NetworkedBlogs
Some Thoughts on Immigration
I recently had a Twitter exchange with a self-described Tea Party participant about the government's "E-Verify" program, whereby employers are forced to submit Social Security numbers to match against a federal database to confirm that a prospective worker is authorized to work in the US; we also discussed the broader issue of illegal immigration in general. While the 140-character limit is beneficial in requiring one to drill down to the essence of one's salient points, it is very restricting in getting into the more complicated issues of the immigration debate.
Contrary to popular belief, there is more to the immigration issue than simply "secure the borders" versus "amnesty for everyone". To really get at the heart of the issue requires a broader understanding of the economic issues that drive immigration — both legal and illegal — and the government's response to a real problem with illegal immigration to the United States and border security.
First of all, a simple concept: in a free marketplace, supply will typically rise to meet demand. When there is a demand for pizza, in come Dominos, Papa Johns, Pizza Hut, and perhaps even smaller, locally-owned specialty restaurants. Demand isn't static, it can be created: nobody knew they wanted an iPad before Steve Jobs unveiled them, for example. Now, the demand for tablet computers is great, and Apple is seeing competition in the marketplace. Supply is rising to meet demand.
Anytime government tries to insert itself between supply and demand, it incentivizes the creation of a black market. The most obvious example of this is the alcohol bootlegging industry that arose upon the imposition of Prohibition, or the current market for illegal drugs. A less obvious example is the implementation of a national speed limit of 55 MPH in the 1970s: at the stroke of President Carter's pen, drivers went from law-abiding to scofflaw without changing a thing, simply at the arbitrary whim of the federal government.
What does this have to do with illegal immigration? There is a demand for immigrant labor. One can argue about whether this demand is based on the desire for employers to exploit workers, or that unionization and wage regulation has increased the price of labor above the market price, or whatever other side issue, but the fact remains that the demand exists. Current US immigration laws are very complex, and Congress has set immigration quotas far below the demand for people to immigrate to the US legally. The result is that there is a huge backlog of people waiting for legal status to come to the United States, and for many low-wage, low-skill workers, there's no legal avenue available at all.
This government-devised intrusion between the supply and demand for immigrant laborers has created a black market for labor, and thus the influx of illegal immigrants to the United States over the past 20 years, with the associated calls for border fences, more border guards, and the aforementioned E-Verify system. More on that below.
It is thus the market intrusion by the government that has created the incentive for mass illegal immigration. It does not compute to me that the solution to a problem caused by government interference in the marketplace is best solved by increasing the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the government; rather, the problem is solved by removing the government barriers to a free market based on voluntary association and exchange. Or, in more clear language: streamline the process for becoming a legal worker in the United States and either increase the quotas to a number more in line with market demand or remove them altogether.
There are some that argue that we should secure the border first — successfully enforce the current law, then worry about how to change it. But enforcement of a bad, anti-market law requires a high expenditure of resources that could be used in other areas more efficiently and effectively. Why waste resources enforcing an inefficient and ineffective law that doesn't reflect the realities of the marketplace? To suggest such is analogous to advocating that Prohibition should not have ended until all the bootleggers were arrested and the illegal alcohol trade broken up, or saying that we couldn't set more reasonable speed limits until compliance with 55 MPH was attained. In addition to the waste of resources, enforcement of a bad law breeds contempt for law in general. Better to change the law to something that makes sense, making enforcement of the law more easily attained and more popularly supported.
Once you have an immigration law that is consistent with market demands, it makes enforcement of the border on security ground much more effective. If you have a means for people to come here legally that want to do so to work and prosper, there are fewer people sneaking across, and those that are can be reasonably assumed to have some nefarious purpose. A spring is much easier to divert or dam than a raging river. There are serious concerns about gangs, illegal drugs, and sex trafficking that are more easily addressed if resources aren't being diluted.
What about E-Verify? There is a broad reason that I am not a fan, and a personal reason. Let's start with the personal, because it feeds into the bigger picture. When my sister was signed up for her Social Security card, the Social Security Administration not only gave her a number, they also somehow took my number (which had been issued a couple of years before) and gave it to her too. I had a Social Security card with my name on it and my SSN, but in the government records it now had her name on both.
This mistake didn't cause any problems until around 1997 or so, when the federal government upgraded their information systems and the IRS database began syncing with the SS database. My income tax return was kicked back because my SSN and name didn't match. It took nearly a year of back-and-forth with the Social Security Administration and the IRS to get my tax issue cleared up and my name and information associated with the SSN that I had possessed for over 10 years.
Imagine if E-Verify had been in place when I applied for jobs leading up to my college graduation. I would have shown up as having confirmation problems. As mentioned above, it took almost a year to resolve them. Would companies have given me the benefit of the doubt? Not if they wanted to comply with E-Verify. I would have been severely delayed in my job hunting, through no fault of my own and based on a simple mistake by a pencil-pushing government bureaucrat.
It could have been even worse. Suppose such laws had been in place when I was applying to colleges and scholarships. My entry into college would have been delayed, and I likely would have lost my scholarships as well. This would have had an immense impact on my financial well-being for years to come.
Anecdotes typically make for bad policy; however, my own experience with government bureaucracy is consistent with a broader philosophy: the more intrusive the government is, the more likely a bureaucrat is to make a mistake, perhaps a costly one. Government in general is big, bloated, and inefficient. I don't particularly trust the government to efficiently and effectively manage a national database of eligible workers any more than I trust them to manage my health care. As the federal government has gotten more involved in education, our performance has gotten worse. Why would E-Verify be any different than other government programs?
If someone wants to come to this country to work, prosper, and create a better life for himself and his family, I have no problem with that. The urge to do so is one of our strongest instincts and is the essence of the American Dream. We need to provide a legal avenue for those who wish to experience that dream. The best approach to the immigration issue is to create a system that reflects reality, not to throw money at an inadequate one.
Contrary to popular belief, there is more to the immigration issue than simply "secure the borders" versus "amnesty for everyone". To really get at the heart of the issue requires a broader understanding of the economic issues that drive immigration — both legal and illegal — and the government's response to a real problem with illegal immigration to the United States and border security.
First of all, a simple concept: in a free marketplace, supply will typically rise to meet demand. When there is a demand for pizza, in come Dominos, Papa Johns, Pizza Hut, and perhaps even smaller, locally-owned specialty restaurants. Demand isn't static, it can be created: nobody knew they wanted an iPad before Steve Jobs unveiled them, for example. Now, the demand for tablet computers is great, and Apple is seeing competition in the marketplace. Supply is rising to meet demand.
Anytime government tries to insert itself between supply and demand, it incentivizes the creation of a black market. The most obvious example of this is the alcohol bootlegging industry that arose upon the imposition of Prohibition, or the current market for illegal drugs. A less obvious example is the implementation of a national speed limit of 55 MPH in the 1970s: at the stroke of President Carter's pen, drivers went from law-abiding to scofflaw without changing a thing, simply at the arbitrary whim of the federal government.
What does this have to do with illegal immigration? There is a demand for immigrant labor. One can argue about whether this demand is based on the desire for employers to exploit workers, or that unionization and wage regulation has increased the price of labor above the market price, or whatever other side issue, but the fact remains that the demand exists. Current US immigration laws are very complex, and Congress has set immigration quotas far below the demand for people to immigrate to the US legally. The result is that there is a huge backlog of people waiting for legal status to come to the United States, and for many low-wage, low-skill workers, there's no legal avenue available at all.
This government-devised intrusion between the supply and demand for immigrant laborers has created a black market for labor, and thus the influx of illegal immigrants to the United States over the past 20 years, with the associated calls for border fences, more border guards, and the aforementioned E-Verify system. More on that below.
It is thus the market intrusion by the government that has created the incentive for mass illegal immigration. It does not compute to me that the solution to a problem caused by government interference in the marketplace is best solved by increasing the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the government; rather, the problem is solved by removing the government barriers to a free market based on voluntary association and exchange. Or, in more clear language: streamline the process for becoming a legal worker in the United States and either increase the quotas to a number more in line with market demand or remove them altogether.
There are some that argue that we should secure the border first — successfully enforce the current law, then worry about how to change it. But enforcement of a bad, anti-market law requires a high expenditure of resources that could be used in other areas more efficiently and effectively. Why waste resources enforcing an inefficient and ineffective law that doesn't reflect the realities of the marketplace? To suggest such is analogous to advocating that Prohibition should not have ended until all the bootleggers were arrested and the illegal alcohol trade broken up, or saying that we couldn't set more reasonable speed limits until compliance with 55 MPH was attained. In addition to the waste of resources, enforcement of a bad law breeds contempt for law in general. Better to change the law to something that makes sense, making enforcement of the law more easily attained and more popularly supported.
Once you have an immigration law that is consistent with market demands, it makes enforcement of the border on security ground much more effective. If you have a means for people to come here legally that want to do so to work and prosper, there are fewer people sneaking across, and those that are can be reasonably assumed to have some nefarious purpose. A spring is much easier to divert or dam than a raging river. There are serious concerns about gangs, illegal drugs, and sex trafficking that are more easily addressed if resources aren't being diluted.
What about E-Verify? There is a broad reason that I am not a fan, and a personal reason. Let's start with the personal, because it feeds into the bigger picture. When my sister was signed up for her Social Security card, the Social Security Administration not only gave her a number, they also somehow took my number (which had been issued a couple of years before) and gave it to her too. I had a Social Security card with my name on it and my SSN, but in the government records it now had her name on both.
This mistake didn't cause any problems until around 1997 or so, when the federal government upgraded their information systems and the IRS database began syncing with the SS database. My income tax return was kicked back because my SSN and name didn't match. It took nearly a year of back-and-forth with the Social Security Administration and the IRS to get my tax issue cleared up and my name and information associated with the SSN that I had possessed for over 10 years.
Imagine if E-Verify had been in place when I applied for jobs leading up to my college graduation. I would have shown up as having confirmation problems. As mentioned above, it took almost a year to resolve them. Would companies have given me the benefit of the doubt? Not if they wanted to comply with E-Verify. I would have been severely delayed in my job hunting, through no fault of my own and based on a simple mistake by a pencil-pushing government bureaucrat.
It could have been even worse. Suppose such laws had been in place when I was applying to colleges and scholarships. My entry into college would have been delayed, and I likely would have lost my scholarships as well. This would have had an immense impact on my financial well-being for years to come.
Anecdotes typically make for bad policy; however, my own experience with government bureaucracy is consistent with a broader philosophy: the more intrusive the government is, the more likely a bureaucrat is to make a mistake, perhaps a costly one. Government in general is big, bloated, and inefficient. I don't particularly trust the government to efficiently and effectively manage a national database of eligible workers any more than I trust them to manage my health care. As the federal government has gotten more involved in education, our performance has gotten worse. Why would E-Verify be any different than other government programs?
If someone wants to come to this country to work, prosper, and create a better life for himself and his family, I have no problem with that. The urge to do so is one of our strongest instincts and is the essence of the American Dream. We need to provide a legal avenue for those who wish to experience that dream. The best approach to the immigration issue is to create a system that reflects reality, not to throw money at an inadequate one.
Comments