Comprehensive Reform: Still Popular

For all the demagoguery and recent panic in Democratic circles, it turns out according to a new LAT/Bloomberg poll that the basic principles of comprehensive reform are still popular: "About 60% of Democrats, Republicans and independents support 'a path to citizenship by registering, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted, and learning English, among other requirements.'" As Marc Ambinder points out this is the thing that opponents call "amnesty" so even if "amnesty" is unpopular, the thing that "amnesty" denotes is popular.

The public continues, however, to be hostile to the idea of allowing illegal immigrants to avail themselves of public services. That underscores the central need to place specific immigration issues in the context of broad immigration policy -- even if Tim Russert and Wolf Blitzer don't like it. Everyone agrees, at the end of the day, that it's dumb to have a big population of people availing themselves of social services who aren't even allowed to be in the country. But comprehensive reform featuring a path to citizen is a practical, economically viable, humane way of accomplishing that and despite a lack of public leadership for the past few months the public still seems to recognize it as such.

Photo by Flickr user Skunks used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

While I think I can understand some of the sentiment towards legalization plans that suggest illegals must leave the country and petition to get back in (like, not requiring it seriously screws those aliens who legally waited to come in for months or years), it just doesn't seem particularly viable as a solution to the problem.

All too often our lawmakers seem willing to pass laws that, while performing some function deemed nessecary(sp?), prove nearly unenforcable in real life.

Considering the problem of illegal immigrants, I think charging a fine, finger printing, and learning some basic English is a pretty suitable solution.

Posted by David Marks | December 6, 2007 11:04 AM

But comprehensive reform featuring a path to citizen is a practical, economically viable, humane way of accomplishing that and despite a lack of public leadership for the past few months the public still seems to recognize it as such.

I couldn't agree more. Even if this were not true, humanitarian grounds alone would be sufficient for me to want to relieve millions of the country's residents -- including the parents of millions of American kids -- from having to live in the shadows.

The nativists do have one valid point, however: amnesty surely will further incentivize more people to try and immigrate illegally for the next, inevitable round.

So, "comprehensive" reform really must include measures to deal with the ongoing issue. Because, when you think about it, amnesty alone doesn't really change things very much. These 15-20 million are already residents of the US. They're already participating in the workforce. They're already parenting American children and sending them to American schools. Amnesty will make their lives better, and we ought to carry it out for this reason alone, but it's not enough.

We need to change current immigration policy so that we don't need to do an amnesty every twenty or thirty years to accommodate the inevitable build up of people living in the shadows. And accomplishing this pretty clearly means somehow undermining the perverse economic incentives to immigrate illegally. Almost certainly that in turn means -- in addition to severe penalties for those going outside they system -- providing a legal means for at least some Latin American laborers to sell their services to willing American buyers. We need not do so in an unlimited or unregulated manner that eviscerates US wages. Indeed, it is precisely the superiority of regulated, limited, legal markets over black markets that makes this such an obvious move.

Posted by Jasper | December 6, 2007 11:19 AM

From what I read, the public is against illegals using emergency care services...

This is truly inhumane and a policy that a large chunk of the 60% would not abide by if it came across its practical consequences .

I mean, if you are a nurse and you are faced with an illegal immigrant who had been shot or had a labor accident which endangers his life, would you not treat him? Should you not treat him?

Posted by Nick Kaufman | December 6, 2007 11:23 AM

"Comprehensive Reform: Still Popular"

You'd have to be more deluded on this than George W. Bush to believe that. Even he got figured out the stove was hot after touching it twice. Give it a third try if you like though.

Posted by Fred | December 6, 2007 11:31 AM

How does not requiring illegal immigrants to leave the country before becoming citizens screw those who waited their turn? Unless the amnesty for illegals slows down the legal track, it is not clear that those who waited their turn are affected at all.

I suppose they could feel jealous over not getting to pay to sneak across the border and live the rebel lifestyle of an illegal immigrant. But does that really count as getting screwed? I haven't lived as an illegal immigrant either, and feel just fine about that.

Posted by Lon | December 6, 2007 11:41 AM

I don't think the 60% number Matthew mentions is very meaningful. What people say they support obviously depends on how the question is asked. The term "amnesty" draws attention to the lawbreaking aspect of illegal immigrants' behavior, which is why people tend to oppose it, while the phrase "path to citizenship by registering, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted, and learning English" sounds pragmatic and reasonable, which is why people tend to support it. How a real-world reform proposal would actually play out politically isn't clear.

Posted by Mixner | December 6, 2007 11:47 AM

How does not requiring illegal immigrants to leave the country before becoming citizens screw those who waited their turn?

I'd say it does screw those who waited their turn. And what of it? Seriously, life isn't fair. The US government should do what is in the national interest, even if it means being unfair to someone waiting for a green card in Mongolia. It's a pity the latter wasn't born in a country that makes it easy to sneak into the US, but whatchu gonna do?

Posted by Jasper | December 6, 2007 12:00 PM

Jasper,

I'd say it does screw those who waited their turn. And what of it? Seriously, life isn't fair.

Brilliant. In that case, "what of" the 45 million Americans who lack health insurance? Remember, "life isn't fair."

The US government should do what is in the national interest, even if it means being unfair to someone waiting for a green card in Mongolia.

How is it in the national interest to reward immigrants who break the law and penalize immigrants who abide by it?

Posted by Mixner | December 6, 2007 12:09 PM

"How does not requiring illegal immigrants to leave the country before becoming citizens screw those who waited their turn?"

This is the wrong question to ask. Although an aspiring legal immigrant who has had to pay legal fees, jump through regulatory hoops, and wait several years to get here legally might be unhappy if illegal aliens were given amnesty, that's not the big problem with not requiring illegals to leave the country before getting legal residency (I don't know anyone suggesting they should get immediate citizenship). The big problem is that if you don't require illegal aliens to apply in their home countries, you will increase the incentives for new illegal aliens to come here and claim they are eligible for the amnesty.

Amnesty is a bad idea for a number of reasons, but this added incentive for new illegal immigration is one of them.

In any case, this is an odd time to propose an amnesty. The housing/home construction bust has decreased the market demand for illegal aliens, and caused a significant number of recent arrivals to go home. It would make more sense to augment this wave with attrition from stricter domestic enforcement now (which is what is essentially happening, in fits and starts). The smaller the remaining illegal population -- and the more difficult it is for new illegal aliens to enter -- the more politically possible it will be to consider regularizing the status of the remaining illegals. These will most likely be the ones with the deepest roots here.

Posted by Fred | December 6, 2007 12:09 PM

"From what I read, the public is against illegals using emergency care services..."

Nick,

What sort of response do you imagine a pollster would get if he asked this:

"Would you be in favor of providing emergency medical care to illegal aliens provided that: 1) they agree to shipped back to their home countries once they have been treated and stabilized; and 2) their home countries are billed for their medical care?"

Posted by Fred | December 6, 2007 12:20 PM

Arizona has a tough new law, soon to take effect, that will punish businesses for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Anecdotal evidence within my own little circle suggests that Mexicans are leaving.

My coworker's husband works for the phone company, in the Spanish-language customer service division. Spanish-speaking customers are canceling their phone service left and right. There's a large American corporation, that doesn't intentionally hire illegal immigrants, losing business already.

Another coworker owns a dollar store in Phoenix. Most of their customers were Mexican and business is way down. They will probably have to close up shop if things don't pick up. There's an American small business about to lose its customer base.

The immigration issue gets clouded by a lot of micro thinking. Some white guy imagines himself losing his job, and mentally extrapolates that to the whole economy. But he doesn't stop to think of all the money Mexicans are earning and spending and all the economic activity and jobs that are associated with that.

Throwing out the Mexicans is going to shoot a lot of Americans in the foot, too.

Posted by Jalmari | December 6, 2007 12:32 PM

In that case, "what of" the 45 million Americans who lack health insurance? Remember, "life isn't fair."

It is in the interest of the country to insure that everyone have health insurance, just as it is in the interest of the country to reform its broken immigration policy. I'm not sure I grasp your point.

How is it in the national interest to reward immigrants who break the law and penalize immigrants who abide by it?

I'm not sure it is in the country's interest to promulgate an amnesty for illegal immigrants. I thought I made it clear doing so won't have much impact either way. It may create a modestly beneficial impact, but probably not a large one. Also, who is arguing we should "penalize" immigrants who abide by the law? Certainly not I.

Posted by Jasper | December 6, 2007 12:35 PM

Arizona has a tough new law, soon to take effect, that will punish businesses for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Anecdotal evidence within my own little circle suggests that Mexicans are leaving.

Jalmari: You may be right that Mexicans are leaving Arizona, although it's probable that some are going to friendlier parts of the US. It's also likely that, to the extent they are leaving the US, many are doing so because of the faltering economy -- especially the housing sector.

Posted by Jasper | December 6, 2007 12:46 PM

I'll go MattY one better: a new Zoggbby poll shows 99% support for the basic principles of giving everyone a free ice cream cone.

Of course, what that poll forgot to disclose is that the ice cream cone isn't really free, the flavor is castor oil, and it might contain lead.

And, likewise with CIR. No poll I've ever seen reveals all the flaws and horrific downsides in CIR, so one can assume that those who conduct these polls are basically lying to people, as are those who promote the polls.

What the current poll fails to note is that, among many other things, a) CIR would cause a mad dash towards our borders, b) would be a sloppy affair that would allow countless criminals and terrorists to get on the "path", and c) would give even more power to those who current oppose enforcement.

Because of c), the "tough" parts of CIR would never be enforced.

If you want to find out what's really going on, my archives contain thousands of posts about the wider issue.

Posted by TLB | December 6, 2007 12:47 PM

In banking or international finance when you construct a rescue package for a LCTM or Russia, you do run the danger of moral hazard which is rewarding a behavior you want to deter.The same principle applies with amnesty.

it would be awesome if there was a clear rule about these things, but there isn't. It's really managing a paradox and inefficiencies of policy are bound to occur.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | December 6, 2007 12:51 PM

Jasper,

It is in the interest of the country to insure that everyone have health insurance,

I don't think that's clear at all. The costs to the country of providing everyone with health insurance may well exceed the benefits.

It is in the interest of the country for people to comply with its laws.

I'm not sure it is in the country's interest to promulgate an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Well then.

Also, who is arguing we should "penalize" immigrants who abide by the law?

Rewarding immigrants who break the law penalizes those who abide by it. You already admitted this ("I'd say it does screw those who waited their turn.")

Posted by Mixner | December 6, 2007 1:11 PM

The honorable Kevin Drum warned not so long about poll literalism.

Amnesty is the right policy but it doesn't mean that the person running for it - especially when they're a Democrat - will win running for it.

Posted by Linus | December 6, 2007 1:19 PM

I don't think that's clear at all. The costs to the country of providing everyone with health insurance may well exceed the benefits.

You've made your views on this subject clear on numerous ocasions.

Rewarding immigrants who break the law penalizes those who abide by it.

How so? If Dr. Chang's immigration lawyer tells him his green card should be available in 2011, and in 2010 illegal immigrant Roberto Sanchez is given permission to stay as part of an amnesty, the former is hardly being penalized. He'll still get his green card as promised when promised. By "screwed over" I was simply referring to the perception of unfairness, which most assuredly is valid, and understandable. To put in another way, does an honest, punctual tax payer get penalized if the government decides to increase revenue by granting an amnesty to tax cheats? I'd say "no." The former is no worse off than before. In no way has he been "penalized" -- although understandably he may feel the system hasn't been fair. The deciding factor in either case should be cost/benefit analysis; perceptions of fairness matter only to the extent they feed into this analysis.

Posted by Jasper | December 6, 2007 1:30 PM

The "public services" brouhaha has bugged me for all these years that it's been circulating. Smacks of the "welfare queens" PR surrounding welfare reform. It's been used to create a bizarre caricature of big, menacing illegal aliens walking into various public agencies demanding all sorts of handouts. Experience (and common sense) tells me that the last thing illegal immigrants would want to do is draw the attention of the government. Yet, I haven't seen any statistics on the use of "public services" (however that might be defined) by illegals, particularly as compared with non-illegals. If anyone has any, please post a link!

Posted by Steve V | December 6, 2007 1:46 PM

That's very true.

Very few not for example that illegal immigrants contribute something to the tune of $900 billion towards the social security fund; money that of course would never get back.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | December 6, 2007 1:52 PM

"Yet, I haven't seen any statistics on the use of "public services" (however that might be defined) by illegals, particularly as compared with non-illegals. If anyone has any, please post a link!"

Here you go: "The Costs of Illegal Immigration"

A few of the points:

If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.

With nearly two-third of illegals lacking a high school diploma, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments — not their legal status or their unwillingness to work.

Amnesty increases costs because illegals would still be largely unskilled, and thus their tax payments would continue to be very modest, but once legalized they would be able to access many more government services.

The fact that legal immigrants with little schooling are a fiscal drain on federal coffers does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a drain. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled.

Posted by Fred | December 6, 2007 1:55 PM

I think a lot of people like to mischaracterize opposition to amnesty or legalization. Sure, there are a few people who like to say "no amnesty" as a slogan, as a reflex, but almost everyone else has a more nuanced view.

The problem is that many people don't trust any of our current politicians to enforce the immigration laws as they stand. They see "comprehensive reform" and understand "amnesty without any serious effort at enforcement to catch future illegal immigrants." And they just assume that the flow of illegal immigrants will continue unabated, or even increase, and that there will be an even bigger amnesty in 20 years.

Why? Because it happened that way once already. We've been down this road before, in the Reagan administration, and there's absolutely no indication that anything is different this time around.

I, for one, will support an only medium-strict amnesty program, but only AFTER I have seen serious commitments (and actions!) on enforcement. I also want to see a cultural shift such that people consider illegal immigration, and even more so the businesses that depend on it, as an end-run around the democratic lawmaking process rather than as business-as-usual.

Some illegal immigrants will self-deport in the meantime, but I don't consider that a problem. It'll make the ultimate amnesty smaller, and the same people are welcome to try for legitimate immigration in the future. I am reasonably sure that the rules for legal immigration will be somewhat more liberal once we have an honest public debate about reforming the law -- rather than ignoring it willy-nilly.

Posted by M.C. | December 6, 2007 2:01 PM

"Very few not for example that illegal immigrants contribute something to the tune of $900 billion towards the social security fund"

According to the report I linked to in my previous comment, illegals (as of 2004) contributed about $7 billion per year in Social Security and Medicare taxes, out of a total of $16 billion in federal taxes paid. However, the illegals impose costs of $26.3 billion on the federal government, so they consume more in government resources than they contribute.

Posted by Fred | December 6, 2007 2:03 PM

Jasper,

You've made your views on this subject clear on numerous ocasions.

And you have failed to provide any serious analysis to support your claim that the benefits of ensuring universal health insurance would exceed the costs. You simply state it as an article of faith. Public policy should not be based on faith.

How so?

By making them wait longer or imposing other costs on them. A legal immigrant who obeys the law and remains in his own country unless and until he is legally authorized to enter and obtain employment in the United States is being penalized if illegal immigrants who violate the law are not subjected to a comparable cost.

Posted by Mixner | December 6, 2007 2:06 PM

...the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.

Wow. So, you mean by acting inhumanely toward 15 million of our neighbors the government gets to save an amount of money equal to one fifth of one percent of GDP? That fucking rocks!

Posted by Jasper | December 6, 2007 2:10 PM

Frankly, anyone who touts "fiscal impact" as the problem with illegal immigration is pretty much a laughingstock.

For example, just above we're told that illegals currently contribute $7B in SS+M taxes but impose federal costs of $26B, yielding an alleged net drain of---horrors!---$19B per year.

Last I saw, the long-term cost of our Iraq Adventure was already going to be something like $3T. And hasn't our annual "defense" budget has risen by many hundreds of billions in recent years.

I think the "fiscal drain" argument about immigration is mostly aimed at the portion of our population that can't quite remember the difference between millions, billions, and trillions.

By an amazing coincidence, I suspect that these people have a huge overlap with the 30% or whatever who *still* believe that Saddam attacked us on 9/11.

Posted by RKU | December 6, 2007 2:14 PM

If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.

What Fred's caption fails to explain is that the nation is currently dependent on tax revenue from illegal immigrants who pay into the system without reaping the benefits of services. It is true, amnesty would cost a lot of money, since all of the illegal immigrants who currently pay taxes would finally get a return on their payments in the form of benefits.

This is the other side of "we need their cheap labor" coin you hear from big business. Just as the American economy is grown dependent on cheap illegal labor, the American government has grown dependent on free illegal tax revenues, which it collects from the illegal immigrant population without having to deliver expensive services in return. It's a nasty cycle.

Yes, Amnesty would mean having to pay for services instead of exploiting the cheap labor and tax dollars of illegal immigrants. And yes, this would be a painful pill to swallow. But the alternative is doing nothing: which means more and more quasi-citizens who work for cheap wages without receiving the benefits of citizenship.

If you view the illegal immigration "problem" as cycle of dependency - on cheap labor and illegal tax revenue - it becomes clear that doing nothing will only deepen our dependency. Comprehensive reform is necessary because the problem is so complex, thorny, and deeply embedded.

Posted by owenz | December 6, 2007 2:18 PM

So, you mean by acting inhumanely toward 15 million of our neighbors the government gets to save an amount of money equal to one fifth of one percent of GDP? That fucking rocks!

Unfortunately, what Jasper forgets to mention is that there are *billions* of people worse off than Mexicans.

And, the EconomicArgument for/against IllegalImmigration is weak. Better arguments against it involve indisputable issues such as PoliticalCorruption, giving PoliticalPower to foreign governments, and so on.

And, giving an amnesty is the opposite of humane; while I'm going to summarize everything in one page one day, this has a few reasons why. One of my posts has more reasons, but I can't find it now.

Those leaders who support illegal activity out of "humane" grounds might want to consider the impact on their careers if people realize that what they support is not humane at all.

Posted by TLB | December 6, 2007 2:27 PM

Fred,

I was off on the number $900, but not by much. Here's the relevant excerpt:

"In 2002, according to Salins, the SSA took the unprecedented step of sending 950,000 letters to employers identifying such "mismatches." Employers and immigrant advocacy groups raised so many objections that the SSA cut back the program. As a result, "no-match" accounts now hold more than $586 billion. Some of these unmatched numbers can be traced to clerical errors, and some arise because people forget to tell the SSA that they have changed their name after a marriage or divorce. But the SSA believes that most unmatched numbers come from illegal immigrants using fake numbers to get work."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20602

Posted by Nick Kaufman | December 6, 2007 2:28 PM

Mixner:

And you have failed to provide any serious analysis to support your claim that the benefits of ensuring universal health insurance would exceed the costs.

I haven't "failed" in any such manner. I'm not a healthcare policy wonk. Others -- Ezra Klein comes to mind -- have covered the topic exhaustively. I don't think accepting their arguments and numbers is "faith." By such a standard none of us would be able to take a stand on anything outside our fields of expertise.

By making them wait longer or imposing other costs on them.

Why would amnesty makes others "wait longer?" And what are these mysterious "other costs" you're referring to?

A legal immigrant who obeys the law and remains in his own country unless and until he is legally authorized to enter and obtain employment in the United States is being penalized if illegal immigrants who violate the law are not subjected to a comparable cost.

I think you're reasoning is flawed. You're confusing unfairness, or a perception of unfairness, with a penalty. If a would-be immigrant is promised he can enter the country on such and such a date, and the government honors it promise, he's not being penalized because of the existence of an unrelated policy that has no bearing on his particular case.

Posted by Jasper | December 6, 2007 2:31 PM

"Wow. So, you mean by acting inhumanely toward 15 million of our neighbors the government gets to save an amount of money equal to one fifth of one percent of GDP? That fucking rocks!"

Jasper,

If you think that rocks, then why stop there? Shouldn't we act "humanely" to the multitudes of people far worse-off than Mexicans who want immigrate here? If $29 billion is small change in your mind to subsidize 15 million poor foreigners, why not import more poor people? If we stopped being inhumane to 100 million sub-Saharan Africans by allowing them to immigrate here, it would only cost us $290 billion to import that much more poverty. That should sound like a steal to you.

Of course, if you would like to see universal health care, the more poor people you import, the more expensive UHC would be.

The other problem is that Mexican-Americans -- because of their low average skill and education levels -- have remained a fiscal burden beyond the first generation. So if today's illegals are given amnesty, the chances are their kids will be an even larger net drain on the federal budget.

Owenz,

You don't seem to have understood the report: illegals are already receiving more in government services than they pay in taxes.

Posted by Fred | December 6, 2007 2:36 PM

Btw, the idea that if you legalize illegals they are going to consume more in services than they are going to provide in taxes is based on a faulty assumption:

That they will keep doing the jobs they ve been doing right now, while being paid the same.

However, right now, illegal immigrants can only engage in a certain number of jobs, because of nature of certain number of markets. For example, you can work in construction, but it's impossible for an illegal to work at a bank.

People are people. If they can, they will improve their skills and their lot in life. If they are legal, they will be able to negotiate better wages. They will be able to find better jobs. They will be able to send their kids to better schools. And their kids will become the lawyers, doctors and scientists of tomorrow.

Just like every new immigrant generation that came to America.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | December 6, 2007 2:46 PM

Jasper,

I haven't "failed" in any such manner. I'm not a healthcare policy wonk.

You don't have to be. You just have to provide a credible analysis that the benefits would exceed costs. You haven't done that.

Others -- Ezra Klein comes to mind -- have covered the topic exhaustively.

You're kidding. You mean nonsensical arguments like "Some countries with universal health care have a higher life expectancy and spend less, therefore universal health care is worth the cost?"

Why would amnesty makes others "wait longer?"

Because they have to wait until they are legally entitled to enter the country (if they ever are) in order to receive the benefits of employment here rather than getting them immediately by entering and working here immediately.

And what are these mysterious "other costs" you're referring to?

The costs of being deprived of the income and other benefits illegal immigrants obtain by entering the country illegally and working here against the law. This isn't exactly rocket science.

Posted by Mixner | December 6, 2007 2:47 PM

You just have to provide a credible analysis that the benefits would exceed costs. You haven't done that.

No, I don't "have to." Others have, as I said, studied and debated the issue exhuastively, though apparently not to a degree sufficient to convince you of the benefits of rich world-style UHC. Somehow, I, too, will manage to soldier on without convincing you.

Because they have to wait until they are legally entitled to enter the country (if they ever are) in order to receive the benefits of employment here rather than getting them immediately by entering and working here immediately.

But this has nothing to do with amnesty. You're contending that an amnesty would make things worse for those currently operating within the system (i.e., waiting their turn in the queue), right? My point is that amnesty doesn't affect them either way. So far you've presented no contrary evidence.

The costs of being deprived of the income and other benefits illegal immigrants obtain by entering the country illegally and working here against the law.

They would be "deprived" (to use your curious term) of this income with or without an amnesty.

Posted by Jasper | December 6, 2007 2:58 PM

Unfortunately, what Jasper forgets to mention is that there are *billions* of people worse off than Mexicans.

Yes, and what Lone Wacko forgets to mention is that precious few of them live in a country where sneaking across the border into the US is an option. And if I'm wrong, why do we have only 15-20 million -- mostly Latino -- illegal immigrants living in the United States. Why don't we already have several hundred million Indian, Chinese, Malagasy, Sudanese and Bangladeshi illegal immigrants, as well?

The fact is, illegal immigration in the US is a problem that is fairly limited in scope, and easily managed if we replaced demagoguery with dispassionate analysis.

Posted by Jasper | December 6, 2007 3:06 PM

Jasper,

No, I don't "have to." Others have, as I said, studied and debated the issue exhuastively, though apparently not to a degree sufficient to convince you of the benefits of rich world-style UHC.

Yes, you do have to. Show me this cost-benefit analysis demonstrating that the benefits of ensuring universal health care exceed the costs. Unless you can substantiate this assertion with some kind of serious empirical analysis, it's worthless.

But this has nothing to do with amnesty. You're contending that an amnesty would make things worse for those currently operating within the system (i.e., waiting their turn in the queue), right?

An amnesty penalizes immigrants who comply with the law by letting immigrants who violate the law get away with it. It's like making one man pay for his bread with his hard-earned money and giving the bread away to another man for free.

They would be "deprived" (to use your curious term) of this income with or without an amnesty.

Not if they enter the country and work illegally. An amnesty lets those who do get away with it. That's why it's unfair to the ones who play by the rules and are deprived of the income enjoyed by the lawbreakers. You already admitted this ("I'd say it does screw those who waited their turn") but you now seem to have forgotten what you said just a few minutes ago.

Posted by Mixner | December 6, 2007 3:12 PM

What WikiDependentWacko Kelly fails to note is that his side acts as if building a big, fuck-off fence along the southern border and devoting a vast chunk of the government to HuntingDownTheBrown is some kind of piss-easy panacea.

But then again, he's convinced that the Mexicaninsurgencia is coming any time now, and spends his evenings scribbling out the Spanish street names on his L.A. map, because it's obviously the MexicanGovernment who put them there.

'Enforce The Borders' is a gift that keeps giving to the nativist idiots, because without underlying reforms to a system that would be an embarrassment to Americans, were they exposed to it, they'll always be able to go back for more and more and more bullshit enforcement measures.

I, for one, will support an only medium-strict amnesty program, but only AFTER I have seen serious commitments (and actions!) on enforcement.

That's a completely understandable position, but in practical terms, there are very slender windows to legislate on immigration before electoral politics kick in and hand over the reins to the people who can vote.

A substantial chunk of people who can vote, particularly on the GOP side, plain don't like brown people. What that means in practice is that you can pass all manner of enforcement bills, kick the bureaucratic reform down the road, and by the time the next window opens -- ta-da! -- it turns out that enforcement-only doesn't work. And the presumption then becomes 'we need more enforcement before we do the other stuff', and so on.

The opportunity for an honest public debate on this subject is so constrained by the election calendar. Any chance of there being a window in 2009 has probably been squashed by Horseshit Lou Dobbs. So expect Wacko Kelly to be muttering darkly about a Mexican fifth column for the next four years.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 6, 2007 3:20 PM

If you think that rocks, then why stop there? Shouldn't we act "humanely" to the multitudes of people far worse-off than Mexicans who want immigrate here?

Fred: Illegal immigration is primarily an economic issue. If domestic sources undersupply the market, by, say, two million workers, we can expect the market to meet its needs via imports, hopefully with the blessing and oversight of the government, or if not by the black market. And yes, importing those workers some times allows us to do good while we're doing well.

I don't think the country's labor needs are consistent with importing 20 or 50 or 100 million people -- or whatever is the number you fear -- from outside the hemisphere. I like it when the government does good deeds, but I certainly don't think good deeds should take a back seat to clear-eyed analysis of national interest.

Posted by Jasper | December 6, 2007 3:25 PM

What's with this "before electoral politics kick in and hand over the reins to the people who can vote" stuff? If the immigration debate is decided by anyone OTHER than people who can vote, in the US under current law, the outcome is illegitimate. End of story.

That's my whole point... consent of the people. If the American people want less immigration, they can vote for less immigration. Doesn't matter why, as long as the slots (however many there are) are allocated in a non-racist way.

What exactly is being pulled here?

Posted by M.C. | December 6, 2007 3:34 PM

It's like making one man pay for his bread with his hard-earned money and giving the bread away to another man for free.

No. It's like promising a man a loaf of bread on Tuesday, and honoring that promise, while agreeing not to punish a man who steals a loaf of bread on Monday. Unfair? Debatable. Penalizing him? Hardly.

Not if they enter the country and work illegally.

Which means they're breaking the law, and are therefore no longer in the category of people we're talking about, law abiders, which means you've just changed the frame of this debate. I'm shocked.

Posted by Jasper | December 6, 2007 3:42 PM

Jasper,

No. It's like promising a man a loaf of bread on Tuesday, and honoring that promise, while agreeing not to punish a man who steals a loaf of bread on Monday.

No, it's not at all like that. The man who waits in accordance with the law is deprived of a benefit (income from employment, and any other benefits arising from residency in the U.S.) that the man who violates the law receives. The proper analogy is therefore to one man who gets for free something that another man is forced to pay for.

Which means they're breaking the law, and are therefore no longer in the category of people we're talking about, law abiders, which means you've just changed the frame of this debate. I'm shocked.

You have completely missed the point. I'm shocked. If they break the law and enter the country illegally they're getting a benefit the law-abiding ones are denied. Again, you recognized this just a few minutes ago. You admitted that immigrants who comply with the law are getting screwed, but you justified screwing them on the basis of the U.S. national interest. Now you're denying they're getting screwed. Which is it?

Posted by Mixner | December 6, 2007 3:57 PM

"Fred: Illegal immigration is primarily an economic issue. If domestic sources undersupply the market, by, say, two million workers, we can expect the market to meet its needs via imports..."

Jasper:

There are two other solutions to this economic issue that most Americans would find preferable: 1) seek out un-tapped domestic labor sources; 2) raise wages. Bob Herbert recently lamented the high black teenage unemployment rate. Let's have employers who need low-skill workers hire every black teen who wants to work at an above-minimum wages before we start importing more poor people from Mexico.

"People are people. If they can, they will improve their skills and their lot in life. If they are legal, they will be able to negotiate better wages. They will be able to find better jobs. They will be able to send their kids to better schools. And their kids will become the lawyers, doctors and scientists of tomorrow.

Just like every new immigrant generation that came to America."

Nick Kaufman:

I wish you were right, but the facts don't support this. Every immigrant group isn't the same, and Mexican-Americans have decidedly not followed the same trajectory as the famous Ellis Island immigrants of a century ago. 41% of fourth generation Mexican-Americans don't graduate high school. That doesn't leave room for a lot of doctors, lawyers and scientists. In any case, why import poor people with 4th grade educations based on the fantasy that their kids will be scientists, doctors, etc., when there plenty of people who are already scientists, doctors, etc. who are waiting to immigrate here legally?

Posted by Fred | December 6, 2007 4:20 PM

As a long time marketing researcher, I've noted that immigration polling tends to be riddled with unprofessional work as if it was designed to get certain results (i.e., the results the Bush-Kennedy-McCain Axis wants to hear). But when push comes to shove, as in last spring, the polls prove fallacious.

Here's what the public _would_ go for:

1. The government cracks down on _new_ illegal immigration, radically reducing the net inflow.

2. After a few years of demonstrating that the government is finally serious about shutting the borders, the public would then be willing to talk about amnesty for those already here.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 6, 2007 5:02 PM

Steve Sailer,

Given the real estate/residential construction bust that (at least anecdotal evidence suggests) is sending more recent illegal immigrants back to Mexico, is it crazy to wonder whether Bush & Co. were eager to nail down an amnesty before the bust? 2006 would have been the peak year if you wanted to maximize the number of resident illegals who'd be here for an amnesty.

Posted by Fred | December 6, 2007 5:29 PM

Mixner,

I am puzzled. Do you really not see that a guy who steals bread gets something for free that other people need to pay for? Of course he has to take the risks involved in stealing the bread in much the way that illegal immigrants have to go through the difficulty of getting here and living with the risk of deportation.

But the disanalogy here is what exactly?

When the horrors of Political Correctness were the big issue, the stories that circulated tended to have the ironic ending that it was a minority that was harmed. Those stories tended not to stand up to scrutiny, but it was an effective rhetorical trick to present political correctness as hurting the people it was supposed ot protect.

There seems to be a similar trick going on now with the immigration debate. People with otherwise no concern for legal immigrants, suddenly have turned into their protections from the cruelty of amnesty. But so far there does not seem to be any actual cruelty of amnesty. And while one finds isolated legal immigrants ready to claim their offense (or people willing to pretend legal immigrant status) actual legal immigrants seem to overwhelming side with the illegals.

Posted by Lon | December 6, 2007 6:20 PM

Everyone agrees, at the end of the day, that it's dumb to have a big population of people availing themselves of social services who aren't even allowed to be in the country.

True.

But comprehensive reform featuring a path to citizen is a practical, economically viable, humane way of accomplishing that

Translation: so the solution is to change the law to allow them to be in the country.

Let me make a similar argument to show how stupid this is:

Most people agree that rape is a terible crime because it is horrible for a man to have sex with a woman without her consent.

The most obvious solution therefore is for women simply to consent any time a man tries to have sex with them, because if they consent, then it is no longer rape.

Posted by Glaivester | December 6, 2007 10:46 PM

Jasper doesn't seem to understand much, including my comment. Let me put it this way: why stretch your budget to help one neighbor get a new lawnmower, when the neighbor a couple doors down is starving? If the goal is to "help", why choose a relatively well-off country like Mexico when there are, once again, billions of people worse off?

As for sneaking across the border, it doesn't have to be seen as an option. If everyone knew there was nothing for them on their other side beside emergency care, very few would try to come here.

As for the idea of someone that IllegalImmigration is somehow just an economic issue, think again. It's even more an issue of political power.

Posted by TLB | December 6, 2007 11:25 PM

There are two other solutions to this economic issue that most Americans would find preferable: 1) seek out un-tapped domestic labor sources; 2) raise wages.

Fred: I think we both know the reality is that it's easy to find work in America if you're not overly picky. I don't believe there exist large "untapped" pools of people who want to work in demanding, strenuous jobs like agriculture or construction, at least not for wages anywhere near what is feasible. Firms aren't going to operate at a loss just to placate the desires of those who wish to reduce immigration. In any event, as I noted upthread, the market will get what it wants even if the government foolishly prohibits the existence of a legal, regulated framework for these hiring transactions to take place.

Posted by Jasper | December 6, 2007 11:43 PM

"But comprehensive reform featuring a path to citizen is a practical, economically viable, humane way of accomplishing that and despite a lack of public leadership for the past few months the public still seems to recognize it as such."

If the flood of illegal immigrants consisted of lawyers, doctors, CEOs, college professors, etc., the political drive to give them a "path to citizenship" would evaporate overnight.

The elites favor amnesty because their wages and salaries aren't being held down by the illegals. That burden falls on America's poorest most vulnerable workers, and we all know they don't count for jack $hit in our political system.

You don't need elaborate studies to prove this. You need only look at how hard the BushCo/Wall Street crowd is pushing for this.

Posted by kafka | December 7, 2007 12:22 AM

Jasper,

"I don't believe there exist large "untapped" pools of people who want to work in demanding, strenuous jobs like agriculture or construction, at least not for wages anywhere near what is feasible."

The unemployment rate for blacks in America is 8.5% -- that would be considered a recession level for the country as a whole. The unemployment rate for teenagers is 15.7%. Those are two large "untapped" pools of labor right there. Would most unemployed teenagers or blacks be willing to pick lettuce for minimum wage? Probably not*. But many would be willing to work construction for $15 per hour, or work as a landscaper or a busboy for $10 per hour.

You say the "the market will get what it wants even if the government foolishly prohibits" it. What the market wants, apparently, is non-black employees for unskilled labor; in this case, since the government tacitly allows the market to import unskilled Mexicans as replacement labor, the market has gotten what it wants; but when the government actually prohibits something, the market doesn't get what it wants. An obvious example of that is the market for highly-skilled labor. Tech companies are strictly limited by the government in the number of foreign workers they can hire; they don't get to hire as many as they want, and they don't flout the law on this as employers of unskilled labor brazenly do.

*Not even illegals want to pick lettuce, which is farmers need a constant stream of new illegals to replace the ones who ditch those jobs after a few months to become busboys, construction workers, etc. Those farmers should either automate or move their business offshore. If we have to pay 2 cents more for a head of lettuce, that will be less than the social costs incurred by the unskilled immigrants who briefly pick lettuce.

Posted by Fred | December 7, 2007 1:33 AM

You say the "the market will get what it wants even if the government foolishly prohibits" it. What the market wants, apparently, is non-black employees for unskilled labor...

Fred: First, there is no such thing as "unskilled" labor. I strongly suspect I, a college graduate, would be less skilled at agricultural work or construction than a so-called "unskilled" worker. Secondly, the market apparently wants "unskilled" (to use your term) workers of every color and creed possible. I mean, have you never encountered such a worker in this country who happened to be African-American? Thirdly, to attain what you apparently think is possible -- rock-bottom unemployment rates among disadvantaged groups -- would require (absent a much different set of policies) perfectly functioning labor markets. Ain't gonna happen. The entire unemployed teen and African-American labor force isn't going to up and move to Las Vegas to clean hotel rooms or California to harvest lettuce. Perhaps you can think of a way to bring the vegetable fields to Detroit or Baltimore. I do believe efforts should be made to aid disadvantaged workers, I just think it's obvious that spending $200 billion (or whatever you think it would cost) keeping brown people out of the country is not the way to go about doing it. Far better to take that money and increase skills and productivity, which leads to sustainably higher wages, and perhaps give them healthcare. But of course, we know the richest country in the world can't possibly afford that One other possible way of helping disadvantaged unemployed and low-wage American workers is to regularize the illegal work force. Allow them to join labor unions. Enable them to more freely threaten to quit if they don't receive better conditions or more money. Perhaps require employers of such workers to provide health insurance or even a super-minimum wage. These kinds of measures would exert upward pressure on wages in this country. The point is, a legal market can be regulated. A black market cannot.

An obvious example of that is the market for highly-skilled labor. Tech companies are strictly limited by the government in the number of foreign workers they can hire; they don't get to hire as many as they want, and they don't flout the law on this as employers of unskilled labor brazenly do.

The main difference is that the global average wage for, say, computer programming or software is a lot higher than the global average for picking lettuce. Tech workers are a lot more expensive to hire and train. This makes it necessary to carefully check their credentials. The economic loss from having to fire an illegal tech worker you've just sunk money into is much higher than with a dishwasher or chambermaid. I think it's also pretty obvious that sectors of the economy that tend to utilize illegal labor are much better suited to the cash economy than, say, your average internet start-up backed by venture capital.

If you can transform the economics of agrigulture or asbestos removal to more closely resemble that of software or biotech, more stringent immigration law enforcement would be much easier. So, too, would shopping for flying ponies.

Posted by Jasper | December 7, 2007 1:09 PM

Glaivester- If there were important similarities between entering this country illegally and rape you would have a good argument.

You don't have a good argument.

Posted by Lon | December 7, 2007 2:38 PM

If the immigration debate is decided by anyone OTHER than people who can vote, in the US under current law, the outcome is illegitimate. End of story.

You miss my distinction: election season, particularly when illuminated by the scarlet glow of Lou Dobbs' giant head, is a time for rabble-rousing and, literally, appealing to the base. When you're a GOPper appealing to a milky-white electorate that's as pants-crappingly paranoid about TehBrownHordes as Wacko Kelly, you don't offer an honest assessment of the situation, not least because most of your constituents wouldn't know an I-485 from an iPod.

If you believe that smart immigration policy is made while directly appealing to the voters in election season, I may have a sub-prime loan on a bridge in Brooklyn for you. On the other hand, if you think the only legitimate immigration policy is the one placed squarely on the electoral platform, then you may be right, but you're basically condemning the system to be fucked over till kingdom come.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 7, 2007 3:46 PM

Let me rephrase my argument:

it's dumb to have a big population of people availing themselves of social services who aren't even allowed to be in the country

That they are availing themselves of taxpayer-funded social services is a big part of why people don't want them in the country in the first place, so trying to "solve" the problem by changing their status to legal (which is essentially what Matt is proposing) is idiotic.

Posted by Glaivester | December 7, 2007 7:40 PM

Jasper,

"First, there is no such thing as "unskilled" labor."

I'm sorry, but this is a widely-used, and useful term. It's not meant to be an invidious moral distinction, so why be so touchy and obtuse about it?

"Secondly, the market apparently wants "unskilled" (to use your term) workers of every color and creed possible."

Please educate yourself on this. Employers of unskilled labor have a clear preference for Latino and other immigrants (even those who don't speak English) over native blacks. That's why black unemployment is so high. That's why New Orleans, which is majority black, is being rebuilt by mostly Latino laborers. That's why busboys in New York City, which has a large black population, are almost never black. There are plenty of other examples you can find with a Google search or just by walking around with your eyes open. For starters, look up the recent WSJ article about the chicken-processing plant in Georgia that only started recruiting blacks after the ICE raided it and chased away its illegal immigrant workers. That company is now trying to hire legal Hmong immigrants instead of native blacks.

"Perhaps you can think of a way to bring the vegetable fields to Detroit or Baltimore."

I already addressed the lettuce-picker straw man in my previous post. And Baltimore probably wasn't the best example to use. Baltimore-area crab processors import unskilled Mexicans to work at their plants instead of hiring local blacks.

"I just think it's obvious that spending $200 billion (or whatever you think it would cost) keeping brown people out of the country is not the way to go about doing it."

I'm not against "brown people" immigrating to America, just unskilled people with little human capital who displace our native unskilled workers and consume more government resources than they pay in taxes. I'd welcome more scientists, physicians, engineers, venture capitalists, etc., whatever shade their skin. Where do you get the idea that enforcing our current immigration laws would cost $200 billion? The estimate for building a fence along the border with Mexico runs about $4 billion, and while a rigorous employer inspection system might require hiring more ICE inspectors, this cost would be subsidized by fines on offending companies.

"Far better to take that money and increase skills and productivity, which leads to sustainably higher wages,"

Forty one percent of 4th generation Mexican Americans drop out of high school or don't graduate. Expecting them to climb the skills ladder is a triumph of hope over experience. Why not let in immigrants who already have skills instead?

"...and perhaps give them healthcare."

Sounds great. How about we figure out how to afford the accelerating cost of Medicare for American citizens first? Importing millions more poor people will just add to the cost.

"Tech workers are a lot more expensive to hire and train. This makes it necessary to carefully check their credentials."

That's not why employers of tech workers comply with federal immigration law. They do so because the immigration laws are consistently enforced with highly-skilled workers.

Posted by Fred | December 7, 2007 8:47 PM

I'm sorry, but this is a widely-used, and useful term. It's not meant to be an invidious moral distinction, so why be so touchy and obtuse about it?

I'm neither touchy nor obtuse about the term "unskilled labor." I don't like the term because it's obviously inaccurate. Call me an army of one fighting my own little battle for clarity.

Employers of unskilled labor have a clear preference for Latino and other immigrants (even those who don't speak English) over native blacks.

Cite please. Seriously. I'm not being obtuse about this either, but the main reason more African-Americans aren't hired to perform tasks typically performed by Latino illegal immigrants is that, despite a certain degree of structural unemployment affecting the black community, the vast majority of African-American workers, just like workers of any race or ethnicity in the United States, are employed. Illegal immigration really is about the relative scarcity of labor, Fred, whether you admit it or not. That's why, not surprisingly, when the economy slows down, so does illegal immigration. If your logic were valid, a slump in the economy would actually prompt more illegal immigration, as evil US employers rush to cut costs by dumping natives for foreigners.

I'm not against "brown people" immigrating to America, just unskilled people with little human capital who displace our native unskilled workers and consume more government resources than they pay in taxes.

They don't "displace" American workers any more than the waves of immigration during the 19th century did. If you were running US immigration policy in 1883, the country would likely never have produced a George Gershwin or a Joe DiMaggio. The government resources canard is just that. I doubt the illegal immigration deficit exceeds a half point of US public sector spending, if it even exists at all, given all that unclaimable cash entering the Social Security fund. It's just not worth thinking about, except as a faux issue to rile up ignorant people into voting for conservative politicians.

Forty one percent of 4th generation Mexican Americans drop out of high school or don't graduate. Expecting them to climb the skills ladder is a triumph of hope over experience. Why not let in immigrants who already have skills instead?

I have no objection to allowing more highly skilled immigrants. That's usually the way us pro-immigration folks operate. I agree Mexican-American educational achievement is an issue that needs to be addressed. I'm willing to address it. I don't believe the situation is hopeless, however; 41% is not a majority, and one suspects that number will drop, albeit not as rapidly as one would hope.

That's not why employers of tech workers comply with federal immigration law. They do so because the immigration laws are consistently enforced with highly-skilled workers.

Well, regardless of the specific reasons, we don't have a half million Mexican software developers sneaking into the country each year. I think the way to deal with the half million Mexican "unskilled" workers is to provide a legal, regulated market. My guess is lack of action on this front bothers me less than you however: I likes me some robust immigration levels, even if, sadly, the government doesn't have the sense to bring the illegal component into the light of day. Fight CIR all you want for all I care. Sooner or later the country's going to admit we're not building an Iron Curtain, and we're not deporting 15 million people. Besides, at this point, I'd much prefer to wait for a Democratic president and a Democratic congress to do it right.

Posted by Jasper | December 8, 2007 1:00 AM