Immigration
When the whole campaign finance reform (CFR) debate was going on, I supported a plan that eliminated restricitions on how much could be contributed and spent, or what could be said and when, and merely tracked who was giving money to whom - a plan called no limits, full disclosure. This plan would not violate the First Amendment as does the plan that passed congress and was signed into law. And it would allow voters more information about special interests than they've ever had before, thereby effectively accomplishing all the good things that McCain and Feingold promised us, without their plan's nasty side effects (like the end of free political speech).
No, I did not mislabel this article. I'd like to make the case that the same plan that would have worked so well in CFR could be implemented at our border: no limits, full disclosure (NLFD). Essentially, allow in anyone who wants to come to our country, as long as they aren't wanted by interpol or associated with known terrorist organizations. No limits, full disclosure. Obviously, there are some countries where the government is less friendly, and we might have to look a little closer at people from those countries (Syria, Iran, PRC, France, etcetera). With NLFD, we wouldn't have to open up factories overseas, because all the low-wage labor would be here. And the price of baseball players would plummet, allowing other teams to have a shot at winning the AL East.
Everyone not on some wanted list could get an immigrant worker ID to give to employers in place of the SSN we Americans give to our employers. Anyone trying to get a job without an ID can be reported to a much smaller, leaner INS for investigation and possibly deportation. Since all you have to do to get in the country legitimately and get an ID is show that you're not a known criminal or terrorist, every good guy in the country will have an ID. Really simple. It won't be a major privacy issue, because it won't have any personal information except when you came to the country, what country you're from, and what your name is.
Now as to the economic impact of having an unlimited supply of unskilled labor depressing everyone's wages: that will only affect the jobs unskilled laborers can do. Yes, there are unskilled laborers in the U.S., but they chose their lot by choosing to drop out of high school and not get jobs. Unskilled laborers in countries that don't provide government-funded education (and have 15% or higher unemployment) didn't choose their lot. Ultimately, it's not a question of whether or not it's moral to allow unlimited immigration of law-abiding people from around the world. It's adiaphora. The pertinent question is "Is it beneficial?" The answer is yes. The economy is improved when there is more being produced. That is, the more people you have being productive, the more stuff there will be (and the better). That simple, common-sense truism is the secret behind supply-side economics.
Immigration control is one form of trade protectionism. It protects an inflated price for something from foreign competition: labor. Some might argue that while sugar is clearly not worth trade protections, the labor market as a whole is, because, well, those are our jobs. For one thing, just because we're talking about jobs instead of sugar or textiles doesn't mean the laws of economics don't apply anymore. It's still imperative to think beyond stage one. In ancient times, where did economic progress and technological development take place? Was it in the wilderness among the nomads or out in the woods where the hunter-gatherers were? Or was it in the densely populated cities and the farms that supported them? Population density is remarkably beneficial to economic and technological develoment even today. Even more that we now have easily accessible education that seeks out its own talent instead of waiting for the occasional convergence of wealth and genius to come to them.
Someone might ask: "If population density is so great for the economy, why are there so many poor in the cities?" There are a number of reasons that poverty exists in inner cities, not least of which is inept government policy. But perhaps the question should be "Why are there jobs and industries still forming in cities where there is more crime, inept government, and taxes than elsewhere?" There may seem to be many answers to that question, but almost all come back, ultimately, to population density. The more people you have interacting, sharing ideas, and trading with one another, the more they all will prosper, as we have seen throughout world history, and continue to see today.
The most worrisome question for the NLFD plan for immigration is: "What if we are overrun by uneducated, antisemitic Muslim thugs, as Europe was?" That is actually a very good question. But it won't happen in the U.S. for many reasons. First, the only segment of Islamic society that is both dangerous and numerous is the ignorant antisemitic people who are living in Europe and totalitarian countries. As noted above, immigrants from these countries could be more closely monitored, or limited in number. Other Muslims, from countries such as Kuwait, or now Iraq and Afghanistan are far more peaceful than the sort slumming in Europe.
Second, antisemitism itself would be far less welcome here than in Europe, where many natives have that much in common with the Islamic fundamentalists who immigrate there. Here, despite what the left would have you believe, antisemitism has been marginalized. You see, free markets make antisemitism, racism - and every other kind of prejudice - very expensive, and after a generation or two, no one's willing to put their livelihood on the line for an unpopular, wrongheaded idea.
Third, there's much less of a welfare state, and much more genuine economic opportunity here than in Europe. That means that productive people (not thugs) are more likely to want to come here, and unproductive people (i.e. thugs) are less likely to want to come here.
So we might have a few issues that need to be worked out first, but NLFD immigration policy can unltimately work, at least for immigrants from most countries. One of the most remarkable things about trade is that everyone involved can become more prosperous. The same can be true of immigration.
SRS
No, I did not mislabel this article. I'd like to make the case that the same plan that would have worked so well in CFR could be implemented at our border: no limits, full disclosure (NLFD). Essentially, allow in anyone who wants to come to our country, as long as they aren't wanted by interpol or associated with known terrorist organizations. No limits, full disclosure. Obviously, there are some countries where the government is less friendly, and we might have to look a little closer at people from those countries (Syria, Iran, PRC, France, etcetera). With NLFD, we wouldn't have to open up factories overseas, because all the low-wage labor would be here. And the price of baseball players would plummet, allowing other teams to have a shot at winning the AL East.
Everyone not on some wanted list could get an immigrant worker ID to give to employers in place of the SSN we Americans give to our employers. Anyone trying to get a job without an ID can be reported to a much smaller, leaner INS for investigation and possibly deportation. Since all you have to do to get in the country legitimately and get an ID is show that you're not a known criminal or terrorist, every good guy in the country will have an ID. Really simple. It won't be a major privacy issue, because it won't have any personal information except when you came to the country, what country you're from, and what your name is.
Now as to the economic impact of having an unlimited supply of unskilled labor depressing everyone's wages: that will only affect the jobs unskilled laborers can do. Yes, there are unskilled laborers in the U.S., but they chose their lot by choosing to drop out of high school and not get jobs. Unskilled laborers in countries that don't provide government-funded education (and have 15% or higher unemployment) didn't choose their lot. Ultimately, it's not a question of whether or not it's moral to allow unlimited immigration of law-abiding people from around the world. It's adiaphora. The pertinent question is "Is it beneficial?" The answer is yes. The economy is improved when there is more being produced. That is, the more people you have being productive, the more stuff there will be (and the better). That simple, common-sense truism is the secret behind supply-side economics.
Immigration control is one form of trade protectionism. It protects an inflated price for something from foreign competition: labor. Some might argue that while sugar is clearly not worth trade protections, the labor market as a whole is, because, well, those are our jobs. For one thing, just because we're talking about jobs instead of sugar or textiles doesn't mean the laws of economics don't apply anymore. It's still imperative to think beyond stage one. In ancient times, where did economic progress and technological development take place? Was it in the wilderness among the nomads or out in the woods where the hunter-gatherers were? Or was it in the densely populated cities and the farms that supported them? Population density is remarkably beneficial to economic and technological develoment even today. Even more that we now have easily accessible education that seeks out its own talent instead of waiting for the occasional convergence of wealth and genius to come to them.
Someone might ask: "If population density is so great for the economy, why are there so many poor in the cities?" There are a number of reasons that poverty exists in inner cities, not least of which is inept government policy. But perhaps the question should be "Why are there jobs and industries still forming in cities where there is more crime, inept government, and taxes than elsewhere?" There may seem to be many answers to that question, but almost all come back, ultimately, to population density. The more people you have interacting, sharing ideas, and trading with one another, the more they all will prosper, as we have seen throughout world history, and continue to see today.
The most worrisome question for the NLFD plan for immigration is: "What if we are overrun by uneducated, antisemitic Muslim thugs, as Europe was?" That is actually a very good question. But it won't happen in the U.S. for many reasons. First, the only segment of Islamic society that is both dangerous and numerous is the ignorant antisemitic people who are living in Europe and totalitarian countries. As noted above, immigrants from these countries could be more closely monitored, or limited in number. Other Muslims, from countries such as Kuwait, or now Iraq and Afghanistan are far more peaceful than the sort slumming in Europe.
Second, antisemitism itself would be far less welcome here than in Europe, where many natives have that much in common with the Islamic fundamentalists who immigrate there. Here, despite what the left would have you believe, antisemitism has been marginalized. You see, free markets make antisemitism, racism - and every other kind of prejudice - very expensive, and after a generation or two, no one's willing to put their livelihood on the line for an unpopular, wrongheaded idea.
Third, there's much less of a welfare state, and much more genuine economic opportunity here than in Europe. That means that productive people (not thugs) are more likely to want to come here, and unproductive people (i.e. thugs) are less likely to want to come here.
So we might have a few issues that need to be worked out first, but NLFD immigration policy can unltimately work, at least for immigrants from most countries. One of the most remarkable things about trade is that everyone involved can become more prosperous. The same can be true of immigration.
SRS
posted by weblogbob83 at 1:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home