When the government says that a certain activity can only be legally allowed if it is licensed by the government, we know that that is intended to limit the number of people practicing that activity. A work visa, student visa, or a family visa is a license that certifies that someone may legally enter the United States for some extended period of time. However, immigration visas are a special sort of license: there is a quota limiting the number of visas that may be issued to visitors from each country every year.
The fact that you must be licensed to open a business, limits the number of businesses legally opened each year. However, there is not, to my knowledge, a quota that specifies that no more than, say, 10,000 businesses may be opened this fiscal year in the USA. By contrast, there is a fixed number of visas that may be issued to migrants from Mexico every year. Therefore, licensing laws restrict legal immigration in ways that licensing on businesses does not. It takes an average five years for a Mexican to receive a visa to reunite with family members in the United States. Considering that, it's no wonder that so many people resort to sneaking into the USA.
And this raises a lot of ire. We hear the same criticisms of illegal aliens over and over again. But what I find interesting about this is that many of these criticisms are also applicable to native-born Americans who are very young: those from Generation Y (such as myself) and those from the subsequent generation, Generation Z. And at least one of the criticisms of illegal aliens also applies to elderly U.S. citizens, most of whom are native-born. Let's go over them.
1. "They speak in some sort of code I don't understand. And they're culturally backward -- they don't appreciate the icons of Western culture, such as Last of the Mohicans, that I appreciate." They are inassimilable.
Yes, many illegal aliens speak in some strange code that middle-aged native-born Americans don't understand. But the same can be said of the younger generation of native-born Americans. Every generation has its strange form of slang, and much of the younger generation's slang is intended to be a code not understood by the older people. How often do you hear old people complain that young people speak their own strange language?
It is said that illegal aliens do not appreciate classic icons of traditional American culture. Illegal aliens, for example, tend not to be familiar with Western artworks like Last of the Mohicans. But the same can be said of young native-born Americans.
2. "They are politically backward and do not value the individual-rights philosophy of the Founding Fathers. Why, they tend to vote for Democrats!"
My first item was rather humorous; now we're getting more serious. It is commonly claimed that Spanish-speaking illegal aliens do not value the individual-rights philosophy of the U.S. Founding Fathers. Moreover, U.S. citizens who happen to be related to these illegal aliens, or at least feel sympathy toward them, tend to vote for Democrats that enlarge the welfare state. To my horror, I have heard people say that this is a good reason to have the federal government exercise physical force to prevent Hispanics from migrating to the USA.
But this same criticism can be leveled against the youngest generation of native-born voters: Generation Y. Overwhelmingly, whom did Generation Y vote for in 2008 and 2012? Barack Obama. Moreover, Generation Y, full of Democrats, is having lots of babies, probably who will grow in an environment that encourages them to also share in the Democratic Party's welfare-state ideology. Do we want to pass laws to stop this as well?
More than a few times, I have heard supporters of open immigration make a modest proposal here: if you feel so strongly that there ought to be laws controlling the population's political ideology -- saying that whether or not someone should be allowed to be a U.S. resident, based on how he will vote -- then should we also have licenses on who may or may not have children? Let's say that every birth must first be approved by the federal government. A license allowing a birth is called a Birth Visa. For an expectant mother to be granted her Birth Visa, she must certify that once her child reaches voting age, that child will refrain from voting for Democrats and other politicians who support the welfare state. The woman must promise that her child will vote for people other than Democrats and welfare-state proponents. In making this promise, the woman must put up some collateral: the baby's life. If, upon reaching 18, this person votes for Democrats, the promise has been broken, and the collateral -- the person's life -- must be collected by the State. Moreover, since there is a specific number of visas that may be issued each year, let's also affix a specific number of birth visas that may be issued in the USA each year.
Does that sound barbaric? Some people might point out that it's silly to expect that young people are just mindless zombies programmed by their parents -- that they have minds of their own and can be rationally persuaded to accept arguments against the welfare state. But if that is true, then why is the same principle not recognized about undocumented immigrants -- that they, too, have minds of their own and are subject to rational persuasion? That they can change their minds?
Incidentally, although this "modest proposal" is satirical, I must sadly report to you that in Hawaii I have met a disturbed elderly woman who seriously thinks it is a good idea. She hates people born in the ghetto, thinks they are not "properly assimilated into mainstream [she means 'white'] American culture," thinks they commit crimes [against white people] and receive welfare, and says it would be good if native-born American women in ghettos had to be licensed to have children. This brings us to the next item.
3. "Hispanics form their own enclaves -- ghettos -- and commit violent crimes!"
See the above paragraph. There are native-born Americans born into ghettos who are not Hispanic, and native-born Americans do commit crimes. Do we want to follow that woman's suggestion and say that a native-born woman in the ghetto should have a license -- a birth visa -- to have a child?
4. "They are a tax burden."
I frequently hear the accusation that illegal aliens go on welfare and are a tax burden. Let's consider a rather extreme case of this accusation. The Heritage Foundation levels the allegation that illegal immigrants cost the U.S. taxpayer $900 billion in taxes every year.
Even if they are skeptical about the Heritage Foundation, many people do agree that Hispanic immigrants are a tax burden and that this justifies having a quota on the number of visas issued every year.
Well, do you know which group of people are a bigger tax burden? U.S. citizens. Earlier I have talked about the younger generation; now I will discuss the elderly. Among elderly U.S. citizens are immigrants who have been naturalized as U.S. citizens. Most elderly U.S. citizens, however, are native-born. Consider that Social Security for U.S. citizens annually costs U.S. taxpayers $700 billion, and that another $700 billion goes to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) annually.
In other words, U.S. citizens -- most of whom are native-born -- cost their fellow U.S. taxpayers over $1.4 trillion annually. To wit, these U.S. citizens are more of a tax burden than are illegal aliens.
In fact, many illegal aliens are financially supporting Social Security recipients. You must be a U.S. citizen to collect Social Security; this precludes most illegal aliens from collecting it. Yet illegal aliens pay for Social Security because, when their employers make their payrolls, Social Security contributions are deducted from the illegal aliens' paychecks.
Illegal aliens put more money into public coffers, overall, than they take out. But, for argument's sake, let us imagine it is true that they are a net drain on the system. The fact of the matter is that even if there were zero immigration, the welfare state would be unsustainable. Welfare coffers, by their nature, motivate people to be on the receiving end rather than on the contributing end. If there were no immigrants, native-born Americans would have children who consume services that tax money pays for. Again, would this justify a system wherein women must be licensed to have children? And even if having no children were a requirement of receiving welfare, welfare would still be unsustainable by virtue of how it motivates people to receive money from the coffers but not to contribute to them, eventually resulting in everyone wanting to collect money but no one putting more money in.
Thus, it's not the case that the welfare state could operate indefinitely if only there were no immigration. Welfare-state coffers would still be drained. If immigrants hasten the draining of these public coffers, it only means that Americans must face the inevitable repercussions sooner rather than later. Insofar as immigrants take money out of public coffers, the fact remains that they did not create this inherent weakness of the welfare state; it was already there. To restrict immigration to preserve the welfare state's coffers does not prevent the eventual depletion of the coffers; it only postpones the inevitable reckoning.
Moreover, consider other ways in which U.S. citizens impose tax burdens on each other. Taxpayers finance government-controlled museums. Taxpayers paid for the multi-billion-dollar bailout of big banks like Citigroup. Taxpayers pay subsidies to major agribusinesses. These institutions are all burdens on the taxpayer. Such institutions require licenses to operate, but there is not a quota limiting the number of business licenses issued to such institutions each year. Would it make sense to you if the government said, "Since cotton farms are a burden to the U.S taxpayer, we are placing a fixed cap on the number of new cotton farms that can open each year"? Would that sound like a solution to you, or would it sound like an increase in draconianism that worsens the problem? If so, then the "tax burden" argument cannot justify there being a fixed quantity of visas issued to Mexico annually.
5. Thomas Sowell's double standard on hiring Mexicans for low wages: good or bad depending on which side of the border the Mexican is on
There is an argument against open immigration that doubles as an argument against free international trade. First we hear that if we allow open immigration, that is bad because big companies will choose to hire Mexicans within U.S. borders; they will hire the Mexicans for low wages and leave native-born Americans without work. Secondly, we hear that if we allow free international trade, that is bad because big companies will choose to hire Mexicans still in Mexico; they will hire the Mexicans for low wages and leave native-born Americans without work. Both accusations stress that big companies will choose to hire Mexicans for low wages and leave native-born Americans without work; the only difference between the two allegations is that in one, the Mexicans are still in Mexico whereas, in the other, the Mexicans are in the USA.
Thomas Sowell shows a double standard here. He says that in the case of free international trade, there is nothing to fear when it comes to the idea that big companies will hire Mexicans in Mexico for low wages. In his book Basic Economics (see page 218 here), Sowell correctly states,
As for jobs, before the free-trade agreement was passed, there were dire predictions of a "giant sucking sound" as jobs would be sucked out of the United States to Mexico and other countries with lower wage rates after the free-trade agreement went into effect. In reality, the number of [native-born] American jobs increased after the agreement and the unemployment rate in the United States fell over the next seven years from more than seven percent down to four percent, the lowest level seen in decades. . . . What happens when a given country, in isolation, becomes more prosperous? It tends to buy more because it has more to buy with. And what happens when it buys more? There are more jobs created for workers producing the additional goods and services.
That argument is correct. But, bizarrely, Sowell seems not to notice that it is applicable when native-born Americans reduce their own costs by hiring Mexicans for low wages. He makes a frighteningly protectionist argument against allowing U.S. firms to hire Mexican immigrants for low wages:
How often have we heard that illegal immigrants "take jobs that Americans will not do"? What is missing in this argument is what is crucial in any economic argument: price.
Americans will not take many jobs at their current pay levels -- and those pay levels will not rise so long as poverty-stricken immigrants are willing to take those jobs.
If Mexican journalists were flooding into the United States and taking jobs as reporters and editors at half the pay being earned by American reporters and editors, maybe people in the media would understand why the argument about "taking jobs that Americans don't want" is such nonsense.
This is odd, because the same "cost savings" argument that Sowell used to defend the hiring of low-wage Mexicans in Mexico equally applies to the hiring of low-wage Mexicans in the USA.
First, let's observe how Sowell's own retort against hiring low-wage Mexicans in the USA can also be used against his defense of hiring low-wage Mexicans in Mexico.
How often have we heard that, thanks to the free-agreements that Sowell supports, Mexicans in Mexico and Indians in India "take jobs from Americans"? What is missing from Sowell's argument is what is crucial in any economic argument: price.
Americans will not take many jobs at their current price levels -- and those pay levels will not rise as long as poverty-stricken Mexicans in Mexico are willing to take those jobs.
If U.S. firms were outsourcing information-technology jobs to Mexico and India, and those Mexicans and Indians were earning half the pay that would be expected by American information-technology workers, maybe economists would understand why it's nonsense to let U.S. firms outsource information-technology jobs abroad.
The same defense that Sowell provides to hiring low-wage Mexicans in Mexico applies to hiring low-wage Mexicans in the USA.
Sowell says this is the reason why it's OK if U.S. firms can hire Mexicans in Mexico for low wages, rather than giving those jobs to native-born Americans: when those U.S. firms save money by hiring Mexicans in Mexico for low wages, they incur cost savings. It's not as if the U.S. firms will just sit on that money. All money is spent in the long run: either it is spent for immediate needs or it is saved for a future expenditure. Those U.S. firms then use that cost savings to invest in new economic activities, or they spend it for immediate use. Either form of expenditure produces demand for more goods and services. The increase in demand for more goods and services sends a signal to would-be entrepreneurs that they will profit by supplying such goods and services. These would-be entrepreneurs then hire native-born Americans. True, when the USA and Mexico trade freely, this expands the market so that there is an increased supply of would-be employees. But this is balanced out by a commensurate increase in demand for would-be employees. That is why, everything else being equal, there is not an increase in unemployment.
Now observe how this argument applies to the labor market within U.S. borders. When immigrants come to the USA and work for low wages, they increase the supply of available would-be employees. However, these same immigrants must also consume goods and services. Thus, the presence of these immigrants also increases consumer demand for goods and services. And this increase in consumer demand signals to would-be entrepreneurs (native-born and immigrant alike) that they can profit by supplying such goods and services. These would-be entrepreneurs then hire native-born Americans to assist them in that enterprise.
This is the reason why I say it's OK if U.S. firms can hire Mexicans in the USA for low wages, rather than giving those jobs to native-born Americans: when those U.S. firms save money by hiring Mexicans in Mexico for low wages, they incur cost savings. It's not as if the U.S. firms will just sit on that money. All money is spent in the long run: either it is spent for immediate needs or it is saved for a future expenditure. Those U.S. firms then use that cost savings to invest in new economic activities, or they spend it for immediate use. Either form of expenditure produces demand for more goods and services. The immigrant population earning the low wages also produce consumer demand for such goods and services. The increase in demand for more goods and services sends a signal to would-be entrepreneurs that they will profit by supplying such goods and services. These would-be entrepreneurs then hire native-born Americans. True, when native-born Americans and illegal aliens trade freely, this expands the market so that there is an increased supply of would-be employees. But this is balanced out by a commensurate increase in demand for would-be employees. That is why, everything else being equal, there is not an increase in unemployment.
Conclusion
Therefore, the common accusations explicitly leveled against illegal aliens are also applicable to young native-born Americans in many cases (and, in at least one case, also applicable to elderly U.S. citizens). This cartoon by Cox and Forkum has it right.
