The Easy Problem
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: January 31, 2013
Over here in the department of punditry, we deal with a lot of hard issues, ones on which the evidence is mixed and the options are all bad. But the immigration issue is a blessed relief. On immigration, the evidence is overwhelming, the best way forward is clear.
The forlorn pundit doesn’t even have to make the humanitarian case that immigration reform would be a great victory for human dignity. The cold economic case by itself is so strong.
Increased immigration would boost the U.S. economy. Immigrants are 30 percent more likely to start new businesses than native-born Americans, according to a research summary by Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney of The Hamilton Project. They are more likely to earn patents. A quarter of new high-tech companies with more than a $1 million in sales were also founded by the foreign-born.
A study by Madeline Zavodny, an economics professor at Agnes Scott College, found that every additional 100 foreign-born workers in science and technology fields is associated with 262 additional jobs for U.S. natives.
Thanks to the labor of low-skill immigrants, the cost of food, homes and child care comes down, living standards rise and more women can afford to work outside the home.
The second clear finding is that many of the fears associated with immigration, including illegal immigration, are overblown.
Immigrants are doing a reasonable job of assimilating. Almost all of the children of immigrants from Africa and Asia speak English and more than 90 percent of the children of Latin-American immigrants do. New immigrants may start out disproportionately in construction and food-service jobs, but, by second and third generation, their occupation profiles are little different from the native-born.
Immigrants, including illegal immigrants, are not socially disruptive. They are much less likely to wind up in prison or in mental hospitals than the native-born.
Immigrants, both legal and illegal, do not drain the federal budget. It’s true that states and localities have to spend money to educate them when they are children, but, over the course of their lives, they pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Furthermore, according to the Congressional Budget Office, giving the current illegals a path to citizenship would increase the taxes they pay by $48 billion and increase the cost of public services they use by $23 billion, thereby producing a surplus of $25 billion.
It’s also looking more likely that immigrants don’t even lower the wages for vulnerable, low-skill Americans. In 2007, the last time we had a big immigration debate, economists were divided on this. One group, using one methodology, found immigration had a negligible effect on low skill wages. Another group, using another methodology, found that the wages of the low-skilled were indeed hurt.
Since then, as Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute explains, methodological advances suggest that the wages of most low-skill workers are probably not significantly affected. It turns out that immigrant workers are not always in direct competition with native-born workers, and, in some cases, they push the native-born upward into jobs that require more communication skills.
Shierholz found that between 1994 and 2007 immigration increased overall American wages by a small amount ($3.68 per week). It decreased the ages of American male high school dropouts by a very small amount ($1.37 per week). And it increased the wages of female high school dropouts by a larger amount ($4.19 per week).
The argument that immigration hurts the less skilled is looking less persuasive.
Because immigration is so attractive, most nations are competing to win the global talent race. Over the past 10 years, 60 percent of nations have moved to increase or maintain their immigrant intakes, especially for high-skilled immigrants.
The United States is losing this competition. We think of ourselves as an immigrant nation, but the share of our population that is foreign-born is now roughly on par with Germany and France and far below the successful immigrant nations Canada and Australia. Furthermore, our immigrants are much less skilled than the ones Canada and Australia let in. As a result, the number of high-tech immigrant start-ups has stagnated, according to the Kauffman Foundation, which studies entrepreneurship.
The first big point from all this is that given the likely gridlock on tax reform and fiscal reform, immigration reform is our best chance to increase America’s economic dynamism. We should normalize the illegals who are here, create a legal system for low-skill workers and bend the current reform proposals so they look more like the Canadian system, which tailors the immigrant intake to regional labor markets and favors high-skill workers.
The second big conclusion is that if we can’t pass a law this year, given the overwhelming strength of the evidence, then we really are a pathetic basket case of a nation.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on February 1, 2013, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: The Easy Problem.
Originally posted by sasquatch672You know come to think of it Bill Clinton and Al Gore support the carbon tax based on lies. They also cheat on their wives. We can trust them about this but their word is no good to the very people that committed to spend their lives with these scum bags! I think there is a link to immorality and what legislation these crooks support.
Is there a correlation between a willingness to ignore immigration laws and a willingness to ignore child prostitution laws?
Originally posted by joe beyserYou're probably right...
You know come to think of it Bill Clinton and Al Gore support the carbon tax based on lies. They also cheat on their wives. We can trust them about this but their word is no good to the very people that committed to spend their lives with these scum bags! I think there is a link to immorality and what legislation these crooks support.
Originally posted by joe beyserI think any supporters or opponents of immigration reform who are involved in child prostitution or any other serious crimes should be held to account for those crimes regardless of their stance on the amnesty.
You know come to think of it Bill Clinton and Al Gore support the carbon tax based on lies. They also cheat on their wives. We can trust them about this but their word is no good to the very people that committed to spend their lives with these scum bags! I think there is a link to immorality and what legislation these crooks support.
Originally posted by FMFGood for you. Well done.
I think any supporters or opponents of immigration reform who are involved in child prostitution or any other serious crimes should be held to account for those crimes regardless of their stance on the amnesty.
In the US, when you're investigated for a high-level security clearance, people you know literally get asked if you would cross a street against a traffic signal. Their reasoning is that if you'll break one law, you'll break any law. They look for rule followers, people for whom it really matters if I'd got dotted and t's got crossed.
And I'm telling you this right now. Obama, if he were an ordinary joe, could not get a job in the government he now commands. His cocaine use alone would disqualify him, to say nothing of his association with known and unrepentant terrorists.
Originally posted by FMFI do agree with that but I think that sasquatch may have meant that we should not trust those that have held public office on any stand they have regarding anything when they have proven to be so immoral. Clearly their judgement has to be questioned.
I think any supporters or opponents of immigration reform who are involved in child prostitution or any other serious crimes should be held to account for those crimes regardless of their stance on the amnesty.
Originally posted by sasquatch672None of this has anything whatsoever to do with my support for immigration reform in your country.
Good for you. Well done.
In the US, when you're investigated for a high-level security clearance, people you know literally get asked if you would cross a street against a traffic signal. Their reasoning is that if you'll break one law, you'll break any law. They look for rule followers, people for whom it really matters if I'd got dotted and t's ...[text shortened]... d disqualify him, to say nothing of his association with known and unrepentant terrorists.
Originally posted by joe beyserI agree that the "judgment" of anyone who is involved in child prostitution "has to be questioned", to put it mildly [!] but it has absolutely nothing to do with the "judgment" of the people who support reform, or those who oppose it, for that matter.
I do agree with that but I think that sasquatch may have meant that we should not trust those that have held public office on any stand they have regarding anything when they have proven to be so immoral. Clearly their judgement has to be questioned.
Originally posted by sasquatch672If you want to start a thread on New Zealand or Indonesia, feel free to do so. This thread is about immigration in the U.S.
I'm flattered that you think of us so much, but why don't you bring us some news from New Zealand? Or Indonesia?
Originally posted by FMFBut Menendez did both. He ignores immigration laws; he ignores child prostitution laws.
I agree that the "judgment" of anyone who is involved in child prostitution "has to be questioned", to put it mildly [!] but it has absolutely nothing to do with the "judgment" of the people who support reform, or those who oppose it, for that matter.
The law is the law. If you don't toe the line - and I've got a speeding ticket or six out there - then you're not fit for positions of public trust.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Are you saying we need a morality reform in our government before these crooks ruin the country?
But Menendez did both. He ignores immigration laws; he ignores child prostitution laws.
The law is the law. If you don't toe the line - and I've got a speeding ticket or six out there - then you're not fit for positions of public trust.
Originally posted by sasquatch672If Menendez deserves to be gaoled for stuff he did, then so be it. It has no bearing on the arguments for and against immigration reform.
But Menendez did both. He ignores immigration laws; he ignores child prostitution laws.
The law is the law. If you don't toe the line - and I've got a speeding ticket or six out there - then you're not fit for positions of public trust.