The Proposed Point System: A Nod To The Economic Way of Thinking

Buried deep in the 628-page immigration bill is a small table describing the point system that will determine whether a person qualifies to enter the United States in the future. A few caveats:

First, the point system will not go into effect until 2015 or so. Second, the screening in the point system will apply to only about a third of the legal immigrants. Third, the bill does not define the "passing grade." I presume that since there will only be a limited number of merit visas, the applicants would be ranked according to their score and visas would be granted to the higher-scoring applicants until they run out.

Putting those qualifications aside, however, the point allocation to various types of skill characteristics doesn't seem bad at all. Why, if it wasn't for the amnesty and the guest worker program, this could be a proposal worth discussing. So let's give credit where credit is due--whoever came up with the actual point allocation knew what he/she was doing and had clearly looked at comparable point systems around the world.

If the proposed point system were enacted, it would mark a fundamental change in the philosophy underlying U.S. immigration policy. In Heaven's Door I argued that such a scheme would increase the economic benefits that immigration imparts on the United States. A common critical reaction was that the point system was un-American: that kind of system would have prevented our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents from ever coming to this country. The fact that politicians can now openly talk about merit immigration and award many extra points to those who have graduate degrees marks a sea change in the way the political elite thinks about immigration. If nothing else, it is a victory for those who think immigration policy should take into account the economic costs and benefits--regardless of how un-American that accounting might be

At the same time, I suspect that the enactment of such a system could have explosive political consequences. It would drastically change the ethnic composition of legal immigrants.

Look at the graphics attached to this post and you will see that applicants with a science, technology, engineering or math background (STEM in the bill's jargon) are going to get an awful lot of points. A young worker in these fields would likely get at least 40 points because of his work experience, 28 points because of his education, and 15 more points because, more likely than not, he would be fluent in English. A total of at least 80 points (out of 100). Contrast this with the points that a high school dropout would get. Even if he is in an occupation that is rapidly growing (perhaps construction), that would only buy him around 20 to 30 points. And he would be unable to count on getting any "family preference points" because that provision doesn't trigger in until he has accumulated at least 55 points because of his skills.

In short, there are large swaths of the world's population that would lose out in the points competition. A country where the vast majority of its population lacks even a high school diploma (let me think, hmmm....Mexico!) will not be sending too many immigrants with merit visas. And this change in the national origin mix of the immigrant population, for better or worse, will surely become a contentious point in the immigration debate.

Comments

[Steve Sailer]

I took Canada's immigration points test in 2001 ... and failed. I wrote about it for UPI in "Canada Doesn't Want Me:"

http://www.isteve.com/Canada_Doesnt_Want_Me.htm

[guest]

The proposed point system may be beneficial to the U.S. economy, but it's extremely inefficient from a global perspective. It would strip third world countries of their most valuable citizens (brain drain), while preventing unskilled labor from coming here and significantly boosting their output (low-skilled jobs vs. subsistence agriculture).

[jimbino]

Just another thing that the gummint can't do right. Why is there age discrimination in the rules?

Anon't expect to see many female immigrants, especially in the STEM categories. Not even England and Germany could manage to export any, since they hardly have enough in their own countries. How many female STEM applicants does anyone expect from countries likely to be sources of candidates?

How about a system in which each Amerikan gets to select an immigrant in his lifetime. And every Amerikan without kids can select immigrants in lieu of the missing kids?

How about giving me an option to trade my USSA residency rights with a foreigner from, say, Brazil. The USSA could gain a young worker and I could retire to paradise!

[alex]

GB: "you will see that applicants with a science, technology, engineering or math background (STEM in the bill's jargon) are going to get an awful lot of points"

While that's an improvement over the current de facto policy of permitting large numbers of (often illegal) low-paying skills immigrants, simply assuming that anybody with some sort of STEM skills is in a field where there is a particularly strong demand is utter nonsense.

This is the sort of nonsense that we've been hearing ever since Sputnik. The latest variant is about how India and China produce more STEM graduates than the US. Aside from the obvious point that India and China have 3x and 4x the US population, they never mention how many of those graduates actually get to use their skills. The assumption is also made that we're supply-side constrained in the US (objective evidence be damned).

It's this sort of thinking that led to the H-1B guest worker program. Admittedly the proposed bill is better because it's for LPR's rather than guest workers, but it still suffers from a serious problem. Preference is given to people with skills that are simply assumed to be in short supply, or skills that political and media savvy parties (eg Microsoft, Intel, IBM, Tata) claim are in short supply. In either case the shortage claim is made without reference to objective evidence, or even if it's directly contradicted by evidence.

What if there is a greater demand for accountants than computer programmers? The STEM requirements will favor the programmers anyway.

By contrast, Australia has a system where people with the skills currently in greatest demand are given preference. I don't know the details, but understand that hair stylists are amongst those currently on the preferred list. Why hair stylists? I don't know. Maybe there is an Australian cultural bias that considers it demeaning work, whatever the remuneration. Maybe all that sun and surf requires more frequent styling.

Of course, whatever Australia's exact system, there should be a debate in the US about the best way to determine the skills preference. Do we start with the highest paid people? The ones whose pay is rising fastest? Whatever it is, there should be an objective formula to determine this, rather than relying on assumptions, political influence and media hype.

[Mariana]

What makes you think the point systems would not benefit Mexicans? There are many college graduates in Mexico that aspire to go to grad school and many do. The reason you find more Chinese or Indian students is that the total population is 10000 times greater approx. Furthermore, not all low skill immigrants are Mexicans (which you are implying), without considering illegal immigrants from other Latin American countries, European and Asian coutnries.
Your affirmations, without even showing supporting data are crude generalizations.

Mexican=uneducated illegal immigrant.

That's not a very scientific argument.

[Chris]

I agree w/ alex's comment and want to add to that. As long as the government is determining what skills are needed, (at best) there will be a lag between the need today and fufillment tomorrow. The mechanism economists most often trot out to ration scarce resources is the market price. In this case, wouldn't the market know better than Congress what skills are in demand?

[Prab]

Some corrections. Mexico's population is 100 million India and China combined are 2.5 Billion so 25 times not 10000 times.

Of course not all Mexicans are unskilled. What makes it different is an unskilled Mexican can simply walk across while a skilled Indian or Chinese engineer spends 10s of thousands to come here (tickets alone for a family of 4 are 8000 dollars). While India and China have a lot more unskilled labor available given the distance it would be too expensive for unskilled Indians and Chinese to come to America. The only unskilled labor which would pay enough to justify the cost of traveling halfway across the world is prostitution and that is culturally taboo in India and China so unskilled labor does not come here from India or China. For comparison the women trafficked from South Korea for prostitution end up paying 20000 to 30000 dollars for the privilege of working in a bay area brothel. Unskilled Indians and Chinese simply dont have 20000 dollars toeven try.

Regarding points for occupations there should be a system where a list of in demand occupations is maintained and updated every 3 months. This should contain both skilled and unskilled occupations. Occupations on this list should get points for being in demand. At the same time the points for education should be conditional on the occupation being on the in demand list.

At the same time USA should try to get away from its addiction to cheap labor via more automation in jobs . This is necessary as given the cost of living in USA people doing unskilled labor lead very bad lives in USA as the money is simply not enough. Increasing wages is not an option as wages cant be more than the economic benefit of the job and some jobs are simply worth less (which is why they should be done by machines not illegals)

The good thing about the point system is that it takes control out of corporate hands and gives it to immigrants. As immigrants wont be at the mercy of employers they wont tolerate a lot of shit they tolerate right now. This improves working conditions for both immigrants and their non immigrant colleagues.

Another thing the points system leaves out is economic strength. It is much easier for a rich person with savings to establish themselves in the new country so some points should be given for the amount of money you are bringing with you. This would avoid people ending up on welfare.

Lastly anyone who has studied in USA whether at high school , college or grad school level is well adjusted to American culture and should be immediately given a green card on graduation instead of having to jump through all these loops

[pc]

"some jobs are simply worth less"

There's no such thing as a worth less job. If it is worth less, then it is not a job.

[Luke Lea]

More attention does need to be given to the effects of immigration on the sending countries. Mexico's real per capita GDP stagnated in the mid-80's. If this had anything to do with large-scale immigration into the U.S., it should be part of the debate, especially for so-called bleeding heart liberals, of which I am one btw.

[guest]

Luke Lea:

Mexican wages are surging due to a shortage of unskilled labor. Any GDP stagnation has been at the expense of unearned rent, with little or no adverse effect on economic incentives.

[William E. Mattson]

of course granting 1 person citizenship could mean that 9 others (who may never work a day in the United States) would automatically be given the rights to citizenship under the extended family provision. I refer to the spouse, the grandparents and the parents of the new citizen as well as the grandparents and parents of the spouse, all of whom, except the spouse may be to old to work on arrival.