A Clumsy Head Fake on Immigration
CNN reports that the Bush administration is getting tough on enforcing immigration laws:
Federal immigration authorities arrested nine people linked to IFCO Systems and rounded up more than 1,000 illegal immigrants in multistate raids, federal law enforcement officials said.
Among those arrested and charged in connection with the employment of immigrants are seven current and former managers and two lower-level employees of the company, said U.S. Attorney Glenn Suddaby.
Has Bush finally seen the light on illegal immigration? I doubt it. More likely, he hopes to placate the conservative base into staying quiet for a big pro-business immigration bill, which means amnesty that isn’t called amnesty, and no meaningful enforcement after the bill becomes law.
Michelle Malkin has the hard numbers on Bush’s refusal to enforce immigration laws. Arrests and threats of fines dropped to nearly nothing after Bush took office, with a low of 159 workplace arrests and 3 notices of intent to fine nationwide in 2004. On her figures, Bill Clinton did a much better job of enforcing these laws, though still not enough to make much of a difference.
As I argued here, immigration can’t be easily solved while conservatism and big business stay together in their political marriage. Today’s charade of enforcement should insult the intelligence of the conservative base. But given the base’s know-nothing attitude toward the Dubai Ports World deal (of which Malkin was something of a leader), I can understand some cynicism from the business side.
The conservative base has the nation’s long-term best interests at heart, but it doesn’t easily grasp complex business realities. Big business understands those complex realities quite well, but it’s only interested in the short term. Maybe the two can meet somewhere in the middle. To do that, though, conservatives must push themselves mentally to understand the business perspective.
For example, conservatives want the borders closed and the flow of illegal immigrants stopped. But I bet that many businesses cannot operate profitably without those immigrants. So if we close the border, then those businesses will need to close down with it, or move across the border toward the cheap labor. Are we willing to pay that cost?
I’m not saying that we are or aren’t, just that the costs and consequences of closing the border are probably far more complicated than what most conservatives imagine. If we want to come to some accomodation with big business on immigration, then we must see the world as they do. If we can’t, won’t, or otherwise don’t understand their perspective, then today’s clumsy political theater is all we can legitimately expect.
Ben,
For example, conservatives want the borders closed and the flow of illegal immigrants stopped. But I bet that many businesses cannot operate profitably without those immigrants. So if we close the border, then those businesses will need to close down with it, or move across the border toward the cheap labor. Are we willing to pay that cost?
I’m not saying that we are or aren’t, just that the costs and consequences of closing the border are probably far more complicated than what most conservatives imagine. If we want to come to some accomodation with big business on immigration, then we must see the world as they do. If we can’t, won’t, or otherwise don’t understand their perspective, then today’s clumsy political theater is all we can legitimately expect.
First of all, we’re not talking about closing the border, we’re talking about gaining control over who enters the country. We aren’t going to stop allowing legal immigrants to come here, and we aren’t going to get the illegal immigrant numbers to zero.
Second, in a 6 trillion dollar economy, or whatever it is, the effects of cracking down on illegal immigration will be on the order of a few percent of GDP, at best. Which will easily be compensated for by easing the strain on public services, plus the security benefits and other nonquantifiable benefits (like not becoming a bicultural society). The expenses are not very high - it just requires enforcing the law.
I think the situation is simple: large majorities of the public want to enforce our immigration laws. A small fraction of the business community, along with multiculturalists and Democrats seeking new voters, want open borders. The will of the people will eventually be done. Tony Blankley wrote a great column on this. It ends with,
I disagree that we need to accommodates business’s point of view on immigration, since their point of view amounts to, “But I’ll make more money next year this way.”
There is some truth to the claim that there was an ill-informed knee-jerk response to the ports deal. But part of it was also driven by opportunistic Democrats, and part of it was due to the fact that conservatives are increasingly exasperated with the Administration.
Comment by Mike S. — April 21, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
Hi Ben,
[I’m glad I found your blog. In the past I’ve enjoyed your comments in the comment sections of other blogs — like Dust In The Light.]
Ben, you said: “conservatives must push themselves mentally to understand the business perspective […] I bet that many businesses cannot operate profitably without those immigrants. So if we close the border, then those businesses will need to close down with it, or move across the border toward the cheap labor. Are we willing to pay that cost?”
Can you provide a few examples of actual businesses that would sink or move rather than adapt to a local labor market with less illegal migrants? These need not be definitive examples, just illustrative of the business perspective that some may not understand as well as you’d have them understand it.
Comment by Chairm Ohn — April 23, 2006 @ 8:11 pm
Mike: Maybe you’re right about higher labor costs being offset by less strain on government services. But even so, it would involve some economic disruption.
On the politics, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t enforce the existing laws. But we should be realistic about what the involves. Building an enormous fence will not cause the sun to burst forth form the clouds, the flowers to bloom and the birds to sing. As a matter of raw politics, I’m skeptical that the conservative base has enough political capital to overcome both the Democrats and big business. Big business is probably wrong on the long term, but that doesn’t make them any less politically effective in Washington. If conservatives are going to win on immigration, they don’t need to be much louder; they need to be smarter and better informed.
Chairm, welcome!
As an example of a business that would sink or move without illegal immigrants, how about IFCO Systems? They’ve just suffered a disruption of business and bad publicity over the government’s inconsistent enforcement of the law. And if we start enforcing the law, then IFCO will have higher labor costs and added costs from labor regulation. The next time IFCO is considering building another factory for its pallets, why would it build in the US?
More broadly, you won’t see many stories in the newspaper about the effects of higher labor costs, simply because companies have no reason to make those decisions public. Just as with taxes and regulations, the effect on businesses from a tight labor market is in what you don’t see rather than what you see. You don’t see businesses not making plans to expand and hire in the US. But it happens. Businesses pay close attention to every variable that affects their profitability. Right now we’re in the worst of all situations, which is uncertainty about enforcement.
From a business perspective, there’s no essential difference between immigration controls and tariffs. Whatever your business, you need some labor with various skills, and you need some materials of varying types. You typically can’t find all of those in the same place at the lowest prices, so you have to collect them. If Component X costs $100 per pound in the US, but only $60 per pound in the Phillipines plus $10 per pound for shipping, then you order it from the Phillipines. But slap on a $50 per pound tariff, and the foreign trade stops. Maybe the business pays the higher domestic prices, or maybe it can’t make a profit at those prices.
Now suppose that the same business needs lots of unskilled labor. The local laborers want $15 an hour, while lots of Mexicans are happy to work for $6 an hour, plus the cost of smuggling them. If you enforce the border, then the cost of smuggling them (or the cost of working them through the legal channels) goes up, and the business’s profits go down. Maybe it goes out of business, maybe it moves, maybe it just makes less profit and fails to expand.
My point is simple and comes straight from Thomas Sowell: Costs are real, and somebody has to pay them. Stopping the flow of foreign labor at the border raises the cost of domestic labor. The costs are higher. Someone has to pay them.
Comment by BenBateman — April 24, 2006 @ 12:09 pm
Ben,
No, but it will reduce the illegal immigrant population, which is the point. As will enforcing laws against hiring illegal aliens. I don’t think there are very many people who are arguing that enforcing immigration laws would be painless. It’s just that supporters of open borders consistently paint enforcement as intrinsically impossible. Thus those who argue for enforcing the law argue that doing so is eminently feasible. But that doesn’t mean they think it is cost free - they just think those costs are much smaller than the costs of not enforcing the laws.
But it’s not a conservative-liberal issue. It’s a general public vs. elites issue. Anywhere from 60-80% of the population is in favor of stricter control of immigration and better enforcement. It’s the political elites in Washington, the media, some businesses, and the racial demogogues who favor open borders. These groups are influential, but they aren’t that numerous. You are right that they have a lot of influence in D.C., but ultimately that will not be enough. The U.S. is not Europe - D.C. politicians can only buck the public on an issue they feel strongly about for so long before paying the price.
Comment by Mike S. — April 24, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
I hope you’re right, Mike. I just worry that the businesses understand the issue better, have far more reason to care about it, and of course have plenty of money to spend on it. It’ll be an interesting test of the new media versus the old.
Comment by BenBateman — April 25, 2006 @ 12:19 am
Thanks for the welcome, Ben.
I’ll hafta chew over your subsequent comments. In the meantime, any suggestions for a reliable overview of the current business case for not enforcing immigration laws — from the horse’s mouth, the lobby forces that have the influence?
Comment by Chairm — April 25, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
That’s a good question, Chairm. I don’t know of any attempts to educate or influence the public. But that’s not too surprising, is it? Voters think much more clearly about their wages and loss of jobs than about the prices they pay.
It’s old-fashioned tariff politics: Raise the tariff on steel, and the steelworkers can keep their jobs, but everyone else pays higher prices. Arguing for open borders on pure economic terms would work the same way: Low-wage workers would lose their jobs, but then everyone would enjoy lower prices. That’s an awfully tough sell in the political arena for any type of product. But add in the extra complications of culture, security, etc. that are peculiar to immigration, and you’ll never persuade the public on those terms.
It’s like the argument that I loved to make during the show trials that ended in the nationalization of the tobacco industry: It was all predicated on the government health-care costs associated with smoking. But in reality smoking was a net financial gain for the government, because 1) 80% of your lifetime health-care costs are spent in the last 6-12 months of life, and everyone has a last 6-12 months of life, and 2) a shorter life span means less costs from Social Security and similar government pension payment.
It was a perfectly reasonable argument on paper, but you could never sway a jury with the financial benefits of people dying early.
Comment by BenBateman — April 27, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
Thanks for the response, Ben. I plan to return here and add my thoughts on what you gave me to chew over. Does your host prompt you when a comment is added to older posts?
Also, here is an opinion piece you might find of interest:
End of Language As We Know It
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1393615.html
PS: The more I look into your past posts, the more I want to read. Especially your words about the use of words.
I’m contributing to Opine Editorials. A few months ago we came across an abuse of the word, interfertility. We had some fun with it.
Who’s interfertile, anyway?
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2005/10/who-is-interfertile-anyway.html
Flubdubs and substitutions
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2005/10/flubdubs-and-substitutions.html
Gender neutrality reads sameness into diversity
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2005/10/flubdubs-and-substitutions.html
Cheers,
Chairm Ohn
Comment by Chairm — April 27, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
Oops, correct link:
Gender neutrality reads sameness into diversity
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2005/10/gender-neutrality-reads-sameness-into.html
Comment by Chairm — April 27, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
Arguing for open borders on pure economic terms would work the same way: Low-wage workers would lose their jobs, but then everyone would enjoy lower prices.
I don’t think this is how it works - I think a small number of businesses make more money that way, but the savings passed on to the consumer is minimal.
Check out this address Peter Brimelow gave at Vanderbilt.
http://www.vdare.com/pb/060502_vanderbilt.htm
And that explains the class nature of this debate. Although immigration is not beneficial in aggregate to Americans, it is beneficial to people who run factories and farms and things like that. They like it, and so they lobby for it. And, in a common phenomenon in political science, when you have a small organized group that benefits a lot from something, it can overwhelm the disorganized majority that is disadvantaged from it only slightly.
Comment by Mike S. — May 3, 2006 @ 11:12 am
hmmm…mb its true ,
Comment by name — July 19, 2008 @ 5:23 am