Paul Krugman: North of the Border

Paul Krugman says we need to face up to the facts on immigration:

North of the Border, Immigration Facts, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," wrote Emma Lazarus, in a poem that still puts a lump in my throat. I'm proud of America's immigrant history, and grateful that the door was open when my grandparents fled Russia.

In other words, I'm instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.

First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.

Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education ... they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study ... by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.

That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants. Finally, ... our social safety net has more holes in it than it should — and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net. ... Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive. ...

We shouldn't exaggerate these problems. Mexican immigration, says the Borjas-Katz study, has played only a "modest role" in growing U.S. inequality. And ... the disastrous Medicare drug bill alone does far more to undermine ... our social insurance system than the whole burden of ... illegal immigrants. But modest problems are still real problems, and immigration is becoming a major political issue. What are we going to do about it?

Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. ... But the harsh anti-immigration legislation passed by the House... legislation that would, among other things, make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care — is simply immoral.

Meanwhile, Mr. Bush's plan for a "guest worker" program is clearly designed by and for corporate interests, who'd love to have a low-wage work force that couldn't vote. Not only is it deeply un-American; it does nothing to reduce the adverse effect of immigration on wages. And because guest workers would face the prospect of deportation after a few years, they would have no incentive to become integrated into our society.

What about a guest-worker program that includes a clearer route to citizenship? I'd still be careful. ... it could all too easily ... create a permanent underclass of disenfranchised workers. We need to do something about immigration, and soon. But I'd rather see Congress fail to agree on anything this year than have it rush into ill-considered legislation that betrays our moral and democratic principles.

Previous (3/24) column: Paul Krugman: Letter to the Secretary
Follow up (3/27): Krugman's Money Talks: Notes on Immigration
Next (3/31) column: Paul Krugman: The Road to Dubai

Comments

[dryfly]

NAFTA => El Anschlus... that will be the end game.

[Shawn]

?

I'm not entirely clear on what you're trying to say with that comment. I have an idea but I want to be sure.

[Trance]

Just a quick observation:
1/2 of kids born in US today are Latino
1/4 are Caucasian
1/8 are Asian
1/8 are Black

[dryfly]

I'm not entirely clear on what you're trying to say with that comment. I have an idea but I want to be sure.

You don't have this kind of migration of people without effecting borders. My guess is that before long it will be politically quite unstable on both sides of the border. It will be unstable in Mexico as more and more working age men migrate north... it will be unstable here as competition for jobs tightens.

This will create a 'forced collaboration' between both gov'ts. This collaboration won't always go so smoothly... at some point a 'staggered merger' will occur that caters to emotions on both sides of the border - not exactly like the German/Austrian Anschlus - but similar in theme. It will be a marriage of necessity more than 'conquest'.

NAFTA & other similar agreements set the stage for this 'greater union'. NAFTA itself wasn't a bad idea - the implementation was terrible & getting worse all the time.

[save_the_rustbelt]

From my travels, in areas with high concentrations of illegals it is young blacks who are suffering the job losses. Gee, other than unfortunate, it would seem the political correctness crowd would be on that.

Southern California is already referred to as Mexifornia, we can take action now or have a bigger mess later.

I am in favor of immigration. I am not in favor of anarchy.

[TLB]

The CFR has called for converting the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into a EU-style superstate. Indications are that Bush is a supporter, and in fact he's meeting with Fox and Harper to discuss what is most likely a predecessor to that. Of course, we won't be voting on that.

Oddly enough, I agree with Krugman, although he might want to look at polls before calling those who oppose illegal immigration names. He also seems to have misread HR4437.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Gee. 2006 is the year Krugman is discovering what many of us have known for a long time. Trade, immigrations,etc.

Maybe I could get a column in the NYT?

[Dustin R. Ridgeway]

I know Paul Krugman jumped the shark a long time ago, but the way he pussyfoots around these issues irritates me to no end. At leads Dobbs has the guts to be a reactionary & a know-nothing & stand by it. Paul Krugman, can't even say that much. Oh of course, he's not PERSONALLY advocating protectionism, but then "if American workers are getting outgunned by foreign competition, the american worker should (rightly) wish to neutralize that foreign competition through protectionist measures" and such measures would be sane & just.

Now it's the immigration front. Of course he, like any good jewish intellectual from an immigrant background is personally pro-immigration and hates those mean ol' anti-immigration demagogues. "But gosh ya know?, those brown people work for awful cheap wages! That undercuts the wages of proud white blue collar men who won't get out of bed for the type of wages mexican immigrants will work 40 a week for. If they insist on working so cheap & don't demand raises, well, we have keep them from getting to the job interview! Now I'm pro-immigration, because I'm pro immigration, really I am! But the decision to keep these folks from an opportunity in our country because they drive down wages for highschool dropouts MAY have to be on the table."

All we need now is for Krugman to state how he "REALLY is personally Pro Israel, but..." and he'll have completed his long journey towards Lyndon LaRouche's camp.

says...

The comment you have made is offensive in the extreme!

[John B.]

I don't understand why Congress doesn't eliminate the minimum wage exemption for ag workers and the "tip credit" exemption for restaurant service workers. Wouldn't that more directly address Krugman's main worry that immigrants displace citizens because they work for peanuts?

I woulda thought an economist like Krugman would want to scratch a little deeper and find out how past Congressional action already has distorted the playing field.

[bakho]

John B has an excellent point. Raising minimum wage to make jobs more attractive to Americans should reduce demand for immigrants and thus reduce immigration. Illegal immigrants working below wage has the same social impact as corporate leaches that don't provide health care for workers. Corporations are improving their bottom line by passing off their true labor costs onto the rest of the country. If we address the broader issue of worker compensation, immigration will mostly be a problem for those holding the historical nativist ideals present at the very founding of the Republican Party.

[save_the_rustbelt]

It is not just wages that matter with these jobs.

Employers favor workers who are

1) afraid to call OSHA
2) afraid to call wage-and-hour
3) willing to work under the table, that is, no IRS reporting, etc.

Guest workers make sense for agriculture, which is seasonal and regional (I grew up with migrants in the tomato fields in Ohio).

Pushing Amercian citizens out of the non-union construction trades makes no sense whatsoever. These are not "jobs Americans won't do." See the list above.

[John I]

Could Krugman's new found distate for immigration have anything to do with the fact that latinos are voting more and more for the right?

says...

Again, there is no possible reason here for mean spirited attacks.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/opinion/27mon2.html

March 27, 2006

A Civil Debate

Something powerful pulled more than half a million people onto the streets of Los Angeles on Saturday, turning 26 downtown blocks into a pulsing sea of white T-shirts and American flags. A veteran police commander said that in 38 years he had never seen a march so huge. Its target was a harsh immigration bill passed by the House that would erect a wall on our Southern border and turn 12 million illegal immigrants — and any who give them aid — into a nation of felons.

The demonstrations have been timed to a climactic showdown for immigration reform in the capital. Today the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled debate and a vote on a bill offered by its chairman, Arlen Specter. Unlike the House bill, it seeks comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws — not just tighter borders and stricter enforcement, but also a sensible path to legal status for illegal workers already here and others who want to come.

Mr. Specter and his colleagues are working under intense pressure, since the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, has threatened to put forward a hard-line enforcement bill if the committee fails to complete its work today. Senate staffs were racing over the weekend to nail down compromises before today's deadline. Anti-immigrant forces, meanwhile, stand ready to try to torpedo anything other than a strictly get-tough approach.

That would be an awful outcome for immigrant advocates and for President Bush, who has long argued for comprehensive reform and tried, with limited success, to steer his party away from the one-note harshness of the wall-building crowd. Last week he urged Congress to have a civil, respectful discussion about the issue. But with looming elections and Republican presidential jockeying casting a distorting fuzz over the debate, it may be too late for Mr. Bush's hands-off approach. If the president really wants a sensible reform bill to reach his desk, he will have to do more than stand on the sidelines, urging everyone to have good manners.

The marchers recognize — as much of the nation seems not to — the urgency of comprehensive immigration reform to the nation's future. Their indignation is mixed with pride in their work and hunger for fair treatment. Their protests have been a model of peaceful dissent and a blow against the mental straitjacket that defines immigration reform as entirely a problem of policing. Mr. Bush should make his case with equal force.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/22/opinion/22mahony.html?ex=1300683600&en=9f99cb0fa4fe6762&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

March 22, 2006

Called by God to Help
By ROGER MAHONY

I'VE received a lot of criticism for stating last month that I would instruct the priests of my archdiocese to disobey a proposed law that would subject them, as well as other church and humanitarian workers, to criminal penalties. The proposed Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control bill, which was approved by the House of Representatives in December and is expected to be taken up by the Senate next week, would among other things subject to five years in prison anyone who "assists" an undocumented immigrant "to remain in the United States."

Some supporters of the bill have even accused the church of encouraging illegal immigration and meddling in politics. But I stand by my statement. Part of the mission of the Roman Catholic Church is to help people in need. It is our Gospel mandate, in which Christ instructs us to clothe the naked, feed the poor and welcome the stranger. Indeed, the Catholic Church, through Catholic Charities agencies around the country, is one of the largest nonprofit providers of social services in the nation, serving both citizens and immigrants.

Providing humanitarian assistance to those in need should not be made a crime, as the House bill decrees. As written, the proposed law is so broad that it would criminalize even minor acts of mercy like offering a meal or administering first aid.

Current law does not require social service agencies to obtain evidence of legal status before rendering aid, nor should it. Denying aid to a fellow human being violates a law with a higher authority than Congress — the law of God.

That does not mean that the Catholic Church encourages or supports illegal immigration. Every day in our parishes, social service programs, hospitals and schools, we witness the baleful consequences of illegal immigration. Families are separated, workers are exploited and migrants are left by smugglers to die in the desert. Illegal immigration serves neither the migrant nor the common good.

What the church supports is an overhaul of the immigration system so that legal status and legal channels for migration replace illegal status and illegal immigration. Creating legal structures for migration protects not only those who migrate but also our nation, by giving the government the ability to better identify who is in the country as well as to control who enters it.

Only comprehensive reform of the immigration system, embodied in the principles of another proposal in Congress, the Secure America and Orderly Immigration bill, will help solve our current immigration crisis.

Enforcement-only proposals like the Border Protection act take the country in the opposite direction. Increasing penalties, building more detention centers and erecting walls along our border with Mexico, as the act provides, will not solve the problem.

The legislation will not deter migrants who are desperate to survive and support their families from seeking jobs in the United States. It will only drive them further into the shadows, encourage the creation of more elaborate smuggling networks and cause hardship and suffering. I hope that the Senate will not take the same enforcement-only road as the House.

The unspoken truth of the immigration debate is that at the same time our nation benefits economically from the presence of undocumented workers, we turn a blind eye when they are exploited by employers. They work in industries that are vital to our economy yet they have little legal protection and no opportunity to contribute fully to our nation.

While we gladly accept their taxes and sweat, we do not acknowledge or uphold their basic labor rights. At the same time, we scapegoat them for our social ills and label them as security threats and criminals to justify the passage of anti-immigrant bills.

This situation affects the dignity of millions of our fellow human beings and makes immigration, ultimately, a moral and ethical issue. That is why the church is compelled to take a stand against harmful legislation and to work toward positive change.

It is my hope that our elected officials will understand this and enact immigration reform that respects our common humanity and reflects the values — fairness, compassion and opportunity — upon which our nation, a nation of immigrants, was built.

Roger Mahony is the cardinal archbishop of Los Angeles.

[eh]

"...respond effectively to anti-immigrant demagogues,..."

Meaning what? Find some way to justify it no matter how numerous and serious the problems? And let's begin that effort by snidely smearing others who happen to think for good reasons that Mexicans belong in Mexico.

"We need to do something about immigration, and soon."

Yeah, like begin to enforce the law, including and especially against employers who hire illegals. And maybe, oh I don't know, arresting Mexicans as they stand around waiting to get one of those matricula cards. Otherwise...

"1/2 of kids born in US today are Latino"

The US will fill up even faster with Hispanics who when compared to the existing population are on average 1) significantly more likely to be criminal, and 2) significantly less likely to succeed academically, e.g. to attend and graduate from college, disparities which persist. People like Krugman never bother to explain exactly how that can possibly be a good idea long-term.

"that still puts a lump in my throat"

Not me. See, America is and has been for generations an established modern nation state with a distinct culture and demographic identity. And this is exactly what mass immigration today threatens.

So enough already with the 'nation of immigrants' crap.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/opinion/l27immig.html

Illegal Immigrants, Duty and Law

To the Editor:

I am a university professor who volunteers at a Catholic charity in Houston that distributes food and clothing to Hispanic immigrants, most of them illegal.

Each week, I help distribute about four tons of food to 250 indigent families in southwest Houston, mostly people from Mexico and Central America.

Some weeks, I also help distribute clothing.

Why do I do this? As Cardinal Roger Mahony pointed out, it is a central tenet of the Catholic faith to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and welcome the stranger.

If the illegal immigration control bill becomes law, my volunteer work will become a felony, but I will continue to do it.

Richard Fossey
Houston, March 22, 2006

[John]

"Mean spirited attacks"... Welcome to the feminization of america

[ken melvin]

Krugman nails it.

Mexico is long since a failed state. Now, their failure is bringing down the US. If the US employment to population ratio is ~65% and 11 million of these employed are illegals then the employment to population ratio of US citizens is ~62% and the real unemployment rate of US citizens is ~12%. In a sense it began with the replacement of unionized meat packers in the 80s. For the ~11 million illegals holding jobs 11 million US poor are unemployed and those who do have a job are working for about half what they should be paid. Illegal immigration has the same effect as off shoring.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/international/19mexico.html?ex=1300424400&en=c27b492cd46ba8d2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

March 19, 2006

Leftist Outsider's Campaign Surges in Mexico
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.

JUCHITÁN, Mexico — By the time Andrés Manuel López Obrador took the stage here on Thursday afternoon, the plaza was jammed with thousands of working-class people, a colorful crowd festooned with yellow partisan flags and bandannas bearing his picture.

His supporters had hung so many wreaths around his neck that he looked like he wore a yoke of flowers, an apt image for a man who claims to carry the aspirations of Mexico's millions of poor on his shoulders.

In the crowd stood one of those people, Jorge Luis García, a fisherman from a Pacific coast village who makes about $3 a day hauling red snapper and other fish from the sea. Mr. García, 68, voted for President Vicente Fox and his conservative National Action Party when he promised to change decades of corrupt rule in 2000. Now, Mr. García said, he is supporting Mr. López Obrador, an unvarnished leftist, for the same reason.

"Fox promised this and that but delivered nothing," Mr. García said, echoing the remarks of other people at the rally. "We want change."

With 108 days to go before the election, Mr. López Obrador, 52, leader of the Party of Democratic Revolution, appears to have consolidated his position as the front-runner, and many political strategists now predict he will win unless he stumbles spectacularly. Two polls this week showed him a solid 10 points above the other two candidates in a three-way race, with around 40 percent of the vote.

Perhaps more telling, the results of congressional and local elections in Mexico State, the country's most populous, with 14 million people, showed Mr. López Obrador's enormous personal appeal....

says...

"Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent."

What is bad about this?

"high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration"

This is called competition. If you don't like you can go to Cuba.

"...immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants..."

Everything has a price. the correct stament should be "Immigrants will do the same thing that native born americans for a much lower price". Hence efficiency calls for us to use immigrant labor instead of native born labor. For those who don't like this maybe they should start to include labels on products that say something like "Made with 100% native born american labor", charge a higher price for the goods and let the american people choose what they want (It seems to work for fair trade coffee).

"Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive"

So do most of the low skill american workers. Should we send them to a third world country? Want the illegal immigrants to pay more taxes? Make them legal, want to collect on immigration? Sell work permits. Illegal immigrants spend thousands of dollars to a coyote to get them across the border. So why not keeping the rent from working in the US in the US?

[save_the_rustbelt]

"Hence efficiency calls for us to use immigrant labor instead of native born labor."

There are 3 billion poor people in the world. How many do we allow to run across the border?

Wow, we can have really cheap labor then!

says...

"Hence efficiency calls for us to use immigrant labor instead of native born labor."

There are 3 billion poor people in the world. How many do we allow to run across the border?

Wow, we can have really cheap labor then!

As many as they want to come. Just like when most of the ancestors of today's native born americans did.

[ken melvin]

"Just like when most of the ancestors of today's native born americans did."
Time was when America needed labors. Now we can't provide jobs for our own.

[lonesome moderate]

Regarding the statement that "1/2 of kids born in US today are Latino": this is not correct. Were it true, it would mean that Latinos had four times as many children as whites, or were four times as likely to be of childbearing age, or some combination of the two. According to
http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/sld/compare_results.jsp?i=2 the correct figure is 22%.

[anne]

Thank you, Lonesome :)

[erik]

Come on now, can't we all get along?

The truth is that immigrants will come only when and where there is a demand for work. Sometimes this work is made possible by the fact that they will work for less but not always at the expense of native born jobs. This is true in many cases where it would not be economically viable to operate a business without cheaper sources of immigrant labor. Thus, in these cases, immmigrant labor CREATES jobs for native workers by creating management and other related positions related to these businesses.

In terms of the impact that unskilled-laborer immigrants have on the U.S. economy, there is little empirical evidence to suggest that their presence is costing the american citizenry a great deal and there is a good deal to support the possibility that their effects are mainly for the better. This fails to take into account the huge increase in quality of life experienced by those immigrating to the U.S. and the positive impact that remittances sent home by immigrants have on the economies of their home countries.