The Immigrant in My Basement

Has Bryan advocated immediate citizenship for all immigrants? Or voting rights for permanent residents?

Under our current system, it takes at least a decade to become a citizen (you’ve gotta be a permanent resident for 7 years, and then you wait several years for the bureaucrats to process your application).

So those foreigners who want to come here to use the state for their own nefarious purposes will have to have quite a lot of patience before they carry out their dastardly plans.

(seriously: I’ve seen zero credible evidence that immigrants are more likely to want to use government to get what they want than native-born people; is there any such evidence?)

PJens,

I think you are making the assumption that all American citizens will follow the established laws and rules already in place.

I’d like to be rid of fellow citizens who want to use the state to commit naked aggression against me.

Welfare, crime, voting and occasionally congestion seem to be the big complaints about immigrants that aren’t naked chauvinism. All those issues are either created by the government or their management is arrogated by the government.

Hmmm, what you’re not saying is how to prevent several million Asian and African immigrants from flooding your country and overwhelming your social services.

I suspect that you’d be in favour of some kind of “self-support” test i.e. an immigrant must prove that he/she will not be a burden on the community i.e. he/she must have a chunk of cash and some ability to work.

Which is pretty how immigration law worked a century ago, but that kind of “discrimination” has little chance of being passed into law these days.

Bryan,
I am always flabbergasted when you talk about immigration, and I can’t believe how you consistently avoid the real issues. When you say that its absurd to prevent people from moving within a 100 mile radius, are you talking about 1 family or are you talking about 1 million people? Because no amount of immigration has any effect on the native population, we’re all just bullies.

If you know how to get rid of the welfare state, please explain? You might have noticed that Ca is essentially going bankrupt. This article relates some of Ca budget problems to the costs of immigration. Maybe you don’t believe the sources, but I believe it a lot more than low skilled immigrants are worth the costs.

PJens,
Why is it bad for individuals to come and refuse to assimilate, when one of the most cherished freedoms Americans have is the ability to dissimilate themselves as they see fit?

One of the assumptions made against open borders is that folks will simply wash ashore with nothing to do but hold out their hand. The experience with out high levels of illegal immigration suggests that this really is not the case. People are generally following jobs. Recently, indicators seem to show that they’re still following jobs… out of the US. Yet another reason to advocate open borders.

[Comment removed for supplying false email address. Email the webmaster@econlib.org to request restoring this comment. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog.–Econlib Ed.]

Prof. Caplan, would you care to add a bit more?

Please, explain why the “first world” would still be the first world after any substantial fraction of those billions (your number) of lower-skilled workers were to move in.

What’s the difference between, say, the USA and Mexico? It’s not a matter of natural resources. The only significant difference is the character of the people. Even if you think the USA has wonderful “institutions,” you still have no basis to suggest those institutions can be rapidly transmitted to immigrants.

Really, I think what you call “naked aggression” (excluding billions of low-skilled immigrants) I would call “collective self-defense” (by first-worlders).

However, I am fully prepared to change my mind if you provide some empirically-based reason to do so. (Note: I would permit “high-skilled” immigration.)

Maybe the immigrants who come will not have the same view as Caplan, and think like non-caplanian americans do.

So, eventually, they will throw Caplan out of the United States.

Milton Friedman was famous for saying something about the Swedes in Sweden and the Swedes in the US.

Friedman also wondered about how our favored economic arrangement worked better in the English-speaking countries than elsewhere. Without Great Britain, it’s not clear that Hong Kong or Singapore would be much different from Myanmar or Bhutan. Even the French and Germans have misgivings about this, let alone the Spanish or their colonial heirs.

Nations as they exist today are something more than a set of accounts. Is there any room in your analysis for the issue of culture, or is that domain solely the concern of knuckle-draggers?

To those concerned about assimilation and retaining US culture, I would point out that within high achieveing immigrant groups when a student stops studying and starts goofing off friends will often label the student as “becoming American.”

I would assume that an immigrant either skilled or unskilled will often have desireable “American” attributes that exceed those of native born. An if the immigrants were just looking for a handout, there are plenty of other Western countries which are far more generous than the US. Discussions of assimilation and accents plays into the hands of those painting opponents of open borders as xenophobic.

While I bemoan the level of indivual freedom and free markets allowed in the US, I have a hard time seeing a much better alternative. And apparently millions of non-Americans view the US as their best alternative as well. Since there is some limit on the number of additional residents we want to add to our society, it is reasonable to allow those in that yield society the greatest Net Benefit.

Our current policy seems to have it backwards.

First of all, I hate this talk of “legal” immigration. Our government is corrupt and inept – simply because someone has decided what it means to be a “citizen” should have no effect on the discussion of whether or not foreign-born people should be able to work in the US. The idea that if the government says its good, it is good, is asinine.

guthrie I think is starting to see the light and has hit on an important point. The idea of “nationhood” is really the enemy of progress – geographical jurisdictions controlled by tyrants, set against each other for more pieces of a fixed pie. Nationalism, patriotism, tribalism.. whatever you call it, it is an idea worthy of extreme contempt.

To the people claiming the problem with open borders is that “ferners” are a bunch of commies, remember that black Americans are much more statist than white Americans, so should they be disenfranchised? Should blacks be stripped of not only political rights like voting, but the right to work where there are jobs that they are qualified for? This isn’t a straw man, it is the exact argument being put forth except replacing black with foreign-born latino. Just like Bryan’s example isn’t a straw man – if you are against open borders, you are for telling people where they can and can’t live, where they can and can’t work, what are they can and cannot breathe. Its not hyperbole, its just calling it what it is.

If I run a landscaping business, and I want to hire some able-bodied men to help with today’s workload, I should be able to do so without interference with Uncle Sam, and they should be able to work for me, no matter where they were born. Through trade, we all benefit. If you take free trade seriously, you have to recognize the benefits of a free market for labor, which means you must be for open borders. There is no room to “agree to disagree” on this, and I find libertarians are much too lax in their tolerance for xenophobia, as a general rule.

America has many lazy citizens looking for handouts, feeling entitled because they were born in this country. Immigrants who risk life and limb to come to America are chasing work, not coming to our doorsteps asking for charity. Who is more worthy of contempt? I don’t think that anyone should be given charity financed by taxation (theft), but really there is no reason we should give it to some and not to others who need it much more.

What does it mean to be “American” ? The answer should be, nothing more than it means to say “I was born in October”.

Now your presence in this country admits you have contractually agreed to abide by its governance, even if native rather than immigrant, and even if law changed rather than enduring timelessly. (No one would expect a business to operate unchangingly either.) You don’t have to live here. Feel free to exhort your preferences as I feel free to reject them, but if you can’t live with it, then walk.

Isn’t the argument whether they should be here moot as illegal immigration runs rampant anyway, which the authorities are either powerless or uninterested in stopping? The real issue is whether there should be more scope for legal immigration and naturalizing illegal immigrants eventually (can illegals naturalize after some time period now?). I doubt these legal endeavors will get anywhere as the coalition of the xenophobes and those who profit off of illegal immigrants is too large and directed, while the rest of us who want some measure of legalization- I’m for open borders but realize that such extreme freedom is politically infeasible with the rest of the dimwit electorate- don’t much care about the issue enough to do anything.

Zac

“The idea that immigration harms us because the immigrants are a drain on our treasury due to their high use of social services, or that they are wholesale bringing socialism to the US, or that they bring vast amounts of crime and chaos”

is actaully TRUE for most immigrants below a certain level of intelligence, this is not a racist issue it is a skill/intelligence issue.

Arnold,

Your analogy is ridiculous.

We don’t live in a true libertarian state and never will. Some costs are always born by the public and every resident imposes massive external costs. It just that the majority of first world residents put enough back through taxes and community work to outweigh those costs.

If we had open borders the majority of people who would show up would be a net drain. Thats why skilled immigration is great but free immigration would be disasterous

Pete

Guys, I’m struggling with this issue here… I can’t reconcile my desire for free markets with my fear of a borderless state.

Mark Seecof… what exactly is ‘character of the people’ and what is the difference in this character between those born in Mexico, those born in any other overseas country, and those born here in the US? How would we not continue to be ‘first world’ if those billions moved here?

Snob, you said, ‘Nations as they exist today are something more than a set of accounts’… what is that ‘something more’? I’m not disagreeing with you, but I’m struggling to find a rational explanation for this description. You mention culture… what about culture are you referring to, and how would ours in the US be affected by opening the borders? (Frankly, there are portions of the culture I would discard wholesale, but I really can’t arbitrate such things!)

David… how does a libertarian society attract peaceful people as opposed to bullies? Don’t bullies go wherever the hell they see fit and that’s part of what makes them bullies?

I thank you Zac for your comments… to be fair I am still uncomfortable with the idea of ‘open borders’ but I recognize that, for me, this feeling is irrational. I know this because I also believe in free markets and as such, I have no arguments for the situations you and others present. If the market is really free (and I know it’s not, but follow me here!), why the hell shouldn’t I pay whomever whatever to do this or that? While I don’t automatically think every ‘ferner’ is a commie, replace that with whatever other unsavory character and we find plenty of home grown examples… terrorists? Tim McVey and the Unabomber were red-blooded Americans (and not much difference between them except for ideology)… most drug dealers were born here… much of organized crime is US born…

However, here’s my friendly challenge to you, Zac , in the interest of dialogue… where does the rule of law apply in the libertarian worldview, if at all? One of the arguments against open borders is ‘if they’re willing to skirt this law, than what other laws are they willing to break?’ What say you?

Carter (the infamous!)… How would open borders ‘alter America’? And so altered, is that a bad thing? Why? And yes, it matters who my neighbors are. But if they’re good neighbors in every other sense (quiet at night, lawn mowed, at least somewhat genial), how does it matter where they’re from or what their status is?

Steve… the picture of a hobo is rather unsavory, so it’s understandable how the neighbors might object. What about a clean cut, blue or white collar worker who happens to be from somewhere else? How would such a person’s immigration status ‘harm the social environment’? How does that work, because I can’t see the connection between said status and how they behave in society?

Very nice, Lord! The old ‘love it or leave it’ maxim is back and turned on its head, so it seems!

Christopher… I like how you re-frame the question! Here’s my question, though… I’m still struggling with this idea of sovereignty… if private property takes precedence over national borders, then does your property become sovereign? Does a lack of national borders make property lines sovereign limits? And how do we define those limits?

Pete makes a good point here… some costs are always public and always will be. How can we open the borders if we can’t keep from having to pay public costs and those unskilled who come here use more than they pay for? Or can the unskilled laborer bring enough benefit to offset the public cost? If so, how?

Though Pete, I’m uncomfortable with using intelligence as a plumb of human value. My experience is that anyone can improve who wants to.

Great discussion folks!

In response to guthrie, I will say that no one has a moral responsibility to follow a “law” that is unjust, just because the government says you should follow it. And I don’t think that by breaking an unjust law you lose any moral capital – in this case I think you gain it. The fact that many immigrants are willing to risk capture, deportment, imprisonment, not to mention discrimination and being separated from their families, shows me just how much worse their conditions must have been otherwise (a lot of this also applies to the argument for so-called sweatshops in the third world) and also shows me just how much they value being able to live and work here. So that is what I say to your question about the rule of law.

As to the discussion about immigrants draining our tax reserves, it just doesn’t hold up to the facts. Illegal immigrants paid at least 428 billion into the economy in 2006, often under false identities. They also pay sales tax. The 1996 welfare reform bill disqualified illegal immigrants from nearly all means-tested government programs including food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid and Medicare-funded hospitalization. The only services that illegals can still get are emergency medical care and K-12 education. Want to take that away? I certainly won’t stop you – but I think we should abolish public education and I think emergency medical care is essentially a basic human right and think it appalling that anyone would be denied, say, gunshot wound treatment based on the fact that they were in this country “illegally”.

Also, there seem to be a lot of people complaining about the strain immigrants impose on border communities. I don’t think this concern is ridiculous since many immigrants are poor, especially new ones who show up with no job. But the humane, and efficient, solution is not to send them packing back to their country of origin – a good start would be to set up a guest worker program that matches workers with employees before they immigrate. Not many of us would move to a new country or even city without first securing a job there, unless we were very desperate.

@Zac
Illegal immigrants paid at least 428 billion into the economy in 2006, often under false identities. They also pay sales tax.

Are you sure they didn’t pay at least 429 billion? Do you have any evidence? You know contributing to GDP (about 3% by your number using 13.1 Trillion total GDP) isn’t quite the same thing as paying taxes. Does the fact that committed document fraud make things better or worse?

If low skill illegal immigrants are net tax payers for their entire family (including US born children who are classified as citizens) over their lifetime how could we have a budget deficit? Who earns less than them?

About 5 of the 15 million taxes returns in Ca paid no federal income tax. Source. That doesn’t include all the illegal immigrants who didn’t file a return. BTW, I would hope people living in the US would want to pay their portion of roads, prisons, fire, etc… Not just services that were direct transfers to them.

Christopher, who is saying she can’t? If you are going to set up a straw man, at least make it somewhat relevant.

You are! Immigration law severely restricts who can immigrate to the U.S. As a result, women whom I would’ve otherwise met are prevented from entering the U.S., thereby preventing me from dating them. Or hiring them, selling to them, renting to them, or otherwise associating with them. At least some of those women are likely to have been black.

Thanks for your response Zac! Although I could say your statement begs the question ‘who decides which laws are unjust’, but that would go off topic a bit too far I think and we can save it for another discussion! 🙂

Check that link, though… when I pulled it up, there was no article, just a headline. Is it working for you or is it my computer?

And great point on the means-tested programs… I know that whenever you go to ask for assistance there is always a demand for a state-approved ID which proves citizenship. And you’re right, we can’t really lay state and federal budget problems at the feet of the undocumented. Again, I have no rational argument against your points and for our current or stronger immigration enforcement.

Btw, I happen to agree with you on the points of medical care and schooling (and sweat-shops for that matter… $1.50/hr may seem criminal here but it beats $0/hr!)

Thank you johnleemk for your insight. I was unaware of how other western countries deal with immigration. Taxing immigration is a novel approach! Would there be deferments for unskilled laborers who would ‘pay as they go’, or would it be an up-front cost? If it’s up-front, how would you deal with those who go ahead and enter anyway and start working without paying the tax? How different is that from the situation as it stands now?

Let me ask you also, since you seem to have some awareness of what’s going on over there… Wasn’t there a lot of flack in both France and the UK over Eastern European and Middle Eastern immigrants gathering in what sounded like refugee camps near the French side of the Chunnel? How big a deal was that, and is it still an issue? If the borders are ‘basically open’ in the EU why did there seem to be such a flap? Or was it miss-reported here?

This reminds me of a question I forgot to pose Bryan…

Hey Bryan! What is the immigration policy of Singapore?

Doubt he’s read this far down, but what the hey, right?!

Ben, I understand your perspective, I do. But I can’t help coming to the conclusion that, given the arguments for a free market, including the labor market, the argument for limited immigration, and strong borders is irrational. Can you give me a rational reconciliation between the ideas of the free market and those for closed or even semi-permeable borders?

I have gotten used to pushing 1 for English (at least it is still #1) and I really don’t care who is living in my neighbor’s basement. What bothers me is when the illegal immigrant starts telling me what I can not eat.

My view of assimilation is living under the same rules and working towards the same goals.

Countries in Europe have serious problems with immigrants. I believe America does not have nearly the same scale of immigration problems because; 1) there is so much opportunity here, 2) We do eventually force people to live by the established rules. Yes, some American citizens do not always follow these same laws and rules.

I welcome hard working people who come here to better themselves and take part in the great American society. But there are rules; no female circumcision, no foot binding, speech is free but no one is required to listen.

Good grief, does anyone realize that if my ancestors had their way after coming here, we would all be eating lutefisk on Fridays.

@ Mark H

Just because you have open borders does not necessarily mean a flood of immigrants.

Imagine if Australia opened its borders. Would millions of Americans rush to go live there?

Your example is hilarious! Why don’t you substitute India, Bangladesh or some other poor Asian country instead of America in your example? Or do you only want open borders between first world countries?

PJens… that’s interesting! I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of an immigrant of any stripe telling me what not to eat. Can you provide an example? Do you have any experience with this issue?

I think I understand your context of rules… some cultures allow or require female circumcision etc… but we don’t. So, provided that someone immigrates here complies with these kinds of rules, and drops some of the aspects of their home culture that we don’t allow, we can consider them assimilated? Am I close? And we can then let in anyone who agrees to these tenants?

Mmm! Lutefisk! Almost as appetizing as haggis!

Whoa, ben! No need to throw down gauntlets or call names! Please understand the skepticism here. There seems to be a lot of numbers bandied about on both sides, but which side does the free market stand on? In a free market, as far as I understand it, there’s no requirement on your citizenship other than you contribute and follow the rules, right? Can we have an honest free market otherwise? If so, how?

Frank, I don’t think Bryan or anyone here harbors any illusion that we have a true free market, and that democracy is efficient. But can’t we aspire here? Can’t we posit, support, and recommend those things which would be consistent with a more free market? It sounds like you would want a freer market for the country, right? So, setting aside politics for a moment, can we support closed borders and a free market at the same time? Is it consistent to advocate the removal of government control over every market but labor?

And what is this obsession with IQ? Intelligence, income, skill level, and education are all fluid! They can expand and contract through time. People can better themselves, people can improve, people can change over time.

And aren’t there plenty of home-grown folks with low this-or-that that vote?

If we’re to stand against socialism, which I’m all for, shouldn’t we work on presenting a persuasive, cohesive philosophy upon which people can hang their hats upon, no matter where their from?

@guthrie

Whoa, ben! No need to throw down gauntlets or call names!

Who did I call a name and what name did I call them?

Please understand the skepticism here. There seems to be a lot of numbers bandied about on both sides, but which side does the free market stand on?

Shouldn’t we try to agree on the numbers before we have the debate? Or at least understand what numbers the other side uses. If you agree that the US doesn’t have a free market, why does it matter so much what side the free market is on?

So, setting aside politics for a moment, can we support closed borders and a free market at the same time? Is it consistent to advocate the removal of government control over every market but labor?

I can respect that, but please understand that you need a complete ‘free market’, almost no communal government owned resources (roads, water, land, schools, social safety net) and no progressive taxation. If people can’t afford to reproduce, they need a price signal to tell them they can’t. This is very unpleasant when talking about human beings.

And what is this obsession with IQ? Intelligence, income, skill level, and education are all fluid! They can expand and contract through time. People can better themselves, people can improve, people can change over time.

Unfortunately this is not true. IQ is not fluid. It does matter. It is heritable. Just because some people under perform their abilities and turn it around, does not mean that everyone has the ability to be productive in a modern economy. IQ also gets more predictive when you talk about groups.

And aren’t there plenty of home-grown folks with low this-or-that that vote?

Absolutely, why import more into advance 1st world welfare state?

Thank you, ben, for your response! And sorry, I don’t know how to italicize your comments… I don’t mean to confuse!

Who did I call a name and what name did I call them?

This was not an accusation, but a balance to ‘… throw down gauntlets’. You suggested name calling as the last resort of your vanquished foe. I don’t know that such postures are absolutely necessary here IMHO.

Shouldn’t we try to agree on the numbers before we have the debate? Or at least understand what numbers the other side uses.

I thought to approach the topic philosophically. I still have a visceral, irrational, negative reaction to the idea of open borders and free labor market, and I can’t reconcile that with my embracing the concepts of free market economics. Numbers are useless to me, because part of my struggle is irrational.

If you agree that the US doesn’t have a free market, why does it matter so much what side the free market is on?

If what we aspire to is free markets, then it matters what this particular philosophy demands. If we are after free markets, then philosophically we ought to be consistent, right? Yes, we don’t have a completely free market here, but I am philosophically opposed to the welfare and nanny state… immigration is secondary! I’m seeing the problems associated with immigration as a welfare issue in general. So to point out fiscal problems associated with illegal immigration, or to point out their skill or IQ or whatever, I don’t think that’s a proof against open borders, again in general. It just means we can’t open our borders ‘yet’. And on that point I might agree with you.

I can respect that…

It would seem you might agree with a free labor market given the right circumstances, then perhaps?

If people can’t afford to reproduce, they need a price signal to tell them they can’t.

Yeah, I can see that! Unpleasant but it makes sense. I wonder what you might think of johnleemk’s idea of charging people to settle here?

Unfortunately this is not true. IQ is not fluid. It does matter. It is heritable.

Sorry, but I can’t agree with you here. In my own experience I have seen my intelligence grow as well as that of others. The human brain is so intricate and complex and flexible, that no single ‘standard’ can encompass its ability. The brain… that’s what we’ve inherited. Scientists can’t even describe what consciousness is, how can we presume to ‘know’ what one’s ultimate aptitude is? Sorry, but primates can be taught sign language and even dogs can have a vocabulary in the multiple thousands. Humans all have the same brain matter, if they don’t have the opportunity to access it, it doesn’t mean it’s not there. It’s a matter of training, not of biology. I suppose this was a little off topic, but it’s an issue I’m passionate about. I didn’t mean to de-rail the conversation… or to rail for that matter!

Johnleemk, in looking at your policy proposal, I’m not sure I can come up with anything better! The price of charging settlers could be set to mitigate any initial infrastructure strain, and then they can be taxed normally for their ongoing use of public resources (roads, schooling, et al). Anyone who bucks this system is dealt with accordingly. It takes into account our current free market limitations, and provides incentive for immigrants to contribute… can’t do better myself, I’ll admit! Takes a lot of subjectivity out of the system too, it would seem.

The Chunnel thing was apparently big around the time of the London bus bombings, or perhaps a little before the French riots (I can’t remember at the moment). But because the problem wasn’t an ‘American’ issue, I’m sure all we got were snippets from our news media. Just wondering…!

And thanx again for your insight! It is sad that professionals who could add a lot to our economy and culture, and who are trying to do the right thing, are turned away almost arbitrarily (or is ‘almost’ too generous?). The deck seems stacked against ‘high skill, high IQ’ applicants, so those who might be currently lacking in these qualities are indeed screwed. You’re right… incentives matter.

And it’s not all blather… that’s why people come here. But our policies (and not just immigration) are grossly inconsistent. A little consistency would go a long way, I’d think!

“the point is that Americans shouldn’t have to live in the same country with people they don’t like.”

If that’s the point then why are those who are against illegal immigration just skipping that notion and moving directly to forced emigration?

There are plenty of people who are already citizens of this country that I don’t like yet I’m not trying to force them out of the country. I don’t like Alan Greenspan right now, for one. It never occured to me that I should have to live in the same country with him.

I think you are imputing motivations to others they don’t hold. I’m against illegal immigration and I can tell you right now it has nothing to do with keeping out people “I don’t like”. I’m sure there are plenty of legal immigrants that once I got to know them I wouldn’t like.

How about trying to argue against the actual positions of the other side instead of trying to use the Marxist gambit of labeling the opposition evil and therefore unworthy of consideration.

I don’t recall anyone arguing that they wanted immigration controlled to make sure they didn’t have to live in the same country with people they didn’t like. The idea is actually preposterous on it’s face. Immigration laws couldn’t possibly accomplish the stated goal.