The Bush-Kennedy-McCain Sham(nesty)

A lot of people have been asking me what I think about the Bush-Kennedy-McCain Sham(nesty). I hope to have much to say on this in the days ahead. Let me get started, though, by giving a brief overview that I wrote last week for NRO last week:

The bill contains a number of key provisions:

1. Amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants 2. A guest worker program that will admit 400,000 workers each year 3. Vague promises of border enforcement sometime in the future 4. A proposed change in the legal immigration system, away from the family preferences that now dominate the system and towards a point system that rewards skills

Any “reform” that gives amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants without taking care of the underlying illegal immigration problem is a lemon. After all, what guarantees that the current batch of 12 million illegal immigrants will not be replaced by another 12 million in just a few years? What guarantees that guest workers will not stay illegally in the United States after their visa expires? What guarantees that border enforcement will be taken seriously by the Bush administration in the next two years or by the Democratic administration after that?

There is one dim light at the end of this dark tunnel, however. Much of the political elite in the Senate is now on record as supporting a point system that allocates entry visas on the basis of skills—a move that I have long advocated. We can argue over the details of the point system, but the political acceptance of such a system is a necessary condition in any eventual move towards a more rational immigration policy.

So what should we do? No bill is better than this bill. To paraphrase Woody Allen, this bill is “a travesty of a mockery of a sham.” An amnesty is an amnesty, no matter how it is packaged and spun. The guest worker program will surely enrich employers, but will exacerbate the downward trajectory in the economic status of poorer workers. And I think it is much more likely that Steve Jobs will fedex me a pre-release version of the iPhone than the Bush administration will seriously enforce border security in the time they have left.

The bill neatly summarizes the intellectual flimsiness of the Bush administration—a flimsiness that has cost us dearly in so many other areas. Perhaps they can convince themselves otherwise; that legalizing the status of illegal immigrants is not an amnesty; that the laws of supply and demand can be repealed when it comes to immigration; that we will trust them to secure our borders in the next two years when they haven’t done so in the previous six. But we all know that, in the end, their promises are a sham, a travesty, and a mockery of what immigration policy should be about.

Ok. I admit it. I'm not a big fan of the bill. A big part of the problem is that it is hard to trust any of the three main "authors" on the issue of enforcement.

Bush has long made it clear that border enforcement is not his priority. In fact, the less said about Bush's record (and not just on illegal immigration), the better. Kennedy's track record on forecasting immigration trends is, shall we say, less than stellar.

Mark Krikorian dug up a couple of great quotes from the Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts about the impact of previous immigration bills:

Regarding the 1965 bill that sparked the resurgence of large-scale immigration, Senator Kennedy predicted: "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission."

Regarding the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act (the first amnesty of illegal immigrants), Senator Kennedy predicted: "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this." The 1986 legislation, by the way, ended up granting amnesty to around 3 million illegal immigrants.

In the private sector, this kind of track record would probably make Senator Kennedy an inviting target for all kinds of malpractice lawsuits.

And McCain's seriousness on the subject is summarized in one of his rants regarding what exactly the so-called path to citizenship is doing: “Call it amnesty, call it a banana if you want to..." There are many things wrong with the legislation, but first and foremost: I just don't think that it's prudent to address the question of what to do with the 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States until we stop the flow of illegals. An amnesty at this point is unfair to the millions who have been waiting years for a crack at getting a legal permanent residence visa, and will likely convince millions of others that there's little to lose by moving to the U.S. illegally and waiting it out until a 98-year-old Senator Kennedy figures out that too many illegal immigrants are again living in the shadows.

Let's secure our borders first. Then we can talk about the banana.

Comments

[jimbino]

What worries me about the so-called "merit-based" immigration policy is the provision for awarding points based upon age. The justification of course is that our socialist nanny-state needs young workers to pay the costs of taking care of the retired.

But such age-discrimination should be illegal. It tends to deprive me, as an older person, of association with others, perhaps mates, of my age and it invites similar discrimination against me from countries like Brazil that have a policy of tit-for-tat retaliation against stupid policies of the USSA.

[save_the_rustbelt]

The Republicans want to depress blue collar wages.

The Democrats want hoards of new registered voters.

Neither party has a shred of integrity.

[confused]

Dr. Borjas,

Doesn’t this bill require illegals to go back to their home country to reapply for a green card? This would be a remarkable thing, to have 12 million people voluntarily migrate back to Mexico, where they would be required to stay for a year. A lot of these folks might not return, don’t you think? Considering the unlikelihood of deporting these folks, isn’t this a decent compromise: Go home and then come back after a year? This would be so arduous all on it’s own that it might turn out to be effective. We’d still have a massive influx of Mexican citizens, but they’d be the most motivated of the 12 and may only add up to 6 or 8 million instead of 12. Or is this a misreading of the bill?

[Ryan Luck]

Your analysis addresses the implications of the policies, but can you address the politics? Where will the incentives come from for leaders in either party to enforce immigration limits.
Thanks

[paradoxical]

Considering the huge wage differential, how can we keep people from trying to cross the border? A border surrounded by turrets and machine guns (and featuring guards with orders to shoot) would make America look like an armed camp!

[Edgardo]

To solve the flow problem, the guest worker program must be:
(a) large enough to reach a sort of equilibrium between supply and demand for unskilled workers (Is 400 thousands large enough? I don't think so);
(b) generous, that is, with few restrictions on country of origin and entry and re-entry conditions, as well as on contract terms; and
(c) easy to enforce, that is, only authorized guest workers should be able to be employed and illegal workers deported through a speedy process.

I hope Professor Borjas can comment on how to design such a program. He is right that any serious solution to the stock problem of 12+ million illegal workers should be considered only after the flow problem has been solved effectively.

[Jennifer]

Though I am inclined to agree, you should be ashamed to write in the National Review. I lost considerable respect for you, when I noticed on another blog that you had written for the NRO. Please, not again.

[Dave]

One way to enforce a guest worker program would be to have 50% of the worker's pay withheld from all of his paychecks, and then require him to collect that money from a U.S. consulate in Mexico after his guest worker visa expires.

[gborjas]

Oh Jennifer. Don't be such a liberal elitist. NRO is a lot more fun to read than either the NYT or the LAT, and is more often than not fairer. They actually have a debate going on in The Corner. Amazingly enough, conservatives often disagree. When was the last time you saw those columnists at the NYT disagree on anything substantive?

[Marc]

DAVE - what a simple yet effective idea. Might not be as simple to the employer who has to deal with it, but still, I like it.

[TimB]

Borjas wrote:
"NRO is a lot more fun to read than either the NYT or the LAT, and is more often than not fairer. They actually have a debate going on in The Corner. Amazingly enough, conservatives often disagree. When was the last time you saw those columnists at the NYT disagree on anything substantive?"

Oh, I'm pretty sure if you put Brooks, Tierney, Krugman, Friedman, etc. on a blog, they'll have a lot to debate and argue about.

[Dave]

Dr. Borjas,

Just curious: have you experienced any ostracism from other faculty members at Harvard over your views on immigration?

[scott cunningham]

Dr. Borjas,

Madeline Zavodny had an op-ed in today's Atlanta Journal Constitution on the bill. Here's a link:

https://www.ajc.com/search/content/opinion/stories/2007/05/22/0522edmigrants.html

Zavodny points out that if you wanted to stop illegal immigration, then you obviously needed to make it not so economically attractive in the first place. The new bill, she suggests, does have some components that will make it more difficult for non-documented workers to get jobs here, which should make the net benefits lower for undocumented immigration generally. Or as she (rather better) says it:

"IRCA provides several lessons here. Although IRCA provided more funding for border security, it largely neglected interior enforcement. IRCA required employers to "verify" workers' legal documents but in practice allowed employers to accept virtually any document, no matter how fraudulent.

Workplace enforcement combined with a fast, accurate way for employers to verify workers' identity and legal status is key to reducing undocumented immigration. The Social Security Administration's no-match letter program, which notifies employers of workers with invalid or mismatched Social Security numbers (usually a sign of illegal status), has been far more effective than enhanced border patrols at reducing undocumented immigrants' ability to keep a job and earn good wages.

The Senate bill requires employers to verify Social Security numbers, essentially extending the no-match letter program. Reform also needs to include tough penalties for employers who violate the law and hire undocumented immigrants off the books. Legalization of those undocumented workers already in the country and their families, an "amnesty," is both necessary and problematic. Legalization allows these workers to move within the U.S. to areas with low unemployment rates and pent-up demand for low-skill workers. An analysis of undocumented workers who legalized their status under the 1986 IRCA program by Francisco Rivera-Batiz showed that they experienced sizable wage growth after legalization because of improvements in their educational attainment, English proficiency and work experience. Legalization is both humane and economically beneficial."

WHat's your thoughts about her points about this bill's impact on those points?

[gborjas]

TimB

I was actually being a bit sarcastic (though probably way too subtle). I meant the columnists that appear everyday on the front page--other people sometimes call them news reporters.

[Conrad]

We don't need a turret-filled border fence, all we need to do is penalize businesses for hiring illegal aliens. A Congressman has proposed a simple solution - have the IRS, who already gets all wage reports and employee social security numbers - disallow wages as tax deductible business expenses if the employee's social security number doesn't match the employee's name or is an alien not authorized to work in the U.S. No new police agency, just a few more lines of computer code in an IRS computer and the nation's criminal alien problem would be solved.

The reason that it's not done is that no one really wants to solve this problem.

[Conrad]

Don't succumb to the terminology war by calling these people "undocumented workers". People who violated the law to enter this country and continue to violate the law every day by staying here should be called what they are, criminals, or more specifically "criminal aliens."

And certainly a proud term like "immigrant" should be reserved for people who really deserve it - those who follow the law, enter the country legally, and apply for permanent residence.

[Justin Rietz]

How about allowing anyone who wants to immigrate to the U.S. to do so?

Here is the short version of the plan:

1. Require detailed applications (and a fee to cover administration costs) for everyone who would like to immigrate to the United States.

2. Do an extensive background check on each applicant, the cost being covered by the fee.

3. If the person does not have a criminal or shady history, give them a visa.

4. Before entering the U.S., require the person to purchase health care and "welfare" insurance to cover their family.

5. Have only several points of entry, say LA, SF, ,NY, and Miami, that immigrants MUST pass through to get their visa. At the time they do, they are also issued a social security number. This social security number does not allow the person to receive government benefits.

The benefits of this plan are several. First, it allows any person to enter the U.S., assuming they can cover their costs to do so and has a clean background. Second, the only people who would then cross over the border illegaly would be a) criminals b) terrorists c) people who want to shirk their financial responibilities. This would lower the number of people crossing over illegaly (since anyone with a clean background and financial resources can get in legally), thus reducing the resources needed to fully enforce the border. Moreover, anyone who did try to cross over illegaly wouldn't have to be treated with kid gloves - guilt, as it were, would be assumed.

[Davo]

I'm an immigrant who took the citizenship oath last December. I've been through the system. From my experience, the immigration system works if you decide to follow the rules. Before I immigrated, I never overstayed my student or tourist visas. When I decided to immigrate, I paid the fees, had a physical, was re-immunized against all those childhood diseases (including the oral polio medication), had a criminal record check in my country of birth, an interview in the US Embassy, and paid the required fee. I also had to prove that I had sufficient funds to support myself for a period of 5 years, and promise that I would not be a burden on the US people by agreeing not to apply for welfare (yes, this is true!) After fulfilling the residency period, I applied for citizenship, paid the fee, was finger printed (for the 4th time), had an FBI background check, passed the English language test (required even though my first language is English), passed the US history test, and interviewed for suitability by the INS/BCIS. I gladly did this. I followed he rules and everything worked well during the entire process. In my experience, if you follow the rules, the immigration system works well.

The millions who chose to work outside the system now complain. I have no sympathy for them. They chose to enter this country outside the established system, and now demand special treatment to receive recognition under that same system.

I have nothing but contempt for the spineless, jelly-backed, gutless wonders in our Congress that have proposed this amnesty. Our Congress's capitulation to illegal residents over the views of US citizens devalues US citizenship. Most legal immigrants I know share these views.

Now that I am a registered voter, I'll be making my views known.

Keep up the good work.

Davo.

[Norman MacIntyre]

Well written Davo. Here here!

[H1B seeker]

Davo, I would be most interested in finding out more about how, EXACTLY, you succeeded at navigating the immigration madness. I am a highly skilled foreigner, currently abroad, interested in migrating into the US.

[MBA Prof]

I think Prof Borjas is referring to an old version of the bill--in the current version there is a trigger, i.e., border security most be satisfied first or nothing else happens. Second, it is not amnesty because to qualify it takes a lot of money ($5,000 plus thousands in fees), travel (back to home country) and time (8-13 years). Finally, the current system is a mess because it is de facto amnesty. Illegals are here and have no reason to change their status.

[gab]

I say we approach Mexico with a deal. We keep the 12 million or so here illegally, and they give us Baja. That seems like a fair trade, and we might even be able to extract something from Mexico, instead of just taking in illegals!!

[A. Zarkov]

“Second, it is not amnesty because to qualify it takes a lot of money ($5,000 plus thousands in fees), travel (back to home country) and time (8-13 years).”

It certainly is amnesty because it grants special rights and privileges to people who illegally entered the country before 2007. They get to apply for a “Z’ visa which grants the instant right to live and work in the US. How is this not amnesty? They can renew this status indefinitely.

As to fees and penalties look at section 608 which states, “(a) The Secretary shall by regulation establish procedures allowing for the payment of 80 percent of the penalties described in Section 601(e)(6)(B) and Section 602(a)(1)(C)(v) through an installment payment plan.”

All back taxes, interest and penalties are also waived. Thus the illegals get a tax amnesty not even available to American citizens. Holders of the “Z” can also bring in parents, siblings and children-- another special right.

[Liam O'Connell]

Justin Rietz puts the solution clearly & succinctly, I couldn't agree more. To address some of the more common complaints I hear about immigration...

Will adding lots of immigrants lower wages for some Americans? Yep, sure will. But it will also lead to the United States capturing a larger share of global economic growth and therefore create a whole lot more jobs, at every skill and income level. Will it increase the burden on some local communities as they deal with a larger number of kids in schools who don't speak English, or a larger number of low income workers without health insurance? No doubt. But it will also add a large number of relatively young workers who will be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes for the next few decades just when we need to start paying for the retirement of the Baby Boom generation. Will so many new immigrants change the culture and character of our country? Good chance. But probably not as much as some people think- across the centuries Americans have often resorted to saying "we can't let the ...Irish, Italians, Chinese, Poles, Jews, whatever... come in because they're ...drunks, Catholics, secretive, Slavic, Jewish, etc... and therefore they won't fit in and will cause problems." (my apologies for the racial stereotyping, but it's not my opinion it's just some of what was said at the time) Now I realize that we're not all holding hands and singing kumbaya, but overall we seem to be living together fairly happily.

To my mind, most of the arguments against the current bill are fringe issues- if you simply do as Justin Rietz suggests a lot of the issues disappear. The question of promoting family reunification at the expense of encouraging entry of higher skilled workers (and vice-versa) is moot. The question of turning the US/Mexico border into a fortified wall is moot. The question of encouraging future illegal immigration by giving amnesty to the current 12m illegal/undocumented workers is moot. The idea of creating a Federal database of ALL AMERICAN WORKERS (can you say big brother???) to ensure we're all legal is moot.

The fact is, there's a huge demand in the US for workers of all skill and education levels. We should make sure those we let in are willing and able to support themselves, but otherwise let the market find its own level. Oh yeah, and lest I forgot to mention it- 100yrs ago my family had the choice between starving in Ireland or coming here and trying to make a go of it. This country let my family in, and we've done very well here. I'll be damned if I'm going to tell anyone else that their family shouldn't have the same opportunity.

[Scott Spear]

Keep up the good fight Prof. Borjas! I just found your blog. You probably don't remember, but I was a grad student in your labor econ course at UCSD in the mid-90's. Loved your class, love your blog!