In a column ostensibly about the political hazards of unilateral action by the president, Ruth Marcus does a pretty fair job of marshalling all of the fallacious argument in support of presidential action into a handy, compact form. For example, this:
In addition, there is a bipartisan history of presidents taking significant, unilateral action to address humanitarian problems in the absence of congressional solutions.
This combines several fallacies. First, there’s the “two wrongs make a right” fallacy. Because a past president (of a different party) took a particular action, a subsequent president may do so, too.
But then there’s the sort of persistence theory quality to it. A major difference between, say, the amnesty program of the Reagan administration and any new amnesty program is that nowadays we have 35 years more experience with amnesty programs and can reasonably come to two conclusions about them:
- The moral hazard argument about them is correct. They do, in fact, encourage more illegal immigration.
- The slippery slope argument on presidential power, too, is correct. Ruth Marcus is instantiating it.
I’m in favor of immigration reform but not this sort of immigration form. A good start would be changing the priorities of immigration policy away from family reunification and towards what’s good for the 310 million rather than for the 20 million.
Do you believe the real objective is family reunification? I have always assumed it was primarily about registration of voters, with the implicit assumption that Mexican immigrants would vote Democrat. It’s a bold move to irritate your union base, but seems a calculation based upon an inexorable shift toward public sector unions and away from private sector.
It’s a vexing problem. I know it irritates some to observe that many jobs filled by immigrants are those US citizens won’t. But it’s true. And we of course have never tested consumer reaction to higher prices that are implicit in immigration restriction. However it does not seem an outlandish request that immigrants go through the legalization process.
Guarneri, I’m not sure that it’s disputed that immigrants are filling many jobs U.S. citizens won’t, but I don’t hear much discussion of why that is and how policy would impact that.
Illegal Immigrants are filling jobs with lower labor costs (salary, benefits, legal protections) than domestic labor. I don’t see why this should be encouraged, or how legalizing the labor would change anything. (Either the worker is going to continue as before, with additional government services available, or the worker is going to leave this work sector for normal work)
It may not be an answer that labor costs can simply rise because the labor value is not worth it. If American farmers cannot sell tomatoes at a price high enough to pay legal wages, I don’t know why we should care. If the social value of domestic tomato production is high enough, society should subsidize tomato farming directly.
I think there are two legitimate areas of concern, which center on temporary labor needs, either a business immediately needs an advanced skill set that takes several years of schooling, or a business needs workers in the event of a natural disaster and the local labor supply is inadequate because of it. That only requires reforming our work permit program.
I’m not particularly impressed by that since I know at first hand that low wage workers and capital investment are substitutables. Whole industries build business models based on the perception of an unlimited supply of minimum wage or sub-minimum wage workers. They’d make other choices if that weren’t the case.
To my mind policy depends on what sort of country we want to have: a country with a large middle class or one with a large peon class and a smaller padron class. I’d like a large midle class.
I was referring to a taking to task I received from a frequent commenter when I observed that only Haitians would pick and pack produce while USA citizens would not. Said commenter erroneously presumed I attributed this to laziness.
It is hard to imagine that our income support programs are not at a level that make it a rational decision for many to collect transfer payments rather than work in agriculture.
As for legal immigration, that’s not an economic argument but a moral one. Don’t run serial amnesties that encourage people to cheat and break the law.
With respect to consumer prices, I don’t think “who cares” really does it. Comparative advantage is a reality. And now the fun begins. Who should we care about and where do we draw lines? Consumers vs laborers. If we shouldn’t buy Chinese goods, should Hoosiers only buy Indiana corn products, and IL be damned? Michelle Obama might be upset with you if you began eating Big Macs because fresh produce became more expensive. Should Texans only eat Tx steaks and tell Iowa to pound sand? And how about state funded universities. Should a materials science major from Purdue University sign a 10 year non-compete saying they won’t move to New Mexico so they won’t work at Los Alamos…………….and so it goes. And exactly how is all that sorted out? I don’t know except to let markets sort it all out while enforcing legal immigration, which brings us full circle.
Knew I could count on Drew to make the stupid arguments in favor of open borders & low wages for everybody but him.
@Dave, I skipped over the issue of capital substitution when I decided to drop seasonal labor needs from my list of legitimate areas of concern. The tomato farmer can buy equipment or use greenhouses, if the business is worth it.
@ Guarneri, by “who cares,” I was embracing the notion of comparative advantage. It may be more efficient for Mexicans to pick tomatoes in Mexico than expect that the U.S. to have its own illegal work force to do it in this country. It may be more moral.
Ice
I was pointing out that it’s a more complicated issue than people think. Where would you draw the line of an “open border?” And how would you balance the interests of labor vs consumer?
Here’s a reasoned article from the Atlantic clarifying huge differences between the Reagan-Bush EO’s to what Obama is proposing to do: Reagan and Bush Offer No Precedent for Obama’s Amnesty Order.
Like what so often happens in politico-speak, there is a blurring of details, when making sweeping but false comparisons of one event to another, in order to rationalize an impending action. In the case of Reagan and Bush’s EOs, they were legislative by-products, enacting small “clean-up” changes/repairs to what was considered flawed parts of the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Bill, already passed by Congress in 1986.
Their EO’s were derived from furthering of “congressional purpose,” not from going it alone without the engagement of Congress, which is what Obama is attempting to do because he is “impatient and tired of waiting for Congress to act.” It’s a petulant and divisive presidential action that will, IMO, hurt not help immigrants to assimilate well in this society, heightening ill will not only in Congress but also among ethic groups. It appears the primary benefit will be a show of contempt by Obama in muscling this EO through — something that will please his liberal base and La Raza groups. That’s hardly a good “leadership” move.
Trade between TX and IL is conducted using the same currency through the same financial system, and this financial system is subject to the same federal laws enforced by a single government. This trade is also subject to a set of federal regulations enforced by a single government.
I could be mistaken, but I believe that trade between the US is not conducted using a single currency, and it is not subject to a single set of laws enforced by a single government.
Of course, I could be wrong. I am sure there is somebody who could correct me.
Drew, your point was ridiculous. Where to draw the line (US citizens on US soil) was apparent and mentioned above. Consumer versus labor is to be determined by the market within the constraints set by society at large (including such pesky things as borders & citizenship). Lots of the cheapness of goods isn’t getting to the consumers so much as it is going into the pockets of the owners & managers of the businesses. (See productivity gains versus wage growth in the US in recent decades for a similar trend.)
But please tell me again how all the cheap crap from Wal-Mart offsets a lack of social mobility and a class structure that looks increasingly Third World. ‘Cause that’s my FAVORITIST bedtime story!
TB, don’t you know that every currency’s electrons look the same?
I’ll take that as you don’t want to address the issue.
@Icepick
The debate is conducted by conflating several issues. You mention productivity, but what that actually means is the productivity of the investment. This is vastly different than the output of the person who is actually doing the job.
It is as if they were comparing numbers from different base systems. You have to pull apart the pieces, and you cannot let them put the back together.
Notice the jump from illegal workers to interstate trade then to international trade, and you should also note that these are specific. Free trade between Greece and Germany is never mentioned.
They will also try to compare apples to apple juice, applesauce, and apple salad. The place to begin is always a definition of terms.
Drew, I don’t see where you’ve made any substative comments that weren’t addressed by PD or Dave or TB above. (TB gets the nod for pointing out that comparing trade within the US with trade between the US and other nations is not exactly an on the level argument.)
One other thing: you mention balancing the interests of labor vs consumer. The current set of immigration and trade policies (both de jure and de facto) don’t balance the interests of labor vs consumer so much as they stack the deck in favor of capital and management.
Bluntly, when the cost of everything BUT labor is going up, I question the motives of those that tell me importing more labor is both the solution to what ails us AND a moral imperative.
Ice
Setting our trade borders/preferences at the county, state or national borders are value and practical economic judgments. In addition to the borders I cited, one would probably view the international borders of Canada vs Iran differently. Where to set those borders is actually the crux of the debate, otherwise they are geographically arbitrary. You seem like you just want to,jump up and down and shriek.
For the record, your knee jerk assertions aside, I personally think the case for national borders is strongest, if only for administrative reasons. But it is not as simplistic as you make it seem. Are we better off that Toyota and Honda, and later Hyundai, came in and put a check and balance on the Big 3? I’d say so. I bet most consumers would as well. I’ll,go out on a limb and say the UAW wouldn’t. Since we are on labor and consumer. I’ve posted it before; the St Louis Fed has a study showing a majority and remarkably stable benefit to the consumer from capital and foreign labor utilization. But now we are full circle. Trade-offs and value judgments.
Btw. Contra one of your earlier comments, there are plenty of foreign PE funds competing for employable capital and purchasable assets here in the USA. We are not exempt from foreign competition. Better to have a command of the facts before you shoot your mouth off.
Ann is quite right in opposing “family reunification” as a basis for granting visas, but granting preferences to STEM workers is equally problematic, since it unfairly punishes domestic STEM workers. Better would be a policy that allowed anyone with a college degree or trade certification to gain a preference. That’s what the immigration policy of New Zealand seems to do. Unfortunately,
New Zealand discriminates severely on the basis of age, which is unacceptable in the USSA.
I propose the following:
Allow Amerikan citizens the right to trade visas with any foreigner, meaning that I could trade residency and citizenship rights with an Ecuadorian, which I would do in a heartbeat.
Permit any Amerikan to “sponsor” any foreigner and do away with the right of an Amerikan to preferences in importing a foreign spouse or relative of any kind.
Relieve Amerikans traveling or sojourning in any foreign country of any and all obligation to participate in Obamacare or, in the alternative, grant them the right to healthcare, whether Medicare, Medicaid or Obamacare, in the land of his residency.
Yes, I’m sure the Fed shows that we”re all much better off with money being concentrated on fewer and fewer hands, especially in the finance industry. And what is the Fed composed of and who does it work for?
Drew, argue all you want about how fucking great the economy is. I’m not seeing it, and I’m not buying it. And I’m also not buying the argument that it is imperative to import third world labor in ever larger numbers to help out our own. But then I’m not part of the padron class either, so there’s that….
Just because it’s what I do:
Full Time Employment is currently ~2,243,000 BELOW what it was at the peak in November of 2007.
Employment Level – 25 to 54 years is currently ~4,670,000 BELOW what it was at the peak in November of 2007.
Percentage of Population Employed – 25 to 54 years is currently ~2.87% BELOW what it was at the peak in November of 2007.
Still haven’t bothered to find full-time employment numbers for 25 to 54 years. Anyone want to bet that number is any better than the ones above?
Anyway, the above is all the argument necessary against continued immigration into this country of any kind. Those arguing for it can only be assumed to be against American workers.
Foreign born employed is up almost two million since the last peak, BTW. Not a direct proxy for illegal immigration, but a fine proxy for immigration overall. That’s series LNU02073395.
You are arguing variously against a straw man and with yourself, ice. Chill.
Yikes, still haven’t broken out the monthly data, but I got curious and found a good proxy for what I want with annual averages for
25 to 54 worked 35 or more hours a week (000s)
2007 78,854
2013 73,589
So that’s a drop of 5,265,000 full-time jobs for people in their prime working years, from 2007 to 2013. That demographic only declined by about 1,300,000 over that time frame, so that isn’t a demographic shift: that is economic ruination. As a percentage of that age group, that’s over 3.5% fewer people with full-time jobs.
Again, over a similar time period foreign born workers gained about 2,000,000 jobs, so the actual numbers for native born workers are actually considerably worse.
Tell me how cheap labor is going to make up for THAT mess!
Link 2007 data
Link 2013 data
The following with links included is awaiting moderation:
Yikes, still haven’t broken out the monthly data, but I got curious and found a good proxy for what I want with annual averages for
25 to 54 worked 35 or more hours a week (000s)
2007 78,854
2013 73,589
So that’s a drop of 5,265,000 full-time jobs for people in their prime working years, from 2007 to 2013. That demographic only declined by about 1,300,000 over that time frame, so that isn’t a demographic shift: that is economic ruination. As a percentage of that age group, that’s over 3.5% fewer people with full-time jobs.
Again, over a similar time period foreign born workers gained about 2,000,000 jobs, so the actual numbers for native born workers are actually considerably worse.
Tell me how cheap labor is going to make up for THAT mess!
Drew, are you telling me that you aren’t in favor of ever cheaper labor and importing more and more things from abroad?
I’m telling you it’s a complex issue with very situational factors to be considered. It’s not something you go look up in a book or statistical table.
BTW – do you suppose there are UAW workers who would argue in a heartbeat for protectionist measures but also visit Best Buy or WalMart for many of their (foreign produced) purchasing needs? Do you suppose there are “buy American” advocates in IL who cross over the border to IN for their beer, cigs and gas because of lower taxes?? Hint: the border is littered with them.
I rest my case.
Ellipses, I’m not sure your numbers prove that we should stop “continued immigration into this country of any kind.” Labor is not fungible, certainly some of this labor is unique, and some of it cannot be produced domestically at the drop of a hat. Some of these people are probably married to American citizens — you force them out of the country, you take their spouse with them. I like Dave’s proposal of a national jobs database as a precondition to work visas. Also, more transparency.
PD, as exceptions/exemptions are allowed, exceptions/exemptions will be abused. See, for example, the push for more STEM H-1B visas from large businesses when there’s little indication that there’s an actual shortage of STEM workers. And given that the biggest push on that issue comes from Silicon Valley firms, who have been caught colluding to suppress wages, I’m skeptical that these folks won’t just buy the exceptions/exemptions they need.
…
Over a six year period we had over five and a quarter million full-time jobs lost and not recovered for people in their prime working years. That’s about a 3.58% drop in the proportion of such people with full-time work. That’s just ripped the hearts out of the working careers of the people affected. (I can attest to this from personal experience.)
And not only have we lost our old jobs/careers, we’re told that we are too worthless to be employed at ANYTHING. I’ve been through that as well. Reynolds told me on many occasions to get a job in a restaurant. As I told him on many occasions, those folks won’t even interview someone like me. I tried starting down the ladder, and eventually at the bottom of the ladder. They won’t even speak to me to decide whether or not I’m a human being. I’ve known many others in the same situation.
But those same employers will give that job to some tubercular Guatemalan with gang tats all over his face in a heartbeat. So spare me the bullshit about labor not being easily replaced. That is utter tripe, and accounts for a miniscule portion of what is being proposed and debated.
“I have always assumed it was primarily about registration of voters, with the implicit assumption that Mexican immigrants would vote Democrat.”
This has always puzzled me. We know that illegals aren’t voting. Are you assuming that they are doing this so that when they eventually become naturalized, many years down the road, they will then vote Democrat? I really don’t think they plan that far ahead. Why would they, as you note, antagonize voters now (union voters) in order to gain votes 12 years form now? No one does that. Besides, most of these will be poor folks and we know that they don’t vote very much.
I have always assumed that it is to gain a larger share of the growing Hispanic population that is already here, or at least keep them.
Steve
I think that’s probably correct, steve.
Something I believe few are taking into account but that steve alluded to above is that one of the reasons to hire illegal workers is that they’re illegal. Workers paid off the books don’t incur expenses that workers on the books do.
There’s something similar in hiring H1B workers (or L1 for that matter). If you don’t treat them according to the law, they don’t complain because they’re only in the country with your goodwill.
The only way I can see changing this is a radical change in goals and enforcement and its incentives.
one of the reasons to hire illegal workers is that they’re illegal
That is something that has puzzled me….why is the business community pro-amnesty when they benefit from the status quo?
Legalization incentivizes more illegal immigration.
CStanley- I think it is because they don’t really plan on paying their current illegal workers anymore. Te threat of hiring an illegal to replace them will hang over their heads. So, they get to keep the current low paid workers and not have to worry about legal repercussions for hiring illegals.
Steve
Josh Marshall:
“The 5 million affected can’t vote and won’t be able to for years. But many family members, friends, community members and employers can. . . . This isn’t getting mentioned a lot right now. But behind the headlines I suspect it’s one of the key reasons Republican elites are upset that this might happen: because it’s an electoral grenade dropped right into the heart of the 2016 campaign. ”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/reaping-the-whirlwind–5
There are different types of businesses, and there are different types of investors. I usually do not lump them all together unless they lump all poor people together.
Agriculture, medical, hotel, restaurant, healthcare, and IT are all businesses with jobs they claim Americans will not do. Americans do not want to be nurses or doctors. Americans do not want to be software programmers or network technicians.
In LA, TX, and OK, Americans will work in dirty dangerous oil and gas industry jobs, but these are really good paying jobs. The problem in ND, AK, Nigeria, and Iraq is location. Nobody want to live there. You have to pay more to get them to work there.
People without roots in a community are more willing to move, and they will not require more pay. As newly minted citizens, they will acquire rights and benefits that will start to establish roots in the community. Without the threat of deportation, there will be no reason to pack up and move.
Much of the problem with stationary Americans is due to the various liberal welfare programs. Many of these programs are poorly designed, and they have the effect of keeping people from moving. The programs that support failing cities are another problem because they allow the failed system to continue.
By not addressing the problems, they compound, and the do not go away. The monetary issues, the financial issues, the economy, illegal immigrants, etc. are all related.
The piper has played the tune, and whether we liked it or not, the piper must be paid. Even the deaf will need to chip in. Such is life.
“Why would they, as you note, antagonize voters now (union voters) in order to gain votes 12 years form now? ”
Government employee unions represent more power than the old unions, and they stand to benefit from this as more employees are needed in government to handle the additional work. Needless to say, those unions are pretty much subsidiaries of the Democratic Party.
Not to mention that the SEIU will likely benefit from this. And given that the plan is to offshore as much manufacturing and extraction work as possible and replace it with more low paid service and we’ll paid government jobs, screwing the UAW in the ass is hardly a big concern.
Given the employment stats I cited earlier, not to mention the wage situation, it is hard to see the push for more and ore immigration and the naturalization of the illegals already here as anything but an attempt to screw over the native born workers & citizens. Not to mention that it is HIGHLY unpopular with voters.