Immigration Is Good For Thee, But Not For Me

I have been reading through various union contracts in the entertainment industry lately. I was vaguely aware of the fact that Actors' Equity limits the employment of non-resident aliens in theatrical productions. Little did I know how extensive those regulations are. There are rules describing the qualifications that a foreign "star" must possess before being able to appear in a Broadway production and rules making it practically impossible for non-resident aliens to be part of the "Chorus." (see pages 2 through 6).

Provision 3(F) struck me the most:

Notwithstanding any of the above provisions, it is the purpose of this rule that a balance be maintained so that in each country where English is spoken, the number of non-resident aliens from each such country admitted to perform under this Rule shall not exceed the number of United States citizens employed in the theatre in such foreign country. It is understood that while absolute equality in numbers is not capable of attainment, it is nevertheless the intention of this Rule that failure to adhere to this precept violates the letter and spirit of this Rule.

In other words, the number of non-resident alien actors originating from an English-speaking country cannot exceed the number of American actors working in that country.

Actors' Equity, of course, knows something about the laws of supply and demand (even if some economists have somehow forgotten them in this context): the wages of American actors are kept high by such restrictions.

Just imagine how the U.S. labor market would look if workers in other industries had labor contracts that restricted supply along the same lines as the "enlightened" and "progressive" entertainment industry.

Comments

[Felix]

Remember this fiasco?

http://tinyurl.com/2hx2cx

[T]

A lot of left wing elitists are hypocrites on a lot of issues.

I have respect for leftists who actually live the way they preach. I've met fairly radical left wingers who did just that. But they are greatly outnumbered by those who make sure their self interests are protected while ensuring the lower classes are screwed by their *enlightened* policies.

[Gabriel M.]

You might like it as an employee, but how do you like it as a consumer?

Also, as a non-American, I feel compelled to ask... Is my welfare of no value to you?

[T]

"Also, as a non-American, I feel compelled to ask... Is my welfare of no value to you?"

That question is more appropriate of your country's leaders. It is also appropriate for us to ask if immigrants find our culture and language and welfare and social cohesion and quality of life worth valuing. Seems too many don't.

"You might like it as an employee, but how do you like it as a consumer?"

I'm willing to pay $.50 or whatever more for a bags of apples if my health insurance, auto insurance, and taxes go down. Even if they didn't--which they would--I'd be willing to pay more for whatever.

[alex]

G. Borjas: "the laws of supply and demand (even if some economists have somehow forgotten them in this context): the wages of American actors are kept high by such restrictions."

Sometimes I don't know if I'm reading you or Dean Baker. Given that you two seem to otherwise be on different sides of the political spectrum, methinks the commonality is that you're both honest economists who are familiar with supply and demand. Too rare a breed.

[alex]

T: "A lot of left wing elitists are hypocrites on a lot of issues."

As a "leftist", (albeit not card carrying, as that would endanger any guerrilla movements I might be associated with) I agree. However, the "left" has no monopoly on hypocrisy, as, for example, many "rightists" (who have different guerrilla organizations) claim to believe in small government, except of course when it would endanger their handouts.

In general the issues of immigration (legal and illegal), non-resident aliens working in the US, and "free" trade, split both the left and the right.

That fascinates me, as it bolsters my long held contention that what constitutes liberal/conservative or left/right in this country consists of nothing more than a laundry list of positions on various issues, with said laundry lists having been composed by various pundits and powers-that-be, rather than thinking people. There is no philosophical or logical consistency to what is considered left or right - it's all image.

What also intrigues me is that when I discuss policy (as opposed to political) issues with friends on the right, we agree on so many things.

[T]

"I agree. However, the "left" has no monopoly on hypocrisy, as, for example, many "rightists" (who have different guerrilla organizations) claim to believe in small government, except of course when it would endanger their handouts."

I absolutely, 100% agree. I agree with the third paragraph as well. I also find that when I discuss some issues with people on the left I agree more with them then the right.

[Gabriel M.]

T,
It might surprise you that I don't find the idea that we should live and die by the discretion of our leaders as justified. -- When someone asks you for help you answer "Go ask someone else." I guess I don't want to live next to you after all.

I also thought that US culture was about change and integration; and if your "social cohesion" (a.k.a. conformism?) and language can't survive in an open environment then maybe they're not all that great in the first place.

As for supply and demand... foreign workers and native workers might just be complements on a wide range of dimensions. Two great tastes that taste great together? ;-)

[yave begnet]

As a lawyer, I recognize that my income is kept artificially high by some pretty serious barriers to entry. Some of them are warranted; many are not. I'm more in favor of reducing barriers to entry in law, acting, and other professions than I am in raising barriers to entry in low-wage jobs. However, some middle position is probably more desirable for both types of work than the current arrangement. I agree that this is a topic that needs to be discussed more openly. However (to respond to a previous commenter), last I checked, the professions taken as a whole are not dominated by "hypocritical left-wing elitists"--it's less an ideological thing than a class thing. Just my untrained thoughts.

[T]

Vave, I never said professions as a whole are dominated by hypocritical left-wing elitists.

Gabriel:
"When someone asks you for help you answer "Go ask someone else."" My first obligation is to help my community. I consider illegal immigration to harm my fellow citizens, especially those at the bottom. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are not from sub-Saharan Africa or a war torn country where they will die if sent back (and there are policies to deal with those cases). Mexico is perfectly liveable. To the extent that a country is less than one would want it to be, perhaps that person should stay there and improve it and the welfare of its citizens, ie the person's family and fellow countrymen.

"foreign workers and native workers might just be complements on a wide range of dimensions." Yes, that is a theoretical possibility, but I think it's been shown quite well that that companies will go for the lowest bidder, which is often a foreign worker, thus hurting the welfare of the native born.

No, social cohesion <> conformism. It means not feeling alienated living in an environment where you can't understand the language or the culture that is not native to your country. You don't seem to believe in integration.

"if your "social cohesion" (a.k.a. conformism?) and language can't survive in an open environment then maybe they're not all that great in the first place."

Nice bit of contempt. Being demographically overwhelmed with people who don't speak English does not mean English is not "great" or that the previous social cohesion of the English speakers was not worthwhile. It means another culture simply moved in and took over through sheer numbers, not cultural and linguistic superiority.

[Dennis]

"Also, as a non-American, I feel compelled to ask... Is my welfare of no value to you?"

This is the essential bit of hypocrisy at the center of the open borders reflex.

The question, presuming you are challenging one's right to have a say in his nation's immigration policy--that is, some say in his nation's direction and composition, is fundamentally dishonest.

"No value" is a misrepresentation of your opponent's argument. I have many levels of responsibility in my life. Family, neighborhood, nation, and, yes, humanity, that I serve first and best by keeping my faith and responsibility with those for whom I am responsible. If I declare myself equally bound to all, then I'm compelled to go out on the street right now and bring inside any homeless person I can find. So I say to your proposal of a world-wide commune, you first. And my own welfare would be greatly served by a new car. What? Why don't I get it myself you say? How dare you? Do you know what it's like where I live? Do you know about my sick mother? Why is my life worth nothing to you, you hopeless bigot?! I kid, of course.

Yes, I have a different relationship to a fellow citizen than to another, and this relationship is the basis of civilization.

This language--that one is as bound to any man any where as he is to his neighbor--is the rhetoric of demagogues and tyrants, including I daresay our own neocon nut-cases.

This is not the act of moral enlightenment it preens as, but an act of cowardice, bowing before an abstract ideal I know I will never have to live up to, yet also knowing that the aggregated effect of many such acts of cowardice (for all the energetic prancing about in public in the drag of moral superiority) combines to degrade the lives of those for whom I bear responsiblity, and perhaps most importantly, some ability to positively affect; neighbors, countrymen, family.

So the question really is:

"Why do you so easily discard the responsibility you have to those relying on you, and why do you think I will join you in discarding mine?"

Why are you so disdainful of your countrymen that you leave them behind, to improve the lot of you and yours? And thus we arrive at it. You act for self and kin, and that, in reality, is what keeps humanity going along in all its messy glory. There's nothing wrong with it.
You would be well served to understand yourself and your motivations better. It would serve your self and your fellows a good deal better. Then you too can serve humanity in your capacity, instead of pretending to understand what that means.

[Half Sigma]

Just imagine how the U.S. labor market would look if workers in other industries had labor contracts that restricted supply along the same lines as the "enlightened" and "progressive" entertainment industry.

Lawyers have that protection. Only graduates of American law schools are allowed to practice. It keeps out the foreigners.]

On the other hand, there is already such a vast oversupply of lawyers, I'm not sure this really matters.

[Earnest]

Please What do you think can be done to improve the welfare and performanse of immigration staffs.