"A Boldly Redesigned Guest-Worker Program"

That's a "Boldly Redesigned Program," not "Badly  Redesigned Program," which is the point. Gordon Hanson weighs guest worker programs against illegal immigration and concludes that "from a purely economic perspective, illegal immigration is arguably preferable to legal immigration." For this reason, he believes that any guest worker program must mimic the positive economic aspects of illegal immigration or it will be unlikely to slow the flow of illegal workers into the U.S.:

Free Markets Need Free People, by Gordon H. Hanson, Commentary, WSJ: If there is one point of consensus in the fraught politics of immigration, it is that illegal immigration is bad. Yesterday, President Bush voiced his support for tough enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border and called on Congress to resolve the status of the 12 million illegal immigrants now in the country. Last week, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R., Colo.) entered the presidential race, promising to make resentment of illegal immigrants a major campaign issue. And yet, from a purely economic perspective, illegal immigration is arguably preferable to legal immigration. Because Congress and the president refuse to see this, further reform this year could make a bad situation worse.

Illegal immigration is persistent because it has a strong economic rationale. Low-skilled workers are increasingly scarce in the U.S. while they are still abundant in Mexico, Central America and elsewhere. ...[I]mpeding illegal immigration, without creating other avenues for legal entry, would conflict with market forces that push labor from low-wage countries to the high-wage U.S. labor market. ...

Illegal immigration responds to economic signals in ways that legal immigration does not. Illegal migrants tend to arrive in larger numbers when the U.S. economy is booming and move to regions where job growth is strong. Legal immigration, in contrast, is subject to bureaucratic delays... The lengthy visa application process requires employers to plan their hiring far in advance. Once here, guest workers cannot easily move between jobs, limiting their benefit to the U.S. economy. ...

Congress should redesign temporary immigration from the ground up. Successful reform would have to mimic current beneficial aspects of illegal immigration. Employers would have to be able to hire the types of workers they desire, when they desire. One way to achieve this would be for the Department of Homeland Security to sanction the creation of global temp agencies...

Matching foreign workers to U.S. employers efficiently would require flexibility in the number of guest workers admitted -- and one way to make the number of visas sensitive to market signals would be to auction the right to hire a guest worker to U.S. employers. The auction price for visas that clears the market would reflect the supply of and demand for foreign guest workers. An increase in the auction price signals the need to expand the number of visas; a decline in the price indicates that the number of visas could be reduced.

Perhaps the most important provision of any new visa program would be to allow guest workers to move between jobs in the United States. Without mobility between employers, guest workers would lack the attractiveness of illegal laborers. They would also be exposed to abuse by unscrupulous bosses. One way to facilitate mobility for guest workers would be to allow existing visa holders to apply for new job postings [at the global temp agencies]... Guest workers could move ... as economic conditions change.

Making immigration more responsive to the market would not be easy to implement, either administratively or politically. However, absent a boldly redesigned guest-worker program, temporary legal immigrants would be unlikely to displace illegal labor. In the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Congress voted to increase enforcement against the hiring of illegals without creating a mechanism for the continued inflow of legal, low-skilled labor. Under steady pressure from business, the government ultimately gutted or redirected IRCA's major enforcement provisions. ...

As Congress again wrestles with immigration reform, one would hope that it will pay heed to the failures of the past by creating a framework that allows for the dynamic participation of legal immigrant workers in the U.S. economy. Otherwise, the U.S. is likely to find itself with even larger illegal populations in the very near future. [This op-ed is adapted from a new study published by the Council on Foreign Relations]

Comments

[Alex F]

Wall Street Journal, not NYTimes.

[dissent]

Low-skilled workers are increasingly scarce in the U.S. while they are still abundant in Mexico, Central America and elsewhere.

They were skilled corn farmers, among other things, until Nafta trashed their livelihoods.

We have plenty of low skilled workers: in public housing, in jails and prisons, in slums. I'm serious. We've have lots of low skilled labor because we don't develop and educate the poor. We trash the poor, then wink wink to the illegals who come in and dance on their economic grave.

This smarmy piece is in the WSJ because illegal immigration is a pro-business, pro Wall Street policy. That's why it exists. That's why companies hire illegals by the millions with token slaps on the wrist for penalties. Those folks sneer at paying taxes to develop and educate American citizens into productive workers, and illegals are "free" alright - free to be exploited and abused and poorly paid.

[Noni Mausa]

Reminds me of a guy I knew in college who would get a kitten, keep it for a couple of years, and then give it away when it got grown up and boring, and before it needed any expensive vet work.

Free movement of illegals -- what a great idea. Plug it into global (not national) citizenship, a global pension plan, a global health plan, global legal protection (and responsibilities, of course), and global taxes. Till then, it's just a way of getting rid of the kitten once the "cute" has worn off.

Noni

[Mark Thoma]

Another typo fixed - thanks (NYT to WSJ). Wonder how many more I'll make tonight.

[Movie Guy]

I am reading that there is small likelihood of a bill before 2009. After reviewing the supposed draft fine amounts, I would expect that is possible.

Unverified info:

"The plan would grant work visas to undocumented immigrants but require them to return home and pay hefty fines to become legal U.S. residents. They could apply for three-year work visas, dubbed "Z" visas, which would be renewable indefinitely but cost $3,500 each time.

"The undocumented workers would have legal status with the visas, but to become legal permanent residents with a green card, they'd have to return to their home country, apply at a U.S. embassy or consulate to re-enter legally and pay a $10,000 fine."

"However the devil is in the details. "In a new twist, more green cards would be made available to skilled workers by limiting visas for parents, children and siblings of U.S. citizens. Temporary workers could not bring their families into the country."

[Movie Guy]

Those are serious fees and fines.

I suppose the Statue of Liberty will fall over in the water out of sheer embarrassment if some don't pull it down first.

Imagine me defending illegal aliens. Yep.

We've gone too far on the money game. Geez...

[Martin]

Mark,

Sorry - I have to post links.

Hanson recently completed papers entitled 'Emigration, Labor Supply and Earnings in Mexico' and 'Illegal Migration from mexico to the United States'. The thrust of the papers was that the vast bulk of the migrancy comes from Western and Central Mexico -

http://martinkelly.blogspot.com/2006/05/nature-of-mexican-migration.html

Lo and behold, a similar vast bulk of the remittances flowing back into Mexico go the centre and the west; there's even a graphic about it -

http://martinkelly.blogspot.com/2006/10/picture-tells-thousand-words-and.html

It seems to me that developing Western and Central Mexico might rapidly ameliorate the illegal migration problem. If Mexico is not prepared to do that then Americans are most certainly entitled to ask why.

Who benefits from this state of affairs? Because it doesn't seem to be ordinary Mexicans.

[Lafayette]

GH: President Bush voiced his support for tough enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border and called on Congress to resolve the status of the 12 million illegal immigrants now in the country.

Lead-head was right to do so.

Still, there is a difference between immigrants and migrants that is necessary to underscore. Migrants return to their countries and do not seek to implant their families and become nationalized citizens.

But, not as a measure of "stopping illegal immigration". It is an effective measure if the process forces Latin Americans to seek "legal migration" based upon quotas and for selected industries. That is, a legal alternative that will supply the human resources necessary in America (and Europe) for jobs that will otherwise go unfilled.

That legal migration must be coupled with severe penalties for companies hiring illegal immigrants who do not seek authorization to hire "legal migrants", which should be made available. These latter would have work contracts that they can renew, but no automatic access to nationality.

A nationalization program for migrants, who have been in the country a minimum amount of time (a decade,) could be considered and put in place.

"Illegal immigration" (the term applied currently) does not take into account the fact that many of the immigrants are in fact migrants who want to make some money before returning home. If they stay, it is likely because they do not want to risk taking the journey home and back. As legal migrants they would be able to do so.

Such an approach might make of the "illegal immigrant" problem an opportunity to have "temporary legal migrants" in certain jobs, namely agriculture or low-skilled manufacturing. (Or course, this will place a further burden upon agencies to supervise and police the process.)

[calmo]

What to make of this article? From the opening paragraphLast week, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R., Colo.) entered the presidential race, promising to make resentment of illegal immigrants a major campaign issue. Does this sound like a winning platform worthy of those $100 million presidential campaign funds ...building resentment?...or something a little "off" --unpure? (Nevamind that employers are the only ones who could be doing anything illegal, Tancredo sees an opportunity that needs exploiting...now. But it could be just Hanson, possibly even satirical Hanson...see if it was the NYT, you could read this with a smile on your face, but this starts "bad" and goes badder:Legal immigration, in contrast, is subject to bureaucratic delays..and that is why this legal immigration is worse than the current illegal immigration. [And why should we read further? This "purely economic perspective" from someone who gives no indication that he is either pure or economic or...has any real intention of informing President Bush of the error of his perspective until I read at the very end that it is from a larger study with the CFR...no satire...damn.]

How pure is this?Successful reform would have to mimic current beneficial aspects of illegal immigration Recall that Hanson was citing Tancredo for "promising to make resentment of illegal immigrants a major campaign issue", and his efforts here are going to weigh in on that promise, yes? Hanson's efforts will increase that resentment by advocating the same business friendly policies that got us into this mess: Under steady pressure from business, the government ultimately gutted or redirected IRCA's major enforcement provisions. ...
With policy development like this, it is no wonder w & co are building The Wall...it's those starving fencing companies and plenty of cheap Mexican labor.
So pure, this economic perspective from Hanson.

[Lafayette]

NM: "Plug it into global (not national) citizenship, a global pension plan, a global health plan, global legal protection (and responsibilities, of course), and global taxes.

We can't even get the national model of democracy to work sufficiently right for most of this planet and you suggest we complicate it even further?

First things first.

[Lafayette]

dissent: We have plenty of low skilled workers: in public housing, in jails and prisons, in slums. I'm serious. We've have lots of low skilled labor because we don't develop and educate the poor.

Quite right.

When will we, as a nation, understand that human resources, just like capital resources, require investment to develop and maintain. This investment, like that for all other public services, must be assured by the state.

An education is not an “elective”. It is not only right but a duty, and therefore an obligation of a citizen. A nation that spends money on properly educating its youth (and not just to find a job) will have the return on that investment in terms of less delinquency and crime, less unemployment, more stable families, etc., etc., etc.

Let’s look to extending our notion of secondary public school education to all levels of training or university that an individual might want to seek, coupled with services that assure proper guidance and attention to students throughout their schooling by skilled specialists, such that the throughput rate is the highest that we can possibly achieve.

Let’s consider stipends for students who want to pursue an education/training in skills that the country recognizes as necessary/strategic/crucial. Let’s make the dream of “no student left behind” become a reality of “all students educated to the highest level that their natural talents permit”.

It will take a decade or two, but the results will be remarkable. It could even change America. Education is not a business, it is a public service ... or, it should be.

NB: And, over that period, it won’t cost more than a couple of years of the equivalent of the Pentagon’s budget.

[real person from the real world]

Great Words fro Layfette: "Education is not a business, it is a public service ... or, it should be."

As to legal/illegal immigration. For illegal, read "Mexicans." For legal, read mainly, "3rd Word Indian and Asian Techs."

Mexico shares a US border. Heck, most of our southwest was once part of Mexico. We've had people cross the border for a couple of centuries. I see plenty of latino surnames in the political news, including one recent name of an a couple of attornies. Now suddenly these people are some sort of trash?

Legal Tech workers.... well Billy Gates likes his brains skimmed off from anywhere else but the USA. Tech companies cannot bother with creating entry level jobs.... no, they must have a ready pool of techies that can, "hit the ground running." Never mind that the VISA slaves are vetted over THERE, and can get health benefits back home, or that companies are not saving money, just paying more to more layers of vendors who take the money the poor visa slave should be getting.

We need some sanity over immigration and over education of our own people.

[bakho]

Maybe our "legal" immigration quotas are way out of line if there are people that can come illegally and get jobs?

[ken melvin]

Dissent nailed it first swing of the bat. The only economics involved in illegal workers are those of cheap labor. Politically, Mexico is a failed state.

[gng]

Is there any hard evidence that there's a shortage of poor legal residents, as opposed to a shortage of poor legal residents willing to work for low wages and no benefits? If it's the latter, then wouldn't changing the law to increase the supply of desperate poor people be a bit less of a "market" solution then letting compensation rise enough to attract currently legal residents?

Those questions aside, the proposal to make "global temp agencies" is morally abhorent. I've seen how *skilled* legal immigrants are exploited by existing global temp agencies (the large "consulting" companies that supply cheap H1B's by the planeload). Unskilled immigrants would have even less leverage with their employer and be even more exploitable.

Unless the law that created them gave strong rights to their employees and gave serious funding to an enforcement agency with teeth (I'm sure Congress will be tripping over themselves to do that) "global temp agencies" seem like they'll be the new indentured servitude, only with a racial component and without the promise of residence after bondage.

[save_the_rustbelt]

I've been doing some academic research on this, and if we don't solve the illegal problem the prevalance of phony and stolen Social Security numbers may jeopardize the entire SS system. Imagine giving everyone in the country a new 10 or 11 digit number. Sheer chaos.

MG:

I've also found that 7 or 8 million illegals a year evade federal income taxes, so I don't feel too bad about the penalties. Previous bills have required a tax catch-up, it will be interesting to see if the Bush plan has waived that in favor of the fine.

[save_the-rustbelt]

Employers prefer illegals for a variety of reasons:

1) illegals do not form unions
2) illegals do not call OSHA
3) illegals do not file workers comp claims
4) 80% or so of illegals do not file tax returns, providing bountiful opportunities for tax evasion by employers (see US v. Rosenbaum et al, District Court, Western Michigan)
5) many illegals work "under the table" cutting payroll tax and insurance costs
6) illegals cannot complaint about layoffs, discrimination, etc.

[evagrius]

Damn! The U.S. shoulda annexed Mexico back in '47 after it captured Mexico City. Think of all the cheap labor it coulda had.

[Noni Mausa]

Noni: Plug it into global (not national) citizenship..."

Lafayette:We can't even get the national model of democracy to work sufficiently right for most of this planet and you suggest we complicate it even further? First things first."

My point is that the nation structure is being used as a semipermeable membrane to shed responsibility. Illegals get no rights in the USA because they are illegals, and few rights in their homeland because their homeland doesn't do rights.

The net effect is a predatory economy which juggles rules, laws, nationalities and immigration so as to give the absolute least to the workers. They want the kitten, but not the vet bill.

Noni

[Lafayette]

NM: "The net effect is a predatory economy which juggles rules, laws, nationalities and immigration so as to give the absolute least to the workers."

Perhaps, but extrapolating from the above to a supranational world citizenship is like leaping into an abyss. The fall is kinda fun - but it’s the sudden stop that's deadly.

Human diversity is sooooo wide as to assure that any such composite is likely to be even worse than the fractured nationalism that prevails today.

The EU is a good example of trying to aggregate / integrate 25 nations into one whole. First, they all don't even speak the same language. Second, they all have very different views about the social elements of economic policy. Thirdly, even the Central Bank is learning how to manipulate its levers of power amongst 25 economies that inhomogeneous. Fourthly, there is no one executive power so the palaver over even the most insignificant matter takes forever to resolve.

Nice idea you propose, but the implementation would be a nightmare.

[DRR]

Legal Immigration, Illegal Immigration. It's all the same to me. Let them come. We can have those universal amnesty events every 5 years or so to entice illegals who want to stay out of the woodworks, where official citizenship will allow them to avoid many of the dangerous pitfalls of illegal status whilst maintaining the economic benefits of residing in the U.S.

[wjd123]

First I read the title "Free Markets Need Free People" and then when I came to the part about auctioning off unskilled labor to the highest bidder I new I was reading a spoof. However at the end of the article when I found that the suggestion came through the Council on Foreign Relations I stopped laughing.

I've got to hand it to them when it comes to efficiency this beats slavery because when the economy slackens you don't have to keep on feeding and housing people. You can just send back where they came from.

With our high school dropout rate I would think there is plenty of unskilled labor around. If they are not taking these jobs could it be that business has made these jobs, jobs for losers.

There is not CEO that wouldn't give up half his salary not to have to work on the production line of a meat packing plant. Yet these employers aren't worth a living wage.

I also found it strange that Hanson believes that the failure of he 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act should teach us not ignore businesses need for unskilled labor this time. I would think the lesson learned is that we can't trust congress to enforce the law, and we can't trust business to obey it.

[anne]

No; though I do not understand problems stemming from 1986, Congress does not enforce laws. Congress does not enforce laws, but the executive and judiciary branches should and do. If there has been a problem in law enforcement from 1986, then look to the executive first and judiciary second.

[cm]

Lafayette: "That is, a legal alternative that will supply the human resources necessary in America (and Europe) for jobs that will otherwise go unfilled."

Give those workers rights and minimum wage requirements, and suddenly employers will lose interest, for the same reason as in our previous exchange. But when the author says "it must mimic illegal immigration", perhaps he meant precisely absence of such.

In the end it comes down to arbitrage, which follows the second law of thermodynamics -- you can extract a cut (profit) only from a differential (in prices). A good deal of business models in the US are only profitable to their operators because of illegal labor (largely from illegal immigrants, but also residents paid under the table, and working in undocumented positions).

[wjd123]

Anne,

That's right, my mistake. I should have said "the exeuctive branch to enforce the law and congress to do anything about it.

For years Congress hardly said a word about illegal immigration.

[anne]

WJD, as you however, I have no sympathy for this column which in turn shows no worker sympathy and so will prove self-defeating to Council of Foreign Relations immigration advocates.

[cm]

real person: If the mode of operation in the tech industry were less stateful, you would probably see a lot of fly-by-night garage outfits with illegal workers. As it is, you cannot (realistically) change workers, move offices, or reincorporate at a whim.

Another thing that I'm not sure about is that the tech industry is more strongly attached to the "defense" and other regulated industries, and thus in the aggregate exposed to more oversight. And, as a side note, I suspect that "defense" companies probably use a lot less illegal labor as they probably have to more rigidly vet and document their subcontractors. In other words, the law is actually enforced in those industries (if that's so).

[William Smith]

The problem I have with an expanded guest worker program, especially for unskilled labor, is that it would create a permanent underclass of workers with little or no rights to improve their working conditions or wages. It would effectively disenfranchise an entire segment of the work force.
That's not to mention that the upward creep of the guest worker program would be used as a tool for union-busting or to roll back worker protections or minimum wage laws.
The solutions should be a clear committment to either increasing legal immigrants through looser standards and quotas, combined with more funding for processing the backlog of resident alien visa requests, OR cut down the number of immigrants, especially illegal ones, through increased border security, tougher standards for admittance, and increased penalties and enforcement of immigration laws.

[calmo]

Thank you wjd123. [There are times when I wonder if I've shown up at the party (at this article) wearing the wrong costume (dressed up as a moose maybe).
Yes, I even reviewed my notions about CFR having seen that reference. (maria is making an impression on me if only I can believe that these people are being listened to by Cheney.)
This seems patently obvious to this moose:I would think the lesson learned is that we can't trust congress to enforce the law, and we can't trust business to obey it. Another WSJ piece that counts as a self-parody --who cannot build resentment against Tancredo? against Hanson for advocating illegal-like immigration (which is exactly what we have people) resentment...and from a study by the CFR?
I feel like punishing somebody by the time I've finished reading and it isn't the illegals, you know?

[anne]

Also, what I am trying to better understand in reading and later in talking to a legal historian is the extent to which the judiciary may be "increasingly" bending to the executive in interpretation of the law. The judiciary is always going to be somewhat dependent on the executive for interpretation, but how much so now? I do not understand.

[ki]

Let’s make the dream of “no student left behind” become a reality of “all students educated to the highest level that their natural talents permit”.

This idea, although it is bright in optimism, is not realistic. It is a dream like "no student left behind".

In such a large country it is just as impossible to ensure that everyone is working and learning to their full potential, just as it impossible to ensure that no child is left behind, or no terrible crimes are commited (even with socialism or communism). Every single child cannot be watched over and groomed to be educated to the highest level.

And anyways how could we judge what a child's potential could or should be? By a single scale? By their race? Ethnicity? Sex? Inevitably we would expect too much out of some children, and underestimate the natural abilities of others.

On another note, a child's education not only rests upon the educational system, the child's natural abilities, but also on the child's willingness to learn.

Their willingness to learn depends on an infinite number of factors that affect different individuals in different ways.

Or of course we could implement tracking like the Soviets did in their time. We could decide what the child's occupation will be by end of grammar school. But of course we alreading have tracking in the US, which is discriminatory.

But I do totally agree with you that we do desperately need a change to our educational system. It is a disgrace that there are schools where most of the class period is spent trying to get the students to pay attention, or that there are barely enough books to supply one classroom, and that each student does not get their own. I am sure that everyone that works for the higher government either sends their kids to private schools, or at least to top ranked public schools.

But the problem is not just in the legistlature. A whole chunk of it lays on the parents. I understand that most parents work, but they should also spend time instilling good habits upon their kids. Even if their kids do not go to top schools, there are still vast resources that are available to them. The parents only need to spend a little time researching these opportunities. There are mentoring programs, reading programs, writing programs, and much more that are usually free. There is also the library. Why do so many kids sit at home playing video games, instead of going to the library and reading a book? Because it is easier and more convenient. But is it a BETTER option?

Why does the government not step in and give our educational system a full makeover? Because it is easier!!! Its a vast trend in US society and people need to start acknowledging that the easiest path will usually not lead to an ideal outcome.

The citizens of the US need to get together and figure out how we can better the education system not only to improve our childrens' future but to improve the future of this country.

[anne]

Justices Roberts and Alito in recent rulings or opinions, seem to show the coming of an increasingly deferential approach to the executive, but would the attitudes I sense hold for a Democratic executive? I have no sense of this.

[Bruce Hall]

Eisenhower was correct.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html

It's not difficult; we just choose to make it so. Nevertheless, if you want to make it complicated, we can go this route:

Don't go after illegal immigrants; go after employers of illegal immigrants. Felony convictions sound about right. How soon until the practice of employing illegal immigrants is stopped? It doesn't take building a 700-mile wall or employing thousands more border agents. It simply takes the stopping of the green. Don't allow employers to accept social security numbers as proof of citizenship. They are a penny a pound. Require personal histories that must be checked. Put the onus on the employer. Oh, that's too harsh! No it's not. The chaos to our communities from illegal immigration is too harsh.

This doesn't go far enough.
http://www.brenhambanner.com/articles/2007/02/13/news/news01.txt

[robertdfeinman]

Recent studies have shown that Social Security benefits from undocumented workers. Employers submit their contribution to the fund but the workers never collect.

If I remember correctly this amount to several billion dollars a year net to Social Security.

There was also a study in Texas showing the net benefits from the immigrant population:
http://www.cpa.state.tx.us/specialrpt/undocumented/undocumented.pdf

[Paul]

What happens when all of these illegals start protesting in the streets 20-30 years from now demanding their SS checks? How long will it take before congress bends to their demands?

[Bruce Hall]

A couple of different perspectives about illegal aliens and social security which, in either case, is a situation out of control:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070328-105704-6443r.htm

Uncredited contributions to Social Security grew by nearly $300 billion from 2000 to 2004, a giant increase attributable mostly to illegal aliens using erroneous Social Security numbers, and one seniors group said this will become a major liability if those aliens are legalized.
"Our government would willingly bankrupt the system even sooner by giving billions of dollars to people who broke the laws of the United States," said Shannon Benton, executive director of the Senior Citizens League, which is releasing a report today based on the Social Security Administration's numbers.
Democrats and President Bush have promised to try this year to pass an immigration bill that includes legal status for the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens now in the country. Under current law, illegal aliens are not entitled to benefits for illegal work, but the bill says if they gain legal status in the future they can go back and get credit for the work done while illegal.
In 2004, "uncredited earnings" -- Social Security tax payments that can't be matched to valid Social Security numbers -- totaled $65 billion -- about 10 percent of the program's total income. The amount of uncredited earnings stood at $301.8 billion in 1999, but had grown to $585 billion by 2004, according to the Senior Citizens League report.
Government officials say they don't know how many illegal aliens are paying into the system, but say illegal aliens are probably the "chief cause" of uncredited earnings.
The threat to Social Security's future funding comes because the system is based on current workers paying for current retirees' benefits. That means illegal aliens help spread the burden, without having access to the rewards in the future.
But if illegal aliens were to gain legal status, they could go back and claim credit for earlier Social Security payments, adding yet another drain on a fund that is already expected to become financially strained within 15 years as baby boomers start to retire.

and this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html?ex=1270353600&en=78c87ac4641dc383&ei=5090

Illegal immigration, Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, co-director of immigration studies at New York University, noted sardonically, could provide "the fastest way to shore up the long-term finances of Social Security."

It is impossible to know exactly how many illegal immigrant workers pay taxes. But according to specialists, most of them do. Since 1986, when the Immigration Reform and Control Act set penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, most such workers have been forced to buy fake ID's to get a job.

Currently available for about $150 on street corners in just about any immigrant neighborhood in California, a typical fake ID package includes a green card and a Social Security card. It provides cover for employers, who, if asked, can plausibly assert that they believe all their workers are legal. It also means that workers must be paid by the book - with payroll tax deductions.

IRCA, as the immigration act is known, did little to deter employers from hiring illegal immigrants or to discourage them from working. But for Social Security's finances, it was a great piece of legislation.

The answer remains simple:

Don't go after illegal immigrants; go after employers of illegal immigrants.

... but like everything else associated with the Federal Government... bigger, more convoluted, more inefficient, more negative consequences... is the norm.

[Robert]

Successful reform would have to mimic current beneficial aspects of illegal immigration

In other words, keeping wages low for those jobs that cannot be outsourced to low wage countries.

[save_the-rustbelt]

Bruce Hall:

There were extensive hearings in Congress early in 2006, and as a result the Department of Homeland Security is hot on the trail of both illegals and employers for using phony and stolen IDs.

Problem is, we will now arrest .01% of people using phony or stolen SS numbers, instead of .001%. Not even a drop in the bucket.

If you happen to be one of the unlucky citizens who has your SS number stolen, you may well get a tax bill from the IRS or an arrest warrant for writing bad checks in some other state. That will make your entire day brighter.

[save_the-rustbelt]

"...Recent studies have shown that Social Security benefits from undocumented workers. Employers submit their contribution to the fund but the workers never collect...."

There are also reduced tax collections of federal income, Social Security, Medicare, state and local taxes because of under-the-table and under reported income. Since most illegals don't file income tax returns it is impossible to reconcile employer filings with anything, a great scenario for tax evasion by employer and employee.

[Lafayette]

Paul: “What happens when all of these illegals start protesting in the streets 20-30 years from now demanding their SS checks?”

Why shouldn’t they protest? You spend 30 years beavering away and you don’t get even a green card, protesting is the least that you would do.

Remember, what they did with their earnings was to contribute to the economic vitality of the community, just like those who worked legally. And, their sons and daughters will likely be "legal", a part of the community and also working to contribute to the tax base that is funding your SS-payments. Forgot that, did you?

That gives the illegals latent rights …. to at least protest for a fair part of the retirement pie. And, you would deny them those rights because they don’t have a piece of bureaucratic paper?

Nonsense.

[Lafayette]

Robert: “In other words, keeping wages low for those jobs that cannot be outsourced to low wage countries”

Oh, do you think we are going to Shanghai to find your gardener or the poor slob who is breaking his back to pick the lettuce in your salad or the other one picking up your garbage?

The jobs these people fill are the ones Americans think are below their dignity. You’ve come a long way, baby, but in the wrong direction.

It’s incredible the simplistic nonsense one can read in a blog nowadays.

[Lafayette]

BH: “Democrats and President Bush have promised to try this year to pass an immigration bill that includes legal status for the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens now in the country. Under current law, illegal aliens are not entitled to benefits for illegal work, but the bill says if they gain legal status in the future they can go back and get credit for the work done while illegal.”.

When a country has been making a colossal mistake for most of forty years, the best way to go forward is to bury the mess from the past and start with a new slate.

America needs immigrants, just like Europe. The smart sociologists have been supporting this contention for decades. What it wants is selective migration/immigration.

That consists of two imperative: (1) Block effectively illegal migration/immigration and (2) open another channel of selective immigration.

The first objective requires heavy fines and prison sentences for those Americans who employ illegal migrants. (Because until they decide to stay, they are not yet immigrants.)

The second objective requires that a process be opened that attributes the quantity of migrant visas allocated across Latin and South America and channeled through American embassies in those countries. These allocations could also filter for skilled workers, for instance those who have some sort of skill accreditation (read trade school diploma) and give these people priority access to visas.

Poor Latinos aren’t stupid; they will understand the subtle difference between the two ways of getting up and into America.

As part of the solution, it would also help if America understood that Latin and South America exist. And that trade with these regions is in our vested interests in promoting the economic vitality of those countries, so as to lessen the number of people in abject poverty who will do anything to get out of their misery.

[cm]

Lafayette: "The jobs these people fill are the ones Americans think are below their dignity."

You are entitled to your opinion, but that's not what the commenter you quoted and whom you are "rebutting" said.

Are "those jobs" (leaving it in the abstract, shan't we) below "Americans'" dignity? Or is it merely below their "dignity" to work for the wages that illegal immigrants will accept?

And what is the "dignity problem" here, whichever way the above be? The theory of market mechanisms and market-clearing prices to my knowledge does not have "dignity" in its definitions and deliberations.

Let's say you are willing to pay $5 for somebody to give you a shoe-shine. If it's below everybody's dignity and there are no takers, what entitles you you complain of said fact? Did I hear this guy right, he asks $20 and you scoff? Well, pay the "market clearing price" wise guy and you will get your shoes cleaned! It's not like your life depends on it and the guy holds you hostage by your shoestring.

Do you notice how in many of our exchanges it always comes down to the same thing? Somebody doesn't want to pay market-clearing price (on their side), and asks for supply side policies (compel that buddy over there to accept my price, or get me one who will).

[cm]

In other words, aside from specific legislation, nobody has a right to particular economic transactions happening, on their terms. That's the whole idea of a market. There is no special concept of "dignity" when it comes to market exchanges. All of that gets figured into market-clearing price, or other "soft" factors enabling or preventing transactions. If we cannot agree on a price, we won't transact. There is no exemption for "but the competitiveness", "but the profitability", etc.

[Lafayette]

cm: "There is no special concept of "dignity" when it comes to market exchanges."

Much ado about nothing.

If you will come back to earth from orbit for a moment, I will explain (because you’ve not understood, once again) the exchange.

Even in Germany, and other parts of Europe, there are a good number of people, typically the young, who will not dirty their hands with jobs that, they think, are below their dignity.

This “dignity”, I submit, is a false one inculcated by society such as to give erroneous expectations to people. In Germany, some think that many of the Turkish community have just evolved from spit. In France, it is typically the North African Muslims that merit this opprobrium.

In the US, once upon the time, it was the “wops” or the “polacks” or “spics”. These are mobile appellations of shame applied to the latest newcomers/immigrants/whatever. And, despite the centuries that it has been occurring, nothing has changed in the baseness of mankind. The opprobrium continues.

A management psychology professor once made a remark that I shan’t forget for a long time: “To deracinate oneself from their home and hearth is, in fact, a courageous act and indicative of a strong spirit." This, I suggest, is the central characteristic of the immigrants who forged American industry in the early part of the 20th century. Their sons also died in WW2 defending that democracy. And, today, we have a similar current that is entering the US to replace their forebears who are now “mainstream Americans”. Meaning they (the latter) have a right to bitch and moan on blogs about the “rif-raf” entering illegally to “take their jobs”.

That was the sense of my remark - no more, no less. And, in that context, damn “market exchanges” or whatever on earth you are talking about.

NB: When available stateside, I suggest you see "The American Dream", directed by Emanuele Crialese and starring Charlotte Gainsbourg. It is an eye opener about immigration once upon a time to the United States. Having seen this film, the Statue of Liberty would deserve a good cry.

[cm]

Lafayette: No, I prefer to radio in from my orbital station. You must be suggesting in the "good old days" nobody was ever above doing certain jobs, and there were no categories of jobs that were viewed unfavorably. Do you really believe that?

Where I'm coming from, there are a lot of people willing to "dirty their hands" doing cleaning jobs etc., in exchange for reasonable pay, and what that means is of course in good part determined by the level of various welfare benefits -- arguably a feature of welfare, not a bug. It's like opportunity cost reasoning in investing -- what's good for the goose must be good for the ganter, no? Perhaps all these people are "old school"?

The problem (well, from their side anyway) these people are facing include limits on aggregate demand (there are only so many cleaning jobs at "reasonable pay" available), and competition by illegal immigrants, under-the-table workers, and exploitation by price-squeezing employers (the unfortunate thing "simple jobs" being that there is always a sufficient reserve army of potential takers). The demand issue is very simple to understand -- you can have your office floor cleaned daily, but when you cannot "afford" it, once per week is probably enough. If you cannot agree on terms/conditions, the business will not happen. Nothing new here, it's the same as in all other economic transactions.

There is no need to make it into a moral issue. Moral judgements of economic choices always have a strong circular component -- to a substantial extent, occupations are judged favorably insofar as they pay well, because the "value" of something is defined by the price somebody or everybody is willing to pay in our type of society, right. Arranging or tolerating low or even below-living wage sectors is a sure-fire way of telling people those are jobs for losers. And in case somebody doesn't get it, it is accompanied with matching rhetoric.

It's the same way in all social environments including corporate work -- there is always a variety of things to be done, and the opinion-makers shape perceptions of what are "lowly" activities, by attaching various levels of reward or prestige. Those are then the ones nobody wants to touch. That's not a new phenomenon.

[Paul]

Yeah the problem isn't that Americans are unwilling to do hard labor, they are simply unwilling to do it for minimum wage or below minimum wage. Pay a decent wage instead of hiring illegal aliens and paying them below minimum-wage, and then there wouldn't be an issue here.

Furthermore, my family members came to this country when there was no welfare system for them to mooch on. Nowadays illegals hop over the border and after they find a place to live it seems like the next most important thing in their minds is how to get on food stamps and abuse the free medical services at the local hospital.

Forgot what? I forgot nothing. While their sons & daughters may be "legal," they certainly won't be Americans in my opinion.

[Noni Mausa]

"Even in Germany, and other parts of Europe, there are a good number of people, typically the young, who will not dirty their hands with jobs that, they think, are below their dignity...This “dignity”, I submit, is a false one inculcated by society such as to give erroneous expectations to people."

Another story from the dim past...

We had a university teacher, a rather clueless fellow, who had his degree and taught competently enough. But when applying for this junior teaching position, he listed one of his past jobs as "chicken plucker". This fact was passed around the department by a malicious fellow teacher, and soon most of the teachers and students knew of it.

He didn't get much respect to begin with, but this put the tin lid on it. Everyone who knew the "chicken plucker" story thought far worse of him.

There are reasonable, kindly people who can know the chicken plucker story and NOT think worse of the person in question -- but they are a minority.

Noni

[Lafayette]

NM: “There are reasonable, kindly people who can know the chicken plucker story and NOT think worse of the person in question -- but they are a minority."

I would like to think that this is a story from the distant past. Frankly, I can believe all too easily that it is true.

I have seen, over the past, in Europe similar pettiness. It is disconcerting and when it happens, we must have the courage to stomp on it with great public vociferousness.

The point I had in mind in writing my own reflection above is the fact that, amongst the young and disaffected in the ghettoes, that surround the large urban centers of France, are youths who are looking for employment, but who sometimes refuse to take jobs because they feel that they are below their “level of aspirations”.

Now, I admit that such people are perhaps a minority, but of a very large population of unemployed youth (as much as 25% in some places of all unemployed between the ages of 18 and 25).

Secondly, there is the university graduate, pampered by the family, who also feels that taking a job a MacDonald’s is below their “level of education”. These are a different breed of do-nothings, who have the pretense to think that a university diploma destined them for some low-paying but definitive job somewhere … probably teaching some esoteric subject within the public education system.

When you ask the very young still in schools nowadays what they want to be when they grow up, most of them here in France say “a teacher”. This response could be conditioned by infatuation, which is common in this age group. But it could also be born of a nascent premonition that finding a job, when it will become necessary for them to do so, is going to be difficult.

We have, now, an entire generation of youth in France, some highly educated, who cannot find stable employment. That inevitably leaves scars on an individual’s psyche.

Especially when they see either parents or grandparents who had jobs that lasted a lifetime at only one company. This sort of work experience has probably disappeared forever in both the US and Europe.

[Lafayette]

cm: "Do you really believe that?"

Yes, I see it all around me.

Want to meet a group of university graduates milling about the Quartier Latin who are being supported in their nonchalance by "dada"?

Want to meet a non-diplomaed unskilled laborer who figures it is better to loll about all day rather than earn the minimum wage because his dole-money is only 10% less?

I can show both to you. Hundreds.

Of course, I could be making this all up. Problem is, cm, I ain't.

[cm]

Lafayette: "Want to meet a non-diplomaed unskilled laborer who figures it is better to loll about all day rather than earn the minimum wage because his dole-money is only 10% less?"

Aside from "loll about" being your interpretation you inject into this, that's precisely one function of the dole-money.

And your implied conclusion, that all those lolling-about unemployed cuold work for "minimum wage" jobs if only they wanted, is flawed -- there are not enough such jobs even at minimum wage.

(And in the case of Germany, there is no such thing as a minimum wage -- your dole-money essentially defines what that wage is. And I know of cases where people rejected jobs, or rather arranged to not get an offer, that proposed to pay less than their dole, not more as you posit. That's part of dole's function, not a bug.)

[Lafayette]

And your implied conclusion, that all those lolling-about unemployed cuold work for "minimum wage" jobs if only they wanted, is flawed -- there are not enough such jobs even at minimum wage.

Balderdash, cm. What planet do you live on?

The building industry is crying for warm bodies in all of Europe. The only people who will work on construction sites for a bit more than the minimum wage are Poles, Romanians and Hungarians (as legal EU workers).

Maybe Germany is the exception to the rule? I suppose so, given the attitude expressed, which would surprise no one.

[cm]

Lafayette: We can debate this ad infinitum. It looks like neither of us will retract from their respective positions. And insinuating that I don't make the effort or talk nonsense where you don't attempt to adhere to a better standard does not make an argument.