Are Opponents Of The Immigration Bill Anti-Hispanic?

These statements by President Bush, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Linda Chavez would surely make it seem so:

Bush: Growing up in Texas, "you recognize the decency and hard work and humanity of Hispanics. And the truth of the matter is a lot of this immigration debate is driven as a result of Latinos being in our country."

Graham: “We’re gonna tell the bigots to shut up.”

Chavez: "Some people just don't like Mexicans -- or anyone else from south of the border...Stripped bare, this is what the current debate on immigration reform is all about."

These kinds of accusations have created a furor in the conservative blogosphere, and Linda Chavez had a very long (and worth reading) reply in NRO yesterday. (UPDATE: Here's a symposium that contains various responses to the Chavez post).

The accusation that skeptics of the immigration bill are xenophobic, racist, anti-Hispanic--whatever!--is not new. It is a tried-and-true method of stiffling debate. Unfortunately, playing this particular race card often works in the kind of world we live in.

The fact is: different people have different motives for taking positions on contentious social policy issues. Surely some of those skeptics are guilty as accused. But many are not. Moreover, their accusers have their own set of motives and axes to grind. Immigration skeptics do not have a monopoly on bigotry.

It all reminds me of the debate over welfare policy eons ago. Because a disproportionately large number of female-headed households on welfare were black, critics of the welfare system were often accused of masking their true racist intentions. In hindsight, it's pretty clear that the welfare critics were right: the welfare system "as we knew it" provided distorted incentives--incentives that encouraged more welfare, less work, more poverty. (One can tell a pretty similar story about the reaction to Mayor Giuliani's efforts to reduce New York City's crime rate in the 1990s).

Most of us who oppose the immigration reform bill are making a similar argument: It too leads to distorted incentives. The amnesty will likely encourage more illegal immigration; the guest worker program will increase profits for employers, but at the cost of a two-tier labor market with an easily exploitable workforce and lower wages for native workers; and the guest workers themselves have a huge economic incentive to become permanent settlers, even if doing so means becoming illegal immigrants.

So there are very good reasons to oppose Bush's immigration proposal. I suspect that it is the common sense intuition behind these arguments that leads the bill's supporters to lash out at those who disagree with them. And since it is difficult for them to argue on the basis of the merits, they choose to stiffle debate the only way they can: by playing the race card.

Comments

[Jorge Romero-Habeych]

The good old "race card", I could not agree with you more Dr. Borjas.

[Pierre]

You're very biased, and after having read Linda Chavez article I can't figure out what's wrong with telling that *some* of the critics of immigration bill (I'm one of the critics) are racist.

She's right to remind us that the USA had quotas in the 20's for immigrant Jews.

But do YOU have any argument for limiting immigration ? The merit-based system would hurt the qualified workers' wages instead of the non-qualified ones' : on which moral ground ?

Yes, immigration stress workers' wages. So do techniques, inventions, competition. That's capitalism, baby. But don't worry, nobody wants to go in the United States anymore except for the Mexicans.

[jmdesp]

> welfare system "as we knew it" provided distorted incentives--incentives
> that encouraged more welfare, less work, more poverty.

I'd welcome a detailed analysis of that. I'm not sure a system that pushes hard low skilled workers to work a very high number of hours a day makes so much economic sense (in the sense of economic progress, which means the system should push for higher productivity).
The added wealth might be a transitory effect with does not compete on the long term with what incentives to increase productivity can give.

[Richard A.]

What motivates the open borders right is that they are anti-labor. This is why they are strong proponents of the guest worker concept.

What protects labor in a market economy from greedy employers is the labor shortage. Granting employers the right to import guest workers on the mere claim of labor shortage destroys this market labor protection.

[Jorge Romero-Habeych]

Hispanics can be of any race. From lots of white south Americans to the native Indian/Mestizo Mexicans and central Americans we have become accustomed to seen. Mexicans make up a very large portion of the immigrant population, both legal and illegal. The Mexican community continues to use the Hispanic term very loosely as they stand to benefit the most from making it a Hispanic issue. Furthermore, it might as well be a race issue when it comes to most Mexican migrants but the race issue is not only applicable to Americans. Race relations are not nice and rosie in Latin America, they are much worst then they are here. What separates that part of the world from us is the fact that they are not politically correct and therefore don't have to walk on glass. To conclude, it is the Mexican immigrant establishment who is pulling at straws by playing the race card. White Hispanics, if anything, have come to this country under different circumstances and with higher levels of education and therefore do not deserve to be dragged into the issue. We Americans are so ignorant, specially certain individuals who somehow feel that America is all bad and the rest of the world is so very good and just. Race tensions exist all over the world and believe me when i say that America is an example when it comes to so many different people living under the same roof. Lets learn (on the issue of immigration)from countries like Germany, Australia, and France. These countries have experimented with very weak immigration policies (so have we, 1986 amnesty, wonder what the results from that were?) and now they are all trying to fix those mistakes. We can't save everyone, America no longer has 30 million people (we now have 300 million)and therefore cannot absorb mass migration. Immigration to this country should benefit this nation economically, socially, and most of all, it should be conducted in a fair and orderly fashion. Lets do things one step at a time, lets seal the border and enforce our current laws, if we can do that, then lets move forward with the drafting of better or more sensible laws. The point system should most definitely be put into effect.

[Barry Wiggins]

Excellent post, Dr. Borjas. Thank you for your work.

Pierre said: "But don't worry, nobody wants to go in the United States anymore except for the Mexicans."

Ah, if only you were right about that, Frenchy. That would solve about half our illegal immigration problem.

[DesScorp]

There's almost nothing Americans fear more in the public sphere than being slapped with that awful label...Racist!. So unfortunately, it often makes for an effective tactic.

[Gary]

Along the lines of what Pierre said, a mild labor shortage would not necessarily be a bad thing. If cheap labor were the answer to everything, we'd still be digging the Panama Canal, using nothing but shovels.

[natebubba0]

You say:

Most of us who oppose the immigration reform bill are making a similar argument: It too leads to distorted incentives. The amnesty will likely encourage more illegal immigration; the guest worker program will increase profits for employers, but at the cost of a two-tier labor market with an easily exploitable workforce and lower wages for native workers; and the guest workers themselves have a huge economic incentive to become permanent settlers, even if doing so means becoming illegal immigrants.

You are absolutely correct and you are pointing to a classic mistake that has become a huge blindness on the part of the market guys, especially the WSJ. For some reason, they believe that a free market operates across the US-Mexico border. However, all sound theorists know that free markets operate only within political structures which enforce flows of information and many similar elements of a free market. What exists across the US-Mexican border regarding immigration is natural chaos in which mafia-style organizations flourish. Failure to control the border is nothing less than approval of the mafia dynamic.

[Rich]

"But don't worry, nobody wants to go in the United States anymore except for the Mexicans."

Look up immigration statistics before making such idiotic statements.

[ricpic]

What's so wrong, what's so terrible about wanting to hand on a country to your children in which your race and the culture that goes along with that race continue to be dominant? Nothing, that's what.

[Alan Fernald]

As someone who sacrificed my career at the altar of INS to obtain a Visa for my wife and step-daughter, I believe that legal immigration should be facilitated.

However, as a person who sacrificed my career because I believe that we are a country of law and order, I believe that those who are in our country illegally should be shown no mercy, and should be deported.

Feed them, give them clothes, and send them home. They are a clear and present danger to our social system, our economy, our criminal justice system, and our national security.

I willingly sacrificed my career for my values, and now, our President and some of our Senators are telling me that I am a racist.

From the left, I expect those comments, from the right... wait, I'm sorry, where did the conservative party go?

[Peter Schaeffer]

Pierre,

The United States did not impose religious immigration quotas in the 1920s for Jews or any other group. The quotas were based on nationality, not creed.

Some universities did impose quotas on Jews in that period. According to one source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerus_clausus#Numerus_clausus_in_the_United_States) Jewish admission to Harvard University fell from 27.6% to 17.1% and for Columbia University from 32.7% to 14.6%.

Note that Jews were still heavily overrepresented even after quotas were imposed. While it easy (and right) to condemn such polices as the errors of a bygone era, similar mechanisms are used to limit Asian admission today.

[D Flinchum]

"similar mechanisms are used to limit Asian admission today"

That would be affirmative action, I believe. When the word "racist" is being used to describe those of us who don't favor amnesty, it is a good thing to remember that the vast majority of illegal aliens who would be granted amnesty will qualify for affirmative action, greatly diluting any benefit that it might bring to the descendants of slaves - the people for whom it was initially set up.

[D. Di]

Bush and his "one world alliance" want one big country - Canada (for it's wonderful health care system no doubt!) the USA and Mexico. That's their goal. If you don't believe it - investigate on the web. There's a good deal of proof.

[PaulinaHunter]

To be clear, I'd LOVE to have more brown skinned Mexican's here in the United States, that came to this country via the processes we have in place.

I do not want brown skinned Mexicans who violate our laws, jump the fences and disappear into our cities.

It would make MUCH more sense to speed up the process and charge Mexican immigrants half of what the coyotes are charging to bring them over. The process is too time consuming.

We also need to increase teh fees for: Postage to Mexico and Money Orders to Mexico. That will keep more of our money here.

http://blog.myspace.com/paulinahunterofpechanga