Jencks On Illegal Immigration

My friend and colleague Sandy Jencks has just published a superb article in The New York Review of Books. Although the article is ostensibly a review of Pat Buchanan's State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, it is, in fact, much more than that.

The article is a serious, insightful, objective discussion of the illegal immigration problem, and should be required reading for anyone interested in the problem. In fact, I plan to assign it to my economics of immigration class next week.

Here are some highlights. First, Jencks describing the vicious cycle that has permeated the discussion of American immigration policy for more than two decades:

America's ongoing argument about immigration has followed a fairly consistent sequence for three decades. Each round begins with news reports about the fact that thousands of new immigrants are settling here illegally every week. These reports lead to charges that the United States has lost control of its borders and is being overrun by foreigners. Congress holds hearings. Employers say that they need foreign-born workers to fill jobs that Americans don't want and that they cannot distinguish those with fake credentials from those with genuine ones. Legal immigrants push for higher family reunification quotas, hoping to hasten the day when their grown children, parents, or siblings will get a visa.

Congress then cobbles together a plan that includes tighter control of the border and a better system for identifying job applicants with fake credentials. In deference to pro-immigration groups it sometimes also includes more family reunification slots or an amnesty for illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. Occasionally Congress passes such legislation. But no matter what Congress does, the provisions that are supposed to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants remain unenforced, such immigrants continue to slip across the border, temporary visitors continue to overstay their visas, and the number of people living in the United States without permission from Washington continues to rise. So after a few years the same cycle begins again.

And here's what Jencks has to say about the interplay between the economics of illegal immigration and the making of immigration policy:

Those who oppose enforcing laws against hiring illegal immigrants often argue that the American economy needs these workers, because they fill jobs Americans do not want. One problem with this argument is that in many parts of the United States native-born workers still do the jobs—on farms or in restaurants, for example—that immigrants do in states like California, Texas, Florida, and New York...

Because business interests exert so much political influence in the United States, no serious crackdown on employing undocumented workers is likely to last unless it is accompanied by a large-scale legalization program that allows employers to retain most of the undocumented workers already on their payroll. As we learned after 1986, the crucial question about legalization is what happens next. If employers are allowed to keep hiring new illegal immigrants, legalizing those who are currently undocumented will not change much in the long run.

...many employers now prefer to fill such jobs with immigrants because they usually accept lower wages. When employers say immigrants "take jobs Americans don't want," they really mean that immigrants "take jobs Americans don't want at the wages I want to pay."

...Employers also say that foreign-born workers tend to work harder, be more reliable, and complain less than the natives they can hire at the same wage. ...Native-born high school dropouts ...have more than their share of problems with alcohol, drugs, impulsiveness, unreliability, and crime. No employer wants to deal with such problems if there is a cheaper alternative. But allowing employers to hire immigrants almost guarantees that unskilled natives will have more trouble finding steady work....

This pattern suggests that what is good for employers may not be so good for the country.

Although Jencks has critical things to say about Buchanan's book, the review does not exhibit the predictable knee-jerk averse reaction that one would expect in most discussions of Pat Buchanan's views among most liberals and conservatives. Consider, for instance, Jencks' discussion of Buchanan's take on language and assimilation:

Buchanan is also worried about long-term political developments in the Southwest. Mexicans are unlike other immigrants, he argues, because many of them believe they have an historic claim on American lands...Buchanan argues that many Mexicans now hope for a cultural and political reconquista of the American Southwest. Non-Hispanic whites are already a minority in California, Texas, and New Mexico. Unless immigration is curtailed, the day will come when most southwestern voters are of Mexican descent.

The linguistic future of the Southwest depends mainly on whether second- and third-generation Mexican-Americans become fluent in Spanish. Children of Mexican descent are more likely to speak Spanish at home than most other immigrant groups, because their parents are less educated and less likely to work in settings where fluent English is essential. If Spanish were to be required at school, and if the prospect of a Mexican-American majority makes Southern California, Arizona, and Texas less and less attractive to Anglos, Spanish could conceivably become the lingua franca of the region. Is such an outcome likely?

Except in a few rural areas, nothing like this has ever happened before in the United States. It is true that no alternative to English has ever been as readily available to as much of the population as Spanish is likely to be in places like Los Angeles, San Diego, San Antonio, and Houston. Even so, I would still bet against Spanish becoming the primary language of second-and third-generation immigrants.

Jencks would bet against Buchanan's linguistic vision, but he also makes a point of noting that we have never been quite in this position before--so, in fact, we really don't quite know what will happen.

Finally, it is worth reflecting on Jencks' concluding words:

The collapse of this year's bipartisan push for immigration reform suggests that ending the charade will be extremely hard. This should not be the case. Many employers would accept more stringent penalties for hiring illegal immigrants in the future if that were the only way to legalize their current workers, and many immigrant groups would do the same. On the other side, many conservative activists might accept legalization of today's illegal immigrants if that were the only way to ensure a crackdown on hiring illegal immigrants in the future. In principle, therefore, a deal should be possible.

But this deal turns out to have a fatal flaw. Legalization can be implemented within a few years, while penalties for hiring illegal immigrants have to be enforced indefinitely. That means employers get what they want right away, while opponents of illegal immigration have to wait. In view of the federal government's miserable record on enforcement, no sensible conservative—indeed no sensible person of any political persuasion—would now accept mere promises. The conservative mantra is therefore "enforcement first." For many employers that sounds like the road to bankruptcy. They want "legalization first." As long as each side insists on getting what it wants before the other side does, no deal is possible and illegal immigration, with all its unhappy consequences, will persist.

(In 2001, Jencks wrote a two-part article for The New York Review of Books entitled "Who Should Get In?", where he reviews several immigration-related books and examines what the research findings imply for legal immigration policy. That two-part article is also a must-read, but does not seem to be available on the web).

UPDATE: A few industrious readers were able to find the web links for the first part of the 2001 Jencks article. Thank you!

Comments

[Paul]

I am not greatly impressed by Jencks's piece. Here are some objections:

1. He says that support for amnesty reaches 78% in one poll, and therefore "intense" opposition is only the view of a small minority (I suspect that he would have liked to write "a small and deviant minority"). But the fall 2006 Center for Immigration Studies poll showed that the attrition-through-enforcement/enforcement-only approach is quite popular when it's among the choices offered and when those polled are informed about actual immigration numbers.

2. Jencks limits his discussion to illegal immigration, but Buchanan's book isn't confined solely to illegal immigration, since Buchanan recognizes that LEGAL immigration is also effectively out of control. There's no sign that Jencks recognizes this.

3. At several points Jencks uses the phrase "immigration reform," but it's clear that he means the hijacked version of "reform," which is a euphemism for "amnesty." In fact, regarding illegal immigration, no reform is needed. What's needed is an unshakeable commitment to enforcement of existing laws. True reform would consist of changing the immigration laws to cut down the numbers of legal entrants (starting by eliminating the visa lottery and cracking down on the near-100% abuse of asylum and refugee status).

[Rod]

"Even so, I would still bet against Spanish becoming the primary language of second-and third-generation immigrants."

I wouldn't, largely because this already *is* taking place and Spanish already is a lingua franca throughout the region as well as in south Florida. I grew up after the Korean War in Arizona, but I don't recall a time when Spanish wasn't being spoken in Arizona, or in California or New Mexico for that matter-- it's been used here to varying degrees since the Mexican War.

And it *definitely* is getting passed on to the next generations. 25 years ago, southern California was very much a white, conservative stronghold and Latinos in the region generally dropped Spanish by the second generation and become English monolinguals. Spanish was seen as a hindrance.

Today, it's totally the opposite not only in California but in Arizona as well-- you're seen as an idiot if you don't speak Spanish here, so virtually all 2nd and later-generation Latinos speak it and use it as a primary language. Even Anglos and other non-Latinos are learning and using it. For the younger generation, you can't get a good job without it, and apparently it has some legal status dating back to the 19th century.

When people "assimilate" in California, or Arizona/New Mexico, they go bilingual, not monolingual English.

Even later-generation Latinos who'd dropped Spanish are picking it up again, witness the Chips guy Erik Estrada, or Cheech Marin of Cheech & Chong.

Plus, Univision is now the dominant TV network, and its dominance actually *increases* among younger viewers. It already rules in the 18-34 age group, and among teens and kids in general, Univision has more viewers than all other networks combined.

[T]

"The conservative mantra is therefore "enforcement first." For many employers that sounds like the road to bankruptcy."

If there was widespread enforcement against all employers, all employers would have to raise wages to get American employees. Presumably no one would be at a competitive disadvantage, at least not in businesses that have to be done in the U.S. (restaurants, construction). I guess competition for production of cheap products would still have to compete with cheap Chinese labor...

[D Flinchum]

The conservative mantra is therefore "enforcement first."

The RATIONAL mantra is "enforcement first". I am probably to the left of 90% of Congress and I certainly believe in enforcement first. Even then we run the risk of the powers that be deciding later that they will no longer enforce the laws after a period of time.

If I had made a business transaction with a company in which I promised to do A, B, and C, and in return, the company was then expected to do D, E, and F; and I upheld my end of the bargain and the company didn't uphold its end, I'd be a fool to do business with them anytime in the future under the same terms. I'd be doubly foolish if the company had simply REFUSED to uphold its end of the bargain, which is what we are facing in immigration law right now in the US. The federal government basically refuses to enforce the laws.

There are those who say that the laws cannot be enforced for various reasons. If this is true - I don't believe it for a minute but IF - then all we are doing is conducting a never-ending cycle of amnesty followed by an even bigger invasion of illegal aliens followed by amnesty until the US is in as bad a shape as any other third-world country. Then, I'd assume it might stop.

[David Lynch]

Jencks' earlier pieces are at:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14868

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=14942

The latter is behind a subscription wall.

There's a subsequent reply at:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15423

The NYRB archives are pretty comprehensive now, I think.

[justthetruth]

Although I commend Mr. Jencks for a very thoughtful and balanced piece, I also agree with the comments of the earlier postings regarding the article’s perceived deficiencies. Indeed, I believe that the most serious deficiency of the article is the distinct absence of any discussion of the financial liabilities that illegal immigration imposes on federal, state, and local governments, especially if the current population of illegal immigrants is legalized.

Professor Borjas, Steven Camarotta, the Heritage Foundation, and others have all written extensively on the huge liability that legalization of the current population of illegal immigrants would impose on federal, state, and local governments. I for one am unwilling to support what would effectively be a government subsidy for corporate America.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Professor Borjas,

In your latest blog post, you indicated a difficulty finding the earlier Jencks article online. Below you will find a number of links that may be helpful.

http://www.cualum.org/events/alumnicollege/readings/WhoShouldGetInI.pdf
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14868
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=14942 (Part II)
http://www.numbersusa.com/about/nyreview1.html

Thank you

Peter Schaeffer

[Jason Malloy]

"Recent research also suggests that more assimilation has been taking place than Buchanan may realize... Children of unskilled immigrants also move up the economic ladder at about the same rate as children of unskilled native-born workers, closing roughly half the gap between their parents and the average American."

Jencks is using the typical misleading cant. The children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of Mexican immigrants have most certainly not assimilated economically, academically, or cognitively.

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002109.html

The Borjas paper cited by Jencks is, additionally, less than optimistic about future assimilation: "out of one, many".

[George Weinbaum]

I was not favorably impressed with Jencks' piece either. I lived in California for 20 years. Los Angeles is no longer part of the US. As things are going there will be another civil war in this country. The cause: immigration and the "Reconquista". There is nothing the Bush administration can say about immigration I will believe. Throw them out and make it a felony punishable by ten years in prison for an iiegal alien to have a child in the US. I am with Buchanan all the way on this issue. If the price of lettuce goes up 10%, so be it. But wait, if farm labor goes up won't the farmers mechanize, or are they incapable of doing DCF analysis?