June 25, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:For the record
I think the new immigration bill is dumb as a box of rocks. But mostly because I don't think there's a huge problem out there needing to be fixed. Also, it seems obvious to me that actually close the borders, as opposed to building a pretty fence, would cost more than any theoretical fiscal savings from doing so. I think having guest workers is a loathesome idea. My preferred immigration plan would be to massively increase the number of visas, set a very minimal bar to meet--not a terrorist, not a criminal, not carrying a hideous contagious disease--and then auction off various tranches of visas, classed not by type but by length of stay. Let the visas be transferrable. Then let immigrant communities do enforcement for you, as illegal immigrants suddenly threaten to erode the price of their valuable asset: the right to stay in-country.
Posted by Jane Galt at June 25, 2007 9:38 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>I'm on board with this plan, though I don't understand transferable visas. Also, I think employer-side enforcement should be much, much higher.
As for the immigrant communities self-enforcing, you can really promote this tactic by giving the informant some consideration for a future visa (if he/she has a family member to bring up).
What about current illegal aliens? Blanket amnesty, pay a fine, etc? I'd say give a 60-day window to register, come out of the black market, get tax ID numbers, pay some fine, and check for police record/probation. After the grace period, deportation.
Posted by: Matt B on June 25, 2007 10:01 AMIf we actually want to reduce employment of illegal immigrants, trial lawyers would be involved.
If folks who had a legal right to work in this country could sue employers who employed folks who didn't have that right, with damages on the order of 2-3 years of salary, employers would would be far less likely to employ folks in the latter group.
This form of enforcement works because it can't be bought off by politicians.
Posted by: Andy Freeman on June 25, 2007 10:49 AMWell, I do like the first sentence, anyway, Ms. Gelt. Closing the borders is really quite easy, and not necessarily super-hugely expensive. Just bring our soldiers home and move about 1/2 of the bases to locations on the borders. Include the security of the base with the security of the border, make sure there is at least one mile of open country with no boulder piles or brush to hide in (short grasses only, and vertical rock in some areas along the border).
Then, make it very, very criminally painful to help illegals enter the US, be they bible-thumping Lefties or Righties, who hide behind religion to provide Sanctuary for those 'poor benighted people who only want a better life for themselves.' Similar to what we should be doing to those companies and their officers, when they hire illegals (and doubly so when they pay the workers under the table to avoid participating in the 'fair' redistribution of wealth from those wicked small businesses to the coffers of the guvmint).
We don't have to turn ourselves into China or India, from a cheap labour, population density viewpoint, to effectively compete against them economically. Buying the rope to hang yourself with is quite a bad approach to continuing 'life.' Better would be to work actively to break up the stranglehold international businesses have (same with state-run businesses) on influence within a country's power elite.
Revolution has been started for less-hideous reasons, but they are very messy and not very fair to all who are touched by them.
Ms. Galt,
I think the visa auction is an interesting idea. Worth considering, if only 'cuz it's so unlike most of the ideas currently being waved about.
I do have a couple of questions (not related to this proposal but to immigration in general): You have stated that "The actual data shows [Mexican immigrants] seem to be assimilating just fine...". What data are you referring to here? (I'm not trying to be a troll; I'm just curious. Assimilation is one of the key issues here, and I'm always interested in people's takes on what the data might say about it.) You have also stated that "I think there's a limit to how quickly America can assimilate immigrants. Luckily, I don't think we're anywhere near that limit." What level of immigration _would_ be near that limilt?
Also, I still think that it would be necessary to effectively control the borders. This, I think, requires a fence. (By fence, I mean something like the Israeli fence; not just a metal contraption topped with barbed wire.) Paraphrasing Fehrenbach, you don't own or control a piece of land 'till you're able to stand an 18-year-old kid with a rifle atop it. Since it would take a heck of a lot of armed 18-year-olds to control the border in static defense, a physical barrier of some sort seems the next-best thing. See this link for more:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1985/HJR.htm
Of course, truly controlling the border requires more than just a fence. US-VISIT, better port security, etc., would also be helpful.
I think one point often missed by the pro-immigration side in this debate is that a fence, or any type of effective border security, is not incompatible with a relatively loose immigration policy. This, I think, is an artifact of the fact that fences, etc., tend to be pushed by people desiring lower (or zero) immigration. But the latter does not necessarily follow from the former. You can still let in, say, a million Mexicans a year with a fence; just build more entry points. But at least this way, you'll be better able (than currently) to monitor who comes across our borders, and keep out those you think ought to be kept out (criminals, contagious disease, terrorists, etc.). Plus, a fence would certainly become useful in emergencies - e.g., an Avian flu pandemic sends millions of Latin Americans streaming across the border seeking American-style health care. Is a fence foolproof? Of course not. But an improvement over the current situation? Certainly.
MI
Posted by: MI on June 25, 2007 11:16 AMMost well-meaning people offering perfectly sound advice about our immigration policy tend to ignore one, overriding problem--the government has near zero credibility with illegal immigrants.
The government forfeited that credibility by being alternately draconian and passive over the last 20 years on immigration issues, depending on your encounter with them. The experience of most illegal immigrants living through constantly shifting policies has been that they are more likely to see trouble by cooperating with the authorities than by ignoring them. Except this time it supposed to be different? This time they can confidently show up at the counter of some skeptical bureaucrat, make a long-term bargain that involves getting papers, leaving the country, coming back, etc.? Without feeling that they won't somehow get screwed--again? Instead of waiting it out for an amnesty that is likely to recur, because everyone knows we can't deport 'em all?
I also really hate the idea of deputizing every employer in the country into an INS agent. That sucks on multiple levels. Only people who have never had to make a payroll could consider that a useful idea.
Posted by: M. Hodak on June 25, 2007 11:23 AMYep, a large market in transferrable visas, sold at auction, is a very good idea indeed, on many levels, not least of which is that it would tend to attract to this country the brightest, most productive people, and a free society can never have a surplus of bright productive people. Now, if we can just work on the "free society" angle at the same time........
Posted by: Will Allen on June 25, 2007 11:30 AMVery interesting.
I would think tradable visas would need to be in very abundant supply in order for prices to stay low enough for south and central immigrants to be able to afford them... as there are millions of rich, educated folks that's love to live/work here for a few years.
Of course, many people would argue that our immigration policy should focus on relatively wealthy, educated folks.
Oh, it would have to be an extremely large number indeed, but I see that as a feature, not a bug.
Posted by: Will Allen on June 25, 2007 12:21 PMWho would get the money from these auctions? Presumably the government.
But, we would have the potential for visa scalpers?
An auction would work without scalpers only if supply outstripped demand. I am not so sure that would happen. Or we could make the visas non-transferrable, but refundable at the current trading price. The auction would be permanently open.
But, then, what is the point of the auction, if supply is endless, what incentive would one have to pay anything for visas? If there is a limited supply, the auction price would be higher and we would not be discouraging illegal immigration.
If it did work and we had a system where there were visas for, say 1 year, 2 year, 10 year, and 20 year stays, would a visa for one year be renewable? If that was the case, pricing for a 20 year visa on the open market would be interesting indeed.
Posted by: allan on June 25, 2007 12:27 PMfalkoyn explains why closing the borders is "quite easy". Right. All we have to do is:
1) militarize the border
2) remake the geology of the border
3) institute a police state
So, all we need to do is convert ourselves into North Korea or East Germany. Nice.
seems self-evident to me that auctioned visas would be likely to wind up in the hands of brokers, probably the same guys who are currently charging kilobux to smuggle peasants in moving vans.
the availability of legal visas not involving coyote-escorted steeplechases would increase the appeal of US emigration to the Mexican middle and upper classes, who would be better suited to bid visa prices to levels unattainable by the target laborer population.
Admission of well-educated, skilled Mexicans might actually solve the labor shortage by forcing US citizens to accept employment that currently only appeals to aliens, but that can hardly be the desired result.
National borders are artifices expressly designed to interfere with the operation of free markets through isolation of national economies as closed systems. Achieving the desired immigrant profile would require a tightly controlled visa program, with increased consular presence in the home territory of targeted laborers.
Personally, my favorite solution is to give Texas back to Mexico.
Posted by: xf on June 25, 2007 2:10 PMWell, I think shutting down illegal immigration would be simple; just a really bad idea and politically unfeasible. New law: Any employer caught hiring an illegal immigrant/undocumented worker/person who doesn't have a legal right to work/pick your preferred term owes $100,000 in fines. Any illegal immigrant who reports on someone who hires him gets a free green card. I don't see who in his right mind would hire undocumented under this system (M. Hodak, you raise the only real concern I have with the implementability of this system).
Now, I don't think this would be a good idea, at least not at current levels of legal immigration. But that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Falkoyn: Increasing immigration caps would actually make it much easier to shut down the border/limit illegal entry. If we make it so that no one with an honest motive has any reason to sneak across, we can assume that anyone sneaking has dishonest motives and act accordingly. Also, if fewer people sneak across, there are fewer economies of scale in the sneaking industry, and they can't be as efficient or experienced.
Allan: if it's an actual auction, where's the room for scalpers? The tickets trade at market-clearing price, or something close to it.
Posted by: Jadagul on June 25, 2007 5:27 PMImmigration 'brokers' Would be a necessary feature of a work visa auction/exchange system.
Ending illegal labor would require strong employer enforcement which would be completely infeasible unless small employers could outsource the verification and liability of legally hiring immigrants. Large employers and brokers would better suited to handle the verification and bear the liability of complying with immigration laws. Small employers, families, or immigrants themselves could simply pay brokers (in installments) for visas. Brokers would be liable to pay for and renew the visas of any immigrants who go illegal until they are found.
Well, I think shutting down illegal immigration would be simple; just a really bad idea and politically unfeasible. New law: Any employer caught hiring an illegal immigrant/undocumented worker/person who doesn't have a legal right to work/pick your preferred term owes $100,000 in fines. Any illegal immigrant who reports on someone who hires him gets a free green card. I don't see who in his right mind would hire undocumented under this system (M. Hodak, you raise the only real concern I have with the implementability of this system).
Great idea, and I can think of the perfect name for your proposed law: the Hispanic American Citizen and Legal Immigrant Unemployment Act.
Jimmy Hu, I'm not sure you saw some of the 'humour' that I tried to place there...which isn't too unusual, since I guess I tend to be a teeny bit obscure.
As to your points:
1) militarize the border- Well, with my grandpappy a horse soldier stationed at Fort Rosecrans, Ft. Yuma, Ft. Huachuca and Fort Bliss, and all within a strong fart's vicinity of the Mexican border, the real estate is already there. What isn't there is the will. At one time there were continuous military patrols along the border with Mexico, and, at times, with Canada. That's what you do when banditos (Zapata, Pancho, et.al.) are raiding across the border and killing and robbing those on the US side. It's not like it has never been done - but it was very, very effective.
2) remake the geology of the border - Really? I'm not sure if you've ever been along the border, but there are places that are extremely rough, and where the rock is, in fact, vertical. I was trying to be accurate to those who know, but I didn't take into account those who hadn't the foggiest. By the way, I keep trying to figure out how East Germany changed their geology to become a police state? Did the dirty little Commies hydraulically uplift a few anti-clines and create an East German Massif (well, at least a mastiff or two)?
3) institute a police state - No dear boy, not at all. The citizens and legal residents of the USA would not be hindered in any way by the closing of the southern border (oughta do the northern border too, or those Canadian geese will be petitioning for goose welfare next time down). This would only be intended as an impediment to all of those little, "brown-skinned Mexicans," and bigger "brown-skinned Semites," and perhaps a few Islamists who'd like to sneak into the US and dilute our oh-so-pure strain of Scandinavian, blonde-haired genetic stock!
*in the background the strains of Richard Wagner's "Die Walkure" sound ethereally martial*
Posted by: falkoyn on June 26, 2007 12:38 AMNice idea, Jane. I do think some of the details will be tricky. To improve on the status quo you basically want to increase the number of legal immigrants by some number, and simultaneously decrease the number of illegals by the same amount. An auctioned temporary visa is a bundle of goods: the recipient doesn't have to pay a coyote, doesn't have to pay the opportunity cost of their time in making one or more attempts to cross the border, avoids the other risks of an illegal border crossing, doesn't have to hide from immigration once here and is in a better bargaining position with employers, etc.
A lot of those costs will be highly variable according to the situation of the particular individual contemplating coming to the US. Modeling the optimal minimum price for the auctionable permits would be an interesting challenge for an economist. You should do more with this.
Posted by: Will McLean on June 27, 2007 3:46 PMyvdmwhfra dbinw gtmbl hqdgrf oqkdism fypwkgn jokmcstg
Posted by: szemarnwc rfikm on June 27, 2007 4:48 PMfmtnv nfskbo zpjhlqt ldinku cresltgwp hwxf tjgmsye http://www.xevyof.ohjamyvw.com
Posted by: amezh ufgt on June 27, 2007 4:49 PMkphqwtxv rgpmnvics bpvux tpsqno lsrx qncsewjzp yvcezikpb nedsp wsjfzba
Posted by: aiwjogcm fnxla on June 27, 2007 4:50 PMkphqwtxv rgpmnvics bpvux tpsqno lsrx qncsewjzp yvcezikpb nedsp wsjfzba
Posted by: aiwjogcm fnxla on June 27, 2007 4:51 PMWhy when libertoads write about immigration and are trying to be relevant and/or funny, they are never relevant or funny?
Is there something in DNA that makes one a libertoad or understand concept of a Nation-State?
Are libertoads people who hate their family?
Posted by: mik on June 27, 2007 4:59 PMThere is a national intellectual consensus in this country that makes this sort of idea plausible, if just barely. A working majority believes in markets, legally enforceable contracts, etc. But we have birthright citizenship in this country. This means that 6 month visas sold off to pregnant women will produce a huge crop of new citizens via birth who are not raised in that US consensus because mom goes home afterward. Any visa regime that eventually undermines the US intellectual consensus necessary to make markets and our system of government work is just a non-starter.
There is one gem in the dreck. If you can incentivize immigrant communities to do enforcement, you have a winning formula. There is a way to do it but this proposal is not the way.
Posted by: TMLutas on July 2, 2007 9:20 AM