Guesting Games

I'm broadly in agreement with what Megan has to say about the quest worker question. As Megan says, for those of us who would like to see a more liberal immigration regime, it's really not clear what problem this is supposed to solve. Politically, the imperative at this point is clearly reducing the number of illegal immigrants. The question, then, is whether this can be done in a humane and pragmatic way that involves a path to citizenship for some of the people already here, or whether it's going to be a purely punitive issue.

However that shakes out, if we can get to a point where the government's doing a reasonably good job of keeping the number of people who actually come to the US to something in the vicinity of the number of people who are allowed to come then, maybe, the conditions will be set to increase the volume of legal immigration. Having some or all of that increase come in the form of a guest worker program only seems to create additional practical and ideological challenges with little upside.

Comments

No meaningful action will be taken to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into this country. The immigrant issue is just like the drug issue: restricting supply is impossible as long as demand remains high. And our corporate interests, the only truly empowered entity in our democracy, want illegal immigration to continue unabated. So it will. Real workplace enforcement is the key measure to reducing illegal immigration, but we won't do it, because there's too much money in not doing so, and money rules American politics. Film at 11.

Posted by Freddie | December 27, 2007 1:29 PM

No meaningful action will be taken to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into this country. The immigrant issue is just like the drug issue: restricting supply is impossible as long as demand remains high. And our corporate interests, the only truly empowered entity in our democracy, want illegal immigration to continue unabated. So it will. Real workplace enforcement is the key measure to reducing illegal immigration, but we won't do it, because there's too much money in not doing so, and money rules American politics. Film at 11.

Posted by Freddie | December 27, 2007 1:29 PM

It's funny--older-generation progressive types of my acquaintance, San Francisco liberals, one could call some of them, seem to have a largely positive recollection of the guest-worker regime in which Mexican nationals came to California's Central and Imperial Valleys and provided seasonal agricultural labor. They really don't get the more negative views that we tend to have about the idea today. That may in part be because they have not updated their understanding of the dynamics of Mexican immigration sufficiently to see it as part of the much larger, much more troubling picture that it has to be seen in today. It does seem to me that the realities of NAFTA's not-good impact, the continuing dysfunction of Mexico's political culture and economy, and the resultant gasket-blowing pressures of migration have overwhelmed the guest-worker idea. But I'm not an expert in the field, either, so I keep an open ear to these oldsters....

Posted by elle loco | December 27, 2007 1:30 PM

Politically, the imperative at this point is clearly reducing the number of illegal immigrants.

We could reduce that number to zero just by making them all legal. Make an exception for anyone convicted of a felony (either here or elsewhere) and you still reduce the number of 'illegal immigrants' to something very small; enforcement could focus on the people who have actually done bad things, rather than being dispersed among millions who just happen to have been born in the wrong place.

Posted by Tom Hilton | December 27, 2007 1:35 PM

I know that picking on matt's typos is passe these days but I'm actually kind of fond of the term "quest worker". "it's like a job, but you're only going on a quest and then you return." "What's my quest?" "$2/hr".

Posted by dbt | December 27, 2007 1:38 PM

The problem with both the recent guest worker and amnesty proposals was the obtuseness of their proponents about the effect these proposals would have on future illegal immigration.

If we don't enforce current laws against illegal immigration, neither a guest worker program nor an amnesty do anything to stop illegal immigration. We'd end up with all three: guest workers, newly-legalized former illegals (including recent arrivals attracted by the amnesty) and a new group of illegal aliens.

Of course, as long as no meaningful efforts are made to limit illegal immigration (how much of the proposed border fence signed into law last year has been built?), there will be no political support for amnesty or a guest worker program.

Posted by Fred | December 27, 2007 1:52 PM

if we can get to a point where the government's doing a reasonably good job of keeping the number of people who actually come to the US to something in the vicinity of the number of people who are allowed to come then, maybe, the conditions will be set to increase the volume of legal immigration.

word.

--

We could reduce that number to zero just by making them all legal.

Well, yeah, but that's a really bad idea. For one thing, it undermines the rule of law. For another, it's a grossly unequal solution as applied to the rest of the world. It's relatively easy to slip into the US in an undocumented manner from Mexico (2006 Per Capita GDP: $10,700). By contrast, it's almost impossible to do so from Bolivia (2006 Per Capita GDP: $3,100) or Somalia ($600) or Burundi ($700) or Afghanistan ($800). A laissez-faire attitude toward undocumented immigration primarily benefits our relatively wealthy neighbor to the detriment of poorer people around the world (for whom our slow and broken bureaucratic process is the only way in).

Posted by southpaw | December 27, 2007 1:57 PM

Like SansAClue (MattY), I oppose anything other than the limited "guest" programs we have now. However, stopped clocks and all...

As for Freddie, what he fails to note is that those who support the current situation aren't restricted to "corporate interests". The fact that there's a loose coalition between the Left/Dems/MSM/religious leaders and corrupt business interests has even been mentioned in the WaPo. And, the ACLU and AFL-CIO are currently suing the Feds to in effect block enforcement, partnering with the U.S. CofC to do so. An ACLU chapter is even involved with TysonChicken (tinyurl.com/2kgaev); three others have indirect links to the MexicanGovernment.

As yet another example of that dynamic (and yet another thing MattY doesn't know), the U.S. CofC has received "in the high six figures" from a company that profits when IllegalAliens send money home (tinyurl.com/2enw5h). That same company has links to various far-left groups whose advocacy helps that company make money, including one headed by someone linked to the MexicanGovernment. That group in turn received money from that company and subsequently sued AZ to in effect block enforcement. They say there was no quid pro quo (tinyurl.com/3yo4aj).

I hopefully don't need to note just how idiotic Tom Hilton's plan is. It would result in de facto OpenBorders as we had to keep waving the magic wand for each new wave of IllegalAliens.

As for SansAClue's "liberal immigration regime", maybe he should consider either doing some research or asking people on the other side from him about this before speaking about matters about which he knows little.

I mean, even used car salesmen - if you press them on it - will be willing to admit some downsides to what they're trying to sell. MattY apparently feels that simply presenting the upsides is enough.

For just one example, the MexicanGovernment has explicitly stated that they're going to be using U.S. nonprofits to push their agenda inside the U.S. How exactly would MattY counteract such attempts by foreign governments to obtain PoliticalPower inside the U.S.? Or, don't MattY/the Dems care about foreign governments having some degree of control over our internal politics?

As for the "humane" side of this issue, once again, MattY needs to find smart friends to help him see what's really involved in this issue.

Posted by TLB | December 27, 2007 2:16 PM

If we don't enforce current laws against illegal immigration, neither a guest worker program nor an amnesty do anything to stop illegal immigration.

Fred: That depends on how the guest worker program is structured. A true guest worker program -- ie., a system that makes in impossible to change one's status from guest worker to permanent immigrant -- would, I tend to agree, do little to solve our illegal immigration issue.

A soft guest worker program -- one where workers initially come here as temporary workers but are eligible to apply for green cards after a certain period of time has passed and certain criteria are met (obeying the law, paying taxes, English proficiency, what have you) might well prove effective at reducing illegal immigration. The benefits of coming here legally, after all, are significant. Legal workers can join unions. Legal workers enjoy the protections of the law. A guest worker program might entail such features as a superminimum wage, say, and mandatory employee paid-for health insurance (why let those evil agribusinesses add to our health care bills)? Perhaps most importantly, legal immigrants are free to come and go.

My point is, even if the demand south of the border for work permits exceeds supply (assuming we eschew a pure demand-driven system and adopt caps on the number of work permits issued) and queues materialize as a result, the existence of a legal way to sell one's labor north of the border should significantly de-incentivize illegal immigration, especially if the penalty for getting busted as an illegal immigrant is a lifetime ban on participation in the guest worker program.

And, needless to say, a reduced flow of illegal laborers trying to sneak across our borders should make whatever enforcement enhancements we do undertake all the more effective, by reducing the size of the task.

Posted by Jasper | December 27, 2007 2:16 PM

a typo is when you hit f instead of g, as they are next to each other on the keyboard. there is no explanation for what MY did.

Posted by dent | December 27, 2007 2:26 PM

Jasper, you don't seem to understand that most of those of us who oppose illegal immigration do so because we want the niche filled by illegal immigrants filled with American workers. Your proposal is essentially the same thing as Tom Hilton's, and it's a non starter politically.

After all, if you're not just trying to exploit these people for cheap labor to keep wages in our country low, why force them to enter the country as 'quest workers' in the first place?

Posted by soullite | December 27, 2007 2:30 PM

"A guest worker program might entail such features as a superminimum wage, say, and mandatory employee paid-for health insurance (why let those evil agribusinesses add to our health care bills)?"

Jasper,

If you make employers pay for the externalities imposed by guest workers, and you don't enforce the laws against illegal immigration, then there will be little incentive for employers to hire guest workers over illegals.

In any case, as I've asked here before, what about American blacks? Look at the BLS data. The black unemployment rate last month was 8.4%, double the white rate. The black teenage unemployment rate is an astonishing 29.5%. Since we already have to pay for the social costs imposed by unemployed African Americans, why don't we encourage employers to hire them instead of importing grade school dropouts from Mexico who add additional social costs? If the supply of unskilled foreign workers were shrunk, the demand for unskilled labor would increase, and employers would have to offer higher wages to attract workers. That would be a boon to unskilled African Americans, and other Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Posted by Fred | December 27, 2007 2:44 PM

Jasper, you don't seem to understand that most of those of us who oppose illegal immigration do so because we want the niche filled by illegal immigrants filled with American workers.

Soullite: I do understand that. I think you're wrong, and that most jobs currently filled by illegals will likely disappear if the latter are sent home. I mean, I think it's pretty uncontroversial to postulate that deporting, say, ten million workers will result in a significant net drop in US employment.

Your proposal is essentially the same thing as Tom Hilton's, and it's a non starter politically.

Increasing legal immigration is a non-starter politically at present, I agree. I don't agree it will remain so indefinitely.

After all, if you're not just trying to exploit these people for cheap labor to keep wages in our country low, why force them to enter the country as 'quest workers' in the first place?

Well, unlike you, I don't think many employers are evilly trying to "keep wages in our country low." I view the phenomenon as simply a problem of labor scarcity. Otherwise, we should expect to see a boom in illegal immigration accompanying the declining economy, as US firms -- under enormous pressure to cut labor costs -- shed American workers in favor of illegals. We know this is not the case. Illegal immigration tends to follow the economic cycle pretty closely. When workers get hard to find and wages spike, so does illegal immigration.

But I digress, the answer to your question is that "The Hand Out 500,000 Green Cards a Year to Mexicans Act of 200X" probably isn't going to find a congressional sponsor, much less survive a filibuster. I think Germany-style guest worker programs are extremely bad policy. I think using the term "guest worker program" to make an increase in legal immigration more politically palatable is extremely good policy.

Posted by Jasper | December 27, 2007 2:50 PM

"A laissez-faire attitude toward undocumented immigration primarily benefits our relatively wealthy neighbor to the detriment of poorer people around the world (for whom our slow and broken bureaucratic process is the only way in)."

Southpaw,

Tom Hilton's proposal is not a laissez-faire attitude toward undocumented immigration. It is a proposal for amnesty for all undocumented immigrants currently working in the US, with exceptions made for those who are either violent criminals or threats to our national security. It is also a proposal to remove many of the barriers to LEGAL immigration that currently exist in our immigration laws, such as arbritrary numerical limits, so that the economic incentives driving illegal immigration are reduced.

Of the biggest fallacies that exists in the immigration debate is the idea that border control is a necessary precondition before immigration reform. On the contrary, it is immigration reform that is a necessary precondition to border control. If you want less immigrants coming to the US illegally in order to work, then you must make it easier for these immigrants to come here LEGALLY in order to work. Immigrants who come here legally, remember, will arrive in this country through proper legal channels, which will enable our immigration authorities to document and monitor the coming and goings of such immigrants.

Posted by eltoro | December 27, 2007 2:59 PM

Well, yeah, but that's a really bad idea. For one thing, it undermines the rule of law.

How does changing a law undermine rule of law? Did ending prohibition undermine rule of law?

A laissez-faire attitude toward undocumented immigration primarily benefits our relatively wealthy neighbor to the detriment of poorer people around the world (for whom our slow and broken bureaucratic process is the only way in).

This is a pretty strained argument. It's like saying California shouldn't have any sea ports because Montana has an unfair disadvantage in access to the oceans.

Jasper, you don't seem to understand that most of those of us who oppose illegal immigration do so because we want the niche filled by illegal immigrants filled with American workers.

With our low rates of unemployment, where would all these American workers come from? Would it not be much easier to simply let the people who are currently employed stay employed?

Real workplace enforcement is the key measure to reducing illegal immigration, but we won't do it, because there's too much money in not doing so, and money rules American politics.

This argument is often raised and needs some serious thought. If there's money to be made, why the effort to kill this gold egg laying goose? Is it because some corporate interest in immigration? Assuming yes, so what? What about my (non corporate) interests in getting affordable services? Everyone benefits from the labor provided by illegal immigrants, the financial and societal burdens seem to be overstated, yet it somehow remains an evil that ultimately can only be corrected by a vast increase in government spending, intrusion, and bureaucracy. All to spare red blooded Americans the pain of hearing Spanish spoken in the supermarket checkout lines.

Posted by shecky | December 27, 2007 3:06 PM

"With our low rates of unemployment, where would all these American workers come from?"

African Americans -- look at the BLS link I provided above. If the white unemployment rate were 8.4% it would be the biggest topic of discussion in the blogosphere, and the top story on the TV news every night. I'm old enough to remember when the national unemployment rate was that high, in the early 80's recession. I remember news stories about thousands of people lining up to fill out applications for entry-level jobs.

If current laws against hiring illegals were enforced, employers would be forced to higher African Americans. That would be good for blacks and good for America. It would be good for Mexico too, if instead of coming here industrious Mexicans put their energies into campaigning for much-needed economic reforms at home.

Posted by Fred | December 27, 2007 3:14 PM

If you make employers pay for the externalities imposed by guest workers, and you don't enforce the laws against illegal immigration, then there will be little incentive for employers to hire guest workers over illegals.

Fred: Who's arguing for non-enforcement of labor laws?

The thing is, allowing Latino laborers to legally immigrate not only effects the incentives on the Mexican side of the border, it works on the US side, as well. Currently, if you're say, a restaurant owner looking for a dishwasher, there's a strong chance you'll primarily be hearing from illegal job applicants. You may indeed only hear from illegals. Even under a fairly draconian enforcement regime, the temptation to hire an illegal and pay him under the table is going to be fairly, er, tempting. But allow a restaurant owner to legally hire somebody from Mexico to do the job, and the temptation to tap the black market for labor -- especially given the existence of stern legal sanctions if he's caught -- is substantially reduced. And this, in turn, sets up a positive feedback loop, because it now becomes more difficult for an illegal immigrant to find a US employer willing to hire him.

Legal markets, work. We should consider trying them some time.

As to your point about externalities, well, with respect to health insurance, you may be right. It's just a thought. For all I know the screwed up US health insurance market makes it financially untenable to implement this sort of proviso in a guest worker program. But I don't think the wage issue is problematic. My guess is that most US employers of illegal immigrants would love to find a dependable legal worker willing to do a given job at one or two or five or seven dollars over the minimum wage, but they simply can't find them. Now, you'd no doubt be correct to counter that eventually, if the wage is raised enough ($18/hr? $23/hr?), a capable American will be found. But not all jobs justify paying that kind of money. The restrictionist instinctively replies: Too bad, the job therefore shouldn't exist. The immigration supporter says: It's a shame to reduce total employment when there are people available willing to do the job.

As always, these debates about illegal immigration come down to one's attitude and opinions about immigration in general.

Posted by Jasper | December 27, 2007 3:15 PM

On the contrary, it is immigration reform that is a necessary precondition to border control.

Precisely. We'll never get control of our borders without some legal framework to allow cross border labor transactions to transpire. The lack of such a framework renders the size of the enforcement challenge utterly gargantuan -- comparable in scope to the war on drugs -- with similar results.

Posted by Jasper | December 27, 2007 3:21 PM

"Since we already have to pay for the social costs imposed by unemployed African Americans, why don't we encourage employers to hire them instead of importing grade school dropouts from Mexico who add additional social costs? If the supply of unskilled foreign workers were shrunk, the demand for unskilled labor would increase, and employers would have to offer higher wages to attract workers. That would be a boon to unskilled African Americans, and other Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder. "

Fred,

The widespread availability of undocumented, unskilled foreign workers does not by itself explain high levels of African-American unemployment. Remember, African-Americans have a asignificant advantage over unskilled immigrants from Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Asia; they are native-born Americans who are fluent in English. All other things being equal (work ethic, level of education and skill, etc), being native-born Americans should make African-Americans a more desirable prospect for hiring than most unskilled foreign workers. Successful communication between management and labor is an integral part of having a successful business, and greater ease of communication through having a common language and culture should make African-Americans a better fit for most American employers than foreign-born workers with little or no command of English.

So why does our supposedly rational job market for the unskilled display such a preference for unskilled foreign workers? Wages by itself aren't enough of an explanation; a low-wage worker is not a better employee than a high-wage worker if the low-wage worker provides work of less value. Therefore, the presence of unskilled foreign workers is a threat to the employement prosepects of native-born unskilled workers, only if the work provided by foreign born is perceived by employers to be of equal or greater value than that of the native-born

This raises the question of why do so many American employers perceive foreign workers (even those with little or no fluency in English) to be better prospects for unskilled labor than native-born Americans, particularly those of African-American descent? I wonder if racist attitudes toward African-Americans is really more to blame here than competition from illegal immigrants.

Posted by eltoro | December 27, 2007 3:35 PM

"Fred: Who's arguing for non-enforcement of labor laws?"

You argued that a "soft" guest worker program would reduce illegal immigration. My initial point was that nothing except enforcement of current laws against illegal immigration and greater border enforcement would reduce illegal immigration.

"Currently, if you're say, a restaurant owner looking for a dishwasher, there's a strong chance you'll primarily be hearing from illegal jobapplicants."

The NY Times had an article about how this actually works in New York. Diner owners call a Greek (legal) immigrant, who runs a sort of employment agency for illegal immigrant workers. He places them in dishwasher/busboy jobs for $10 per hour, of which they kick back $2 to him. I find it hard to believe that there aren't African Americans willing to do these jobs for $10 per hour in New York -- especially since I see plenty of blacks working at Starbucks, which, like other large corporations, has too much at stake to flout our immigration laws as smaller businesses do. If there weren't any illegal immigrants (or guest workers) to hire for these jobs, employers would have to offer these jobs to blacks. Then Starbucks might have to raise its salaries to $10 per hour to compete.

That would be a good thing for African Americans, and the cost would be borne by latte drinkers. Unskilled immigration from Mexico, on the other hand, is a good thing for Mexican grade school dropouts, and the costs are borne disproportionately by American blacks.

"Legal markets, work. We should consider trying them some time."

Sounds clever, but what does it mean? Are you suggesting that we don't have a legal labor market in this country? It seems to me that we do, but the laws are selectively enforced for unskilled labor. Virtually all employers of skilled and professional labor must limit themselves to hiring applicants legally eligible to work here. A Mexican chemist here on a vacation visa won't be able to land a job at Pfizer without legal authorization to work here. Similarly, at the unskilled end of the labor market, Starbucks and Staples must follow employment laws as well. Where our labor laws are mostly unenforced is in restaurants, on construction sites, in agricultural businesses, etc.

"My guess is that most US employers of illegal immigrants would love to find a dependable legal worker willing to do a given job at one or two or five or seven dollars over the minimum wage, but they simply can't find them."

Your guess is wrong, since most of these employers also employee American citizens. That means that at least some Americans are willing to do those jobs, and more would be willing to do them with slightly higher pay.

"Now, you'd no doubt be correct to counter that eventually, if the wage is raised enough ($18/hr? $23/hr?), a capable American will be found. But not all jobs justify paying that kind of money."

Pay at those levels wouldn't be necessary to attract American workers to most of the jobs currently held by illegals, but you are right that some jobs don't justify much higher pay.

"The restrictionist instinctively replies: Too bad, the job therefore shouldn't exist. The immigration supporter says: It's a shame to reduce total employment when there are people available willing to do the job."

Let's break this down a little bit. There is a class of true shit jobs that really shouldn't exist. These are the jobs that not even illegals are willing to work at for more than a couple of months -- the minimum wage berry picking jobs are the prime example. These need to be automated or moved offshore.

Most of the jobs in question are above this class of true shit jobs, and can be filled without unskilled immigrants. Since we already have our own poor people who are net drains on our government budgets, why not let them have these jobs at decent wages? That would be better for them, and for us, then importing more poor people from Mexico and elsewhere, who will increase the net drains on our government budgets and lower wages for those at the bottom end of the labor market.

Posted by Fred | December 27, 2007 3:52 PM

Jasper offers this nugget: We'll never get control of our borders without some legal framework to allow cross border labor transactions to transpire. The lack of such a framework renders the size of the enforcement challenge utterly gargantuan -- comparable in scope to the war on drugs -- with similar results.

Actually, if you think about it you'll see there's a huge difference. The transactions involved in drugs are always under the table and involve millions and millions of people, none of whom have storefronts (generally speaking). OTOH, those involving illegal labor are performed by supposedly reputable companies that have a physical presence, licenses, etc. etc. If we wanted to, we could greatly reduce illegal hiring. It would be very difficult to greatly reduce drug sales.

And, getting enforcement could be quite easy: we simply get a handle on those who oppose it. We do that by discrediting them, such as by revealing their lies and misleading statements. Once no one feels free to support illegal activity, the problem will start going away.

It's like ChildLabor. Some still goes on, but very little because everyone in power realizes that supporting it would be a career ender. We simply get to that point with illegal labor.

Posted by TLB | December 27, 2007 4:00 PM

My initial point was that nothing except enforcement of current laws against illegal immigration and greater border enforcement would reduce illegal immigration.

Your initial point is wrong. Changing the law to allow any foreigner who wants to work here to immigrate would, by definition, eliminate illegal immigration.

I find it hard to believe that there aren't African Americans willing to do these jobs for $10 per hour in New York -- especially since I see plenty of blacks working at Starbucks...

See eltoro's 3:35pm comment. I will say that your patronizing attitude, er, concern for the African-American community, is admirable.

That means that at least some Americans are willing to do those jobs, and more would be willing to do them with slightly higher pay.

They could be different jobs. It might well be possible to find American college kids willing to work for 180 bucks a night in tips tending bar, but none willing to wash dishes for $9/hr before taxes. Oh, yes, I forgot, if the restaurateur can't afford to pay $20/hr for a dishwasher, he should switch to paper plates, or close up his restaurant, because that's better for the country than giving a break to some poor chap from Honduras.

There is a class of true shit jobs that really shouldn't exist.

Says you. The owner of the farm probably disagrees with you.

That would be better for them, and for us, then importing more poor people from Mexico and elsewhere, who will increase the net drains on our government budgets...

Says you, but plenty of economists disagree with you. I must say I find your claim here rather counterintuitive, because reducing the dependence ratio usually benefits a government's finances.

...and lower wages for those at the bottom end of the labor market.

This claim is also hotly disputed, as well.

Posted by Jasper | December 27, 2007 4:14 PM

"The NY Times had an article about how this actually works in New York. Diner owners call a Greek (legal) immigrant, who runs a sort of employment agency for illegal immigrant workers. He places them in dishwasher/busboy jobs for $10 per hour, of which they kick back $2 to him. I find it hard to believe that there aren't African Americans willing to do these jobs for $10 per hour in New York -- especially since I see plenty of blacks working at Starbucks, which, like other large corporations, has too much at stake to flout our immigration laws as smaller businesses do."

Fred,

This is also a testament to the rationality of Starbucks' owners. They do not let irrational prejudice against African-Americans blind them to the reality that a native-born American fluent in English is more likely to be a better fit for a job at Starbucks, than a foreign-born immigrant whose English not too good. There must be great multitudes of African-Americans who are willing to work in a diner for $10/hour, and who will do the job as well as, or even better than, foreign-born workers. It is a shame then that so many business owners seem to bear such antipathy against African-American workers, that even when the prevailing wage is $10/hour, that such business owners still prefer to hire undocumented workers.

Moreover, considering that illegals are able to command a wage of $10/hour in this situation, one wonders if unskilled foreign workers really do depress prevailing wages to the extent that restrictionists claim.

Posted by eltoro | December 27, 2007 4:19 PM

"This raises the question of why do so many American employers perceive foreign workers (even those with little or no fluency in English) to be better prospects for unskilled labor than native-born Americans, particularly those of African-American descent? I wonder if racist attitudes toward African-Americans is really more to blame here than competition from illegal immigrants."

Sounds like a fascinating question for the Freakonomics economist to tackle, with the young black Harvard economist Roland Freyer lending his diversity to the project. I can guess the result of their scholarly study: the reason employers of unskilled labor hire illegal immigrants over blacks is racism, since any other reason would require a verboten invidious distinction between blacks and Latino immigrants.

That study would lead to a New York Times article and a day or two of posts by liberal bloggers congratulating themselves on how the results of the Freakonomics-Freyer study confirm their egalitarian beliefs and highlight how big a problem racism against blacks continues to be. But what would be the end result of this for blacks? The precocious Roland Freyer would have another publication to add to his CV, but unskilled blacks in New York would still get passed over for $10 per hour busboy jobs in favor of illegal immigrants.

This salient point, of course, is that for whatever reasons, non-corporate employers of unskilled labor prefer unskilled immigrants to blacks and won't hire blacks unless they are forced to by a paucity of unskilled immigrant labor. The way to bring about that paucity -- and to increase wages and employment opportunities for unskilled blacks -- is to enforce our current laws against illegal immigration, and to restrict legal unskilled immigration as well.

Posted by Fred | December 27, 2007 4:30 PM

you are right some jobs don't justify much higher pay.

As soon as you start applying this principle to CEOs, we have a deal-- certainly their jobs don't justify higher pay, yes, they get that very pay that is unjustified.

If a market cannot find applicants at a given pay level, than the job justifies higher pay, no? Anything else is Marxism!

Posted by Tyro | December 27, 2007 4:47 PM

"Your initial point is wrong. Changing the law to allow any foreigner who wants to work here to immigrate would, by definition, eliminate illegal immigration."

Please. No guest worker proposal would allow "any foreigner who wants to work here to immigrate", so there would always be additional workers with an incentive to immigrate here illegally.

"See eltoro's 3:35pm comment."

See my response to him above.

"I will say that your patronizing attitude, er, concern for the African-American community, is admirable."

I'll say that your apparent lack of concern for the African-American community and your fellow citizens in general isn't so admirable.

"They could be different jobs."

For the most part, they're not. In meatpacking plants, for example, native-born Americans work the same jobs that illegal immigrants work.

"Oh, yes, I forgot, if the restaurateur can't afford to pay $20/hr for a dishwasher, he should switch to paper plates, or close up his restaurant, because that's better for the country than giving a break to some poor chap from Honduras."

Jamba Juice and Starbucks have no trouble hiring blacks at $8 per hour. I'm sure restaurant owners can hire blacks at $10 per hour, if they didn't have a ready supply of "poor chaps" from south of the border.

"Says you. The owner of the farm probably disagrees with you."

I'm sure he does, but why should he get to socialize his costs while he privatizes his profits? If his business model is a raw deal for the rest of the country, let him modernize it or move it elsewhere. We won't be in any danger of running out of strawberries in either case.

"Says you, but plenty of economists disagree with you. I must say I find your claim here rather counterintuitive, because reducing the dependence ratio usually benefits a government's finances."

Which economists say that unskilled immigrants pay more in taxes than they consume in government services? Probably none, since it's not true. As for reducing the "dependence ratio" benefiting a government's finances, what exactly are you arguing here? If you have an unemployed African American high school dropout on public assistance, and then you import a Mexican grade school dropout to work as a busboy, the government has to pay the costs of the unemployed African American's public assistance as well as the social costs imposed by the Mexican immigrant. If, on the other hand, the Mexican stays home, and the unemployed African American gets the busboy job, the social costs he imposes on the government decrease, and the government doesn't have the additional social costs of the unskilled immigrant. How is this counterintuitive?

"This claim is also hotly disputed, as well."

By whom? The most respected economist in this field, George Borjas, has documented that unskilled immigration has lowered wages for African American high school dropouts. Which economists disagree with this?

Posted by Fred | December 27, 2007 4:54 PM

"As soon as you start applying this principle to CEOs, we have a deal-- certainly their jobs don't justify higher pay, yes, they get that very pay that is unjustified."

Tyro,

On the off chance you are being serious, I'll respond to this seriously. "justified", Jasper's choice of word initially, is problematic because it has a moral connotation that I don't think either of us intended to use. For low margin, highly-labor intensive businesses, salaries above a certain level simply aren't economically viable: the business would pay out more in salaries than it gained in earnings.

Posted by Fred | December 27, 2007 5:10 PM

Arg! Forgot to close out the blockquotes HTML tag above. Time to take a break from arguing with you knuckleheads.

Posted by Fred | December 27, 2007 5:12 PM

Tom Hilton's proposal is not a laissez-faire attitude toward undocumented immigration. It is a proposal for amnesty for all undocumented immigrants currently working in the US, with exceptions made for those who are either violent criminals or threats to our national security. It is also a proposal to remove many of the barriers to LEGAL immigration that currently exist in our immigration laws, such as arbritrary numerical limits, so that the economic incentives driving illegal immigration are reduced.

Yes, exactly, and you're absolutely right about legalization being a pre-condition for 'control of the borders'. Requiring DHS to waste its time on people who have no inention more malignant than earning more than they can get at home makes it far more difficult for them to focus on the people who really should be kept out.

One other point: to the extent that illegal immigration depresses wages, it's the illegality that does it--not the immigration. If every immigrant were guaranteed the same legal protections as every other worker (as opposed to being threatened with deportation if they complain), then businesses wouldn't be able to cut wages (or benefits or workplace safety or anything else) by playing one group off against the other.

Posted by Tom Hilton | December 27, 2007 5:23 PM

For low margin, highly-labor intensive businesses, salaries above a certain level simply aren't economically viable: the business would pay out more in salaries than it gained in earnings.

I was just needling you. People whose first instinct is to scream "marxism!" when one questions the jusitification for CEO salaries seem to have no problem saying that high salaries aren't "justified" for jobs that can't find takers at low wage-levels.

However, for the record, my personal opinion is that the easy access to illegal immigration creates a subsidy for entrepeneurs who wish to invest in the low-wage service industry. By promising easy access to cheap labor, people looking to start a business have an incentive to start "low margin, highly labor intensive businesses" rather than business that use greater automation and require larger skillsets.

Posted by Tyro | December 27, 2007 5:26 PM

And, to add another thing, Fred, the problem with labor is that "justification" for wages seems to go in only one direction... teachers add a lot of value by themselves, but they are easily replaceable, so they get low wages. On the other hand, since dishwashers are apparently hard to find within the domestic labor market, we need to find a cheaper source of labor, because higher wages aren't "justified" for the small marginal value they supposedly add to a business.

If you can't find someone to wash dishes for less than $20/hour, and if your business can't function without clean dishes, then guess what? Washing dishes adds $20/hr of value to your business. Or maybe you should buy a dishwashing appliance.

Or maybe you should have started a business that depends on skilled labor rather than a cheap-labor business that you figured would have hundreds of desperate people lining up to work for you.

Posted by Tyro | December 27, 2007 5:40 PM

"One other point: to the extent that illegal immigration depresses wages, it's the illegality that does it--not the immigration."

You may want to do a little more research on this, because this doesn't appear to be the case for the most part. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many illegal immigrants earn wages well above the legal minimum but nevertheless below the prevailing wages before they arrived, i.e., after the influx of illegal immigrants construction jobs that paid $18-$20 per hour paid $12-$15. Similarly, the $10 per hour busboys in New York earn well above the legal minimum, but what would the prevailing wages be if they weren't there? Conceivably, higher.

Rather than pervasive exploitation, the reason for the depression of wages seems to be a more mundane one: supply and demand. Greater supply of unskilled labor means lower demand and lower wages.

Posted by Fred | December 27, 2007 5:47 PM

No offense, but I love it when Corporate America is fine in bad times, when labor is in high supply, they never lobby to send the immigrants home to get the wages back to where they were. But, the minute the economy starts to increase, Corporate America is quick to argue the need for more illegal or immigrant labor.

And quite frankly, how you can argue for immigration when we have Americans who are unemployed, especially at the low-skilled levels is ridiculous. And spare me the unemployment rate bull. That is the rate of those actively seeking work. The real rate of unemployment is much higher, the bulk of it from people displaced by outsourcing and immigration.

Why not take care of Americans first, then worry about the Mexicans, or Polish, or Malawians?

Posted by Brad | December 27, 2007 8:21 PM

Paul Krugman says:
"Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive."
-North of The Border
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18645

Posted by pjgoober | December 27, 2007 9:00 PM

There was a study a couple of years ago performed at the docks in New York to test racial preferences in hiring. A white professor, a Latino professor and a black professor each created resumes that were roughly comparable in terms of experience, but with two caveats 1) the white professor was pretending to be an ex-con who had just served around 2-5 years in jail and 2) the Latino professor pretended to be an illegal immigrant. In order, the preferences for three workers of comparable skill were 1) white ex-con 2) illegal immigrant and 3) African-American. Common sense should tell you that the white ex-con should be the last choice, but that is the effect that racism has on employment. It's funny how restrictionists like Fred seem to care about black unemployment when it can be blamed on illegal Latinos, but the minute someone brings up affirmative action as a policy cure, he starts going on about black genetic inferiority shown by lower IQ scores proves that affirmative action will fail. Of course illegality makes it easier to exploit someone. Have you ever known an illegal immigrant? Do you know how much the initials "INS" can scare the crap out of them if they complain?

Econ 101 tells us that restrictive economic policies create black markets and dead-weight losses. That is how the biggest cash crop in many states and possibly the US as a whole - marijuana - works in the shadows where it is untaxed and unregulated (ever smoke what you thought was pure weed that turned out to be laced with something by the dealer? Not fun.). The whole war on drugs is a failure due to the economics of black markets. Making it hard for poor Mexicans right across the border to immigrate legally just creates a black market in labor in the US. Our ability to absorb immigrants into our economy would be increased by having everything done in the open.

Posted by Reality Man | December 28, 2007 4:26 AM

Reality Man,

Are you really advocating that affirmative action policies be used to get restaurant owners to hire blacks instead of illegal immigrants? Wouldn't it just be easier to enforce the existing laws against hiring illegal immigrants? Regarding IQ, set aside the average differences between races for a moment: half of all Americans (by definition) have below-average IQs, and for a significant subset of them, unskilled labor is the most viable form of work. Why import unskilled foreigners to compete with them and drive down their wages? Why not let Americans who may not have the ability to climb the skills ladder earn the dignity of a decent wage for their work?

Also, you may want to take Econ 101 again, since your example works against you. The reason illegal drugs are expensive is supply and demand: the government strictly enforces its laws against illegal drugs, constraining their supply; lower supply leads to higher prices. Similarly, if the government actually enforced its laws against illegally importing unskilled labor, the supply of unskilled laborers would shrink; lower supply would lead to higher prices (i.e., wages). Why are you against higher wages for American workers?

Posted by Fred | December 28, 2007 10:55 AM

"The reason illegal drugs are expensive is supply and demand: the government strictly enforces its laws against illegal drugs, constraining their supply; lower supply leads to higher prices. Similarly, if the government actually enforced its laws against illegally importing unskilled labor, the supply of unskilled laborers would shrink; lower supply would lead to higher prices (i.e., wages)."

Fred,

Actualy, Econ 101 shows that government restrictions on drugs lower the quantity supplied at a given price. That is, if marijuana were legalized, the increased availability would reduce the price to say 5 cents per ounce; by making it illegal, the decreased availability of marijuana increases the price to say $5 per ounce. Thus, while government restrictions make it more difficult and dangerous to supply marijuana to the US market, the increased prices for marijuana gives suppliers incentive to produce more marijuana. As a result, despite legal restrictions, marijuana is widely available in the US, but through black market avenues.

Likewise, more vigorous and more draconian enforcement of laws restricting immigration would make foreign unskilled labor less available at first, increased enforcement would drive up wages at first, since there will be less people available to work at a given wage. However, this increase in wages gives illegals more incentive to cross the border, despite increased enforcement. So you still have a substantial number of illegals available to work in diners and farms, once the job market for unskiled labor reaches its new equilibrium. As a result, since US employers seem to have a preference for hiring foreign workers over African-Americans, increased enforcement of immigration laws won't necessarily lead to increased employment for African-Americans in unskilled jobs, although it may raise the prevailing wage somewhat.

On the other hand, if legal immigration were facilitated through guest workers programs and immigration reforms, the conditions of the unskilled labor market would change. A legal immigrant who has no fear of deportation has far greater bargaining power than an illegal, and thus can demand higher wages. This lessens the wage depression effect that the presence of foreign-born workers can exert, and places the foreign-born and native-born on a more even playing field, since the gap in wages that each can demand will narrow. As this wage gap narrows, the native-born worker's advantage of having a common language and culture with a potential employer will became more and more relevant to an employer. Since employers will have to pay the native-born and the foreign-born a nearly identical wage, the native-born worker's command of English will give him a great advantage over the foreign-born worker in being hired. This in the long run will do more to improve the lot of the African-American unskilled than increased law enforcement.

In addition, measures that improve the overall educational attainment and skill sets of the African-American underclass will give African-Americans even greater bargaining power, and greatly reduce their need for unskilled jobs in the 1st place. Thus, they will no longer be dependent on the US government's ability to artificially limit the supply of labor available at a given wage.

Posted by eltoro | December 28, 2007 3:13 PM

I'll say that your apparent lack of concern for the African-American community and your fellow citizens in general isn't so admirable.

Fred: I have concern. I express it with my vote. I don't share your mistaken belief that continuing the dejure prohibition of non-familial hemispheric immigration is likely to help our fellow citizens.

I'm sure restaurant owners can hire blacks at $10 per hour, if they didn't have a ready supply of "poor chaps" from south of the border.

Your arguments are truly becoming nonsensical. The country likely is home to something like fifteen million illegal immigrants. If only half of them are in the workforce, we'd need to find 7.5 million unemployed Americans all capable of taking the newly freed up jobs. We both know that's impossible, and that deporting the nation's illegal immigrant population would indeed mean a decrease in total employment, not a disappearance of unemployment in the African-American community.

Which economists say that unskilled immigrants pay more in taxes than they consume in government services?

Here's a study from a major border state university (PDF warning):

udallcenter.arizona.edu/programs/immigration/publications/immigrants_in_arizona.judith_gans.july2007.pdf

A short time with Google will point you to plenty of other studies disputing your contention about the supposed fiscal drain imposed by "unskilled" immigrants.

Here's an article detailing the positive impact of illegal immigrants on the Social Security system:

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803EEDD1F3FF936A35757C0A9639C8B63

The most respected economist in this field, George Borjas, has documented that unskilled immigration has lowered wages for African American high school dropouts. Which economists disagree with this?

Giovanni Perri at UCDavis:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/20/AR2007062002349.html

the fact is, Borjas's work is highly controversial. Here's a critique by Brad DeLong:

delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/04/the_immigration.html

Posted by Jasper | December 28, 2007 5:07 PM