George W. Bush's proposal for foreign temporary worker work permits has angered many conservatives for good reason. What follows is an examination of some salient characteristics and motivations of present and future illegal aliens, the ways the illegals differ (on average) from the much larger set of people who, under Bush's proposal, would seek to come in on legal temporary work permits. Also, the employers of illegal aliens and the potential employers of the proposed temporary workers are compared to highlight how they differ in their characteristics and motivations. This examination demonstrates why the implementation of Bush's proposal would not stop the on-going influx of illegal aliens or cause the expulsion of illegals who are already in the United States. Bush's proposal does not solve any problems related to immigration and instead makes America's existing immigration problems even worse. To summarize my argument:
The Bush Administration's temporary worker permit program is being presented as an alternative to the current large wave of illegal immigration and to the presence of millions of illegal aliens in our midst. What follows is an argument for why the opposite is the case. A temporary or guest worker program will not prevent illegal aliens from crossing the border. It will not eliminate the incentive for millions to cross the border. It will not eliminate many incentives for employers to hire illegals.
Think about it from the perspective of a potential illegal alien and think about the reasons why a potential illegal immigrant may still opt to enter illegally in the face of a US federal temporary worker permit system.
The people who are now willing to cross over borders to illegally enter the United States would, under the Bush Administration proposal, be faced with competition from workers who are currently unwilling or unable to cross borders illegally to seek jobs in the United States. With a legal program to bring in temporary workers the applications would flood in from Argentina, Chile, India, Bangladesh, China, and many other countries. Hundreds of millions of people would compete for the jobs. Think about it from the perspective of someone who is reluctant to attempt illegal entry into the United States or who simply lacks the resources to make it into the United States illegally. Here are some factors that make some people far more likely than others to illegally enter into the United States:
Under Bush's worker permit program all of these factors will become less of an obstacle to make it into the United States for the far greater number of people who are not illegal aliens and who are not going to try to make it into the United States as illegal aliens. For instance, a person who has a work permit to come work in the US for 3 years may be offered financial assistance by their future employer to pay relocation fees. Also, the dangers which require daring and stamina are eliminated with legal entry. Many who would be intimidated by the idea of breaking the law and coming in illegally will be willing to come legally. Therefore if a temporary worker permit program is enacted the people who currently are willing to come as illegal aliens will face orders of magnitude more competition than they face currently from the more distant, less daring, less energetic, less connected, poorer, and more law-abiding. As a consequence the current illegals will fail to get most of the legal worker permit jobs as most of those jobs will go to those who are unwilling or unable to come as illegals.
If a temporary worker permit program is enacted will there still be work for those who continue to enter the United States illegally? Think about it from the perspective of a potential or actual employer of illegal immigrants. Even if a temporary worker program is enacted there are a number of reasons to expect that much work will still be available for illegals:
A temporary work permit program will be a path to eventual illegal status. Many of the obstacles and deterrents for someone becoming an illegal alien in the United States are encountered in the initial step of trying to come here. What a work permit will do is to lower all those initial obstacles and allow someone to enter, work, save up money, make contacts, and learn how to live in America. At the end of the proposed 3 year work period a person whose permit is about to run out will be able to look for an illegal job far more easily than if that person had set out from another country to enter the United States and find an illegal job from the start. The danger of border crossing, the fear of the unknown, and many other obstacles are either reduced or eliminated for those who initially enter legally. How can the US government hope to deport these proposed temporary workers at the end of their 3 year temporary work period when the US government can not or will not even deport known illegals at the end of prison terms and illegals who are ordered by courts to leave the country?
A temporary work permit program will be widely used by employers who will not now use illegals. Just as there is a larger number of non-Americans who will not work in the United States illegally who will do so if it is legal there is a larger number of American employers who will hire foreign workers legally than will do so illegally. Make something legal and more people will do it than will be the case if it is not legal. The law is respected more by most people than it is by the advocates of allowing illegals to stay in the United States. The employers, once they are allowed to hire legally from abroad in much larger numbers, will have a big incentive to go for legalized foreign labor because it is cheaper: most countries have lower market prices for labor than the United States does and so most people in other countries are willing to work for wages that are lower than what Americans will accept. It is all about the Benjamins. Employers are going to go for foreign labor if that labor is cheaper to the employers.
The fallacy underlying the justification for bringing in millions of foreign laborers for low skilled jobs is that there is a labor shortage for some types of jobs. But markets do not have shortages. Markets simply have prices at which supply and demand for various types of jobs will match up and equal. In areas of the United States where few illegals have reached the trash still gets collected and people still work as dishwashers, fast food cookers, sewer workers, and other jobs which the advocates of mass immigration falsely claim that Americans will not do. A smaller supply of less skilled workers will cause the price of their labor to rise and companies and individuals will respond by developing and using techniques and equipment that reduce the need for human labor. The market will not only adjust but it will grow as companies speed up their rate of development of labor-saving innovations.
Another fundamental objection to a guest worker program is that there seems little point to bringing in large numbers of workers when there is no intention to keep them permanently. If they are talented enough in the first place (and most of our illegal and even many of our legal immigrants have few skills and little education; also see here). In this regard the German experience with temporary workers is a cautionary tale of many of its pitfalls.
People familiar with the German experience say there are lessons for all concerned. Kangal, in addition to recommending that workers learn the language earlier than he did, said the host country should enter the arrangement with open eyes.
If a country needing cheap labor hires another country's least-qualified workers, it will get poorly educated and unsophisticated people ill-equipped to learn the language and assimilate.
Though he is a Turk and experiences prejudice "every day," he also said it was not primarily Turkey's elite that had come to Germany. "In some ways," he said, "the prejudice is not wrong."
The Bush faux immigration reform proposal does not solve the shortcomings of current lax immigration law enforcement and the resulting crime and disrespect for the law that these shortcomings engender. It is possible to enforce immigration law but interest groups have managed to ensure that immigration law enforcement is undermined.
Bush's proposal does not attempt to slow the growth of the Recipient Class whose members receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. As a result, the benefits that employers receive from employing cheap foreign labor comes with costs that the rest of the taxpayers have to pay. Current immigration policy is increasing the supply of grade school and high school drop-outs over five times more than all more educated people combined. The defenders of Bush's proposal ignore all this evidence and just attack the character of those who criticise this state of affairs. The only reason the US is not in even more trouble from our current policy and its foolish defenders is that unlike with Europe most of our immigrants are not Muslims.
Outside of the Bush Administration and outside of Washington DC there are many proposals being made for practical and effective ways to regain control of our borders and immigration. One proposal would be to build a barrier fence or wall on the entire US border with Mexico. Such a fence would cost $7 billion if built in the manner of the Israel-West Bank barrier which would be far less than what US taxpayers pay for medical care for illegal aliens in a single year. Another proposal from Tyler Cowen would raise the quality of people accepted as immigrants. More immigration reform proposals can be read here and here and here and here.
Update: Tyler Cowen reacts to this post on Volokh Conspiracy as does Arnold Kling on his EconLog blog.
By Randall Parker at 2004 February 07 10:56 PM Immigration Border Control | TrackBack
Comments about Tyler Cowen's three-tier immigration system and other comments...
Immigrants who would be buying their way into the US legally would need to be screened very carefully.
I would likely be opposed to Tyler Cowen's proposal that more immigrants be allowed to migrate from Mexico "and other poorer nations" with immigrants selected on the basis of their intelligence and English-language ability. I would also likely be opposed to giving Mexico (or Mexicans) a special priority in the immigration process.
Mexican immigrants are about 30% of all immigrants in the United States. 30% is huge, given that Mexico's population is less than 2% of the world's population.
Immigration from Mexico should be reduced, not increased. Proportionately Mexican immigration to the US should be limited such that no more than 10% of all immigrants arriving in the US are Mexican.
Increasing immigration from Mexico is not a good idea.
Mexicans/Mexican Americans are the largest group of Hispanics in the US (in the year 2000 there were about 20 million Mexican/Mexican American US residents). In California Hispanic women are the plurality, if not the majority, of live birth mothers. In Arizona Hispanic women will likely soon have more live births per year than non-Hispanic white women. In New Mexico a majority of live births are to Hispanic women. In Texas a plurality of live births are to Hispanic women.
What do California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas have in common? All have a border with Mexico. All four states were part of Mexico.
We should not assume that decades from now Hispanics would not want to have a separate Hispanic nation-state in what is now the American Southwest.
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States became sovereign countries; they are no longer British colonies although Commonwealth ties still exist among Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK. Spain lost all of her new world emprire. The USSR became many countries. Czechoslovakia is now two countries. Yugoslavia is now many countries. Pakistan separated from India. Bangladesh separated from Pakistan. Eritrea separated from Ethiopia.
Decades from now a majority or substantial minority of Hispanics may want to have a separate Hispanic nation-state in the American Southwest and maybe Florida as well.
By reducing immigration from Mexico the risk of loosing the American Southwest to Mexico or a new Hispanic nation-state that encompasses parts of the United States of America and the United States of Mexico can be reduced in my opinion.
Quoting from Pat Buchanan's 2000 "Trouble in the Neighborhood" speech:
As for the millions of illegals who have already entered this country, they have caused a demographic sea change. California now has 34 million people and, if the border is not secured, will have 50 million by 2010. One-third of California's population is now Latino.
Such sudden changes in the ethnic character of a society can mean everything. When Americans in Texas vastly out-numbered Mexicans, they rebelled, and
Mexico lost Texas. In 1893, U.S. sugar planters in Hawaii rose up and deposed
the Queen. Five years later, we annexed Hawaii. Mass immigration, then insurrection, independence, and annexation: This is how Europe's American empires were expropriated, and America grew. We may choose to forget this history, but Mexico remembers. And while we shudder at the idea it could happen here, Mexican irredentism is alive and well.
In 1998, the Mexican consul general in California exclaimed: "[E]ven though I am saying this part serious, part joking, I think we are practicing La Reconquista in California." In 1997, President Zedillo said: "I have proudly
proclaimed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by
its borders, and...Mexican migrants are...a very important part of it."...
The Latino student organization MechA openly demands return of the Southwest to Mexico. Charles Truxillo, a professor of Chicano studies at the University of New Mexico, says the creation of a new "Aztlan," with it capital in Los Angeles is inevitable, and Mexicans should seek it by any means necessary. Ricky Sierra of One Stop Immigration, declares: "We're recolonizing America so they're afraid of us. It's time to take back what is ours."
One demonstration leader in Westwood was heard to say, "We are here...to show white Protestant Los Angeles that we're the majority...and we claim this land as ours. It's always been ours and we're still here…if anybody is going to be deported it's going to be you."...
My friends, Mexico's people are good people, who have been robbed repeatedly of the just rewards of their labor. While any American President must be ready to help Mexico, we cannot permit any regime to use America as a spillway for the excess population it cannot employ. And we cannot allow to rise within our country a nation within a nation where Spanish is the language and anti-Americanism the ideology, while U.S. taxpayers pay for its schools and services as it swells inexorably towards the Nuevo Aztlan of the Chicano activists' imagination.
Honorable Joe Bonnor.
As an amercian citizen I resent this program. Illegals entering or in this Country should Be returned to thier home Crountry,wheather it's Mexeco or any other crountry.
The mexecon's are taking over the construction industry,insted of helping them by giving them jobs we are punshing the workers of this great Nation. I have a son who has been in construction for about 20 years. In this time he has worked helper first class carpenter concret forms forman and supertendant.apporxmently 5 mounth's ago he was terminated from a job as supertendat from ajob in Fla. purly because He had a full crew of spanish speakers that He had to commuciate with through an interputer that could not make His Instructions clear. He had also asked the copany for langue school to better manage His people. Wheather they are leagal or not they should have to speak ENGLISH this goes for Our Hispanics. I speak from on this FROM EXPEREANCE,I AM A RETIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEE.tHE LAST 20 YEARS OF mY 36 YEARS WAS SPENT IN SOUTH Texas. We had problems at time of these hispanics speaking english but could not comprenend what they werer reading when using techinal manuals. This is not sour Graoes I had many very good Hispanic friends,and knew many very many good Mechanic's.The good Mechanics were a minaroty
I would apperciate your consedration in this matter. and cast a NO vote on in this if or and when it comes up it comes up for I would like to hear Your opin on this matter if possiable. Samuel Berrey
8 laredo Drive
Saraland Ala.
36571
In my above post "loosing" should instead be "losing".
If construction and fields such as plumbing become dominated by illegal aliens, there will be fewer opportunities for non-college graduate American workers.
Posted by: Proborders on February 17, 2005 07:28 AMHow Un-American to think that immigrants are preventing americans from jobs and causing financial hardships. This country was founded by immigrants, states are governed by immigrants, and possibly one day this country will be led by one. This nation was founded by those seeking a better life for them and their families, is that such a terrible reason for wanting to live in the united states. Post 9/11, it makes sense to raise the bar and to try to ward off potential dangers and harmful persons. However, what about the kind, loving, hard working, peaceful people wanting to live in this country because of everything it stands for. FREEDOM. I think the Guest Worker Permit is a start, a good start, and a potentially fair chance for those whom deserve it.
Amy Brenner, LCSW,
Put aside the mythology which has been promoted about all immigrants as beneficial to America and look at the actual empirical social science evidence on Hispanic immigrants in particular.
The Hispanics create a number of problems for Americans. Hispanics are very poorly educated when they arrive, do not rise scholastically to American average levels over successive generations (and, generally speaking, immigrants quickly reach the level of scholastic achievement that their group will stay at in later generations, earn lower incomes (and hence pay less in taxes than they receive in benefits), have kids illegitimately at higher rates, and commit crimes at higher rates (and also see here).
Also, you are wrong in your claim that everyone who came here came as immigrants. This country was founded by settlers, not immigrants. The settlers created a new society. They did not integrate into an existing society. The settlers set the pattern for what came after. If the original settlers had been Catholics or Swedes or some other group then America would be radically different in governance and culture than what it is today.
Posted by: Randall Parker on February 23, 2005 01:47 PMI think that an opportunity should be given to decent people who are willing to work,have NO criminal record.I'm part of the illegal immigrant community (I'm from Europe,not Mexico)since '99, I started as a dishwasher,now I'm a manager with a $40.000 yearly salary.I pay my taxes,rent,bills,etc,but receive no benefits,no taxrefund,nothing whatsoever.
I'm looking forward to the President's Temporary Worker Program because It will open a lot of doors that were closed for the past five years.I'd like to become a Citizen one day because It's great Country!
An illegal.
Posted by: L. Sz. on July 23, 2005 08:48 PM