay over, and since they were planning on only making one trip, they’d bring their families with them as well.

    So, in a sense, Castaneda is right – you need to channel the flow into legal channels. Or, you need to come down hard on employers of illegal immigrants (Obama is doing some of this), and destroy the incentives for it (this has the downside of hurting business stateside, particularly in agriculture).

    Castaneda had another point, too, one that is more expressed in his book than in this op-ed. Castaneda argues that illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico, is going to weaken as an issue in 10-20 years anyways, because of demographics changes in Mexico (steady declines in birthrates, smaller generations, etc). It’s sort of like how Italian immigration died off back in 1880-1920 – there was a crackdown on immigration, but the incentives had changed as well (since so many Italians had migrated, Italy’s workforce shrank to the point where it was better to stay there and work than immigrate).

  • Castaneda had another point, too, one that is more expressed in his book than in this op-ed. Castaneda argues that illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico, is going to weaken as an issue in 10-20 years anyways, because of demographics changes in Mexico

    This is a point that I’ve made, too. It’s one of the several reasons I’m not panicked about Mexican immigration.

    The Italian immigrants of the period you mention are an interesting case. Most people don’t recognize how large a percentage returned to Italy once the incentives had changed.

    My own opinion is that we should have both a substantially expanded work visa program with Mexico and stiffer enforcement. However, I also think that the game changes if we expand the social services we’re extending to residents as vastly as the Obama Administration plans to.

    That’s a gripe I’ve got about many whose argument for healthcare reform include European analogies. Our problems are unique. No European country shares a 1,500 mile land border with a large country whose per capita GDP is a quarter its own.

    Government-subsidized healthcare is a form of compensation. If you increase the total compensation, you’ll increase the attractiveness of immigration. Total costs of the plan rise as the number covered rises, too.

  • Matt Link

    I agree Castaneda as well. What does it really mean to be American? Does it mean sitting around resenting someone for being willing to work harder than you for a lower wage? Does it mean trying to seal off the borders of a country that has for generations been a place where people could go to find opportunity and create a better life?

    The real Americans are the people who want to be here and want to work hard.

    In the US we have started to have an apartheid state, where citizens are one class and so-called “illegals” are another. Think about it. We all occupy the same major land mass and just because of an arbitrarily drawn line some people feel incredibly self-righteous depriving people of rights.

    Anyone who sits around and resents someone who is willing to work harder than he/she is does not get my respect and is a disgrace to the values of the USA.

  • PD Shaw Link

    Are we not all Canadians? Why don’t the Canadians provide free health care for Americans and Mexicans?

  • MoonLander Link

    How about spending a fraction of what was spent on Irak on respectfully leading and organizing “the neighborhood” to achieve common goals? The cultural similarities including with Canada would make that part of the equation relatively easy. I am not proposing the U.S. to subsidize, control, govern or invade any of those two countries. I just think that if there was a way to help reducing poverty in Mexico there would be potential to build an economic union much stronger than the european one. The combined set of natural resources, territory, population, market size and benefits would be HUGE. I am sure some very loud people would not like the idea at all but that does not mean it is bad. Does it?

Leave a Comment