Immigration is a complex issue, without a doubt. Many of the questions related to it are economic, and thus highly debatable. Neither the side favoring reduced immigration levels nor the side favoring high immigration levels can agree on the basic facts involved. Even a relatively straighforward question such as, “Are immigrants a net drain on the economy?” is contentious.
For my money, the immigration restrictionists have the better argument on strictly economic grounds. If immigrants contribute to the economy, they don’t contribute much. The vast majority of today’s immigrants are poor and unskilled. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay less than 4% of the income taxes, and their share of Social Security and Medicaid taxes is similarly small. Against this must be balanced the huge social costs of immigration: educating children; providing care for elderly relatives who are “imported” after a legal immigrant establishes his residency; the high crime rates associated with many immigrant communities, etc.
Despite this evidence, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops argues flatly that Mexican immigration in particular is a boon to the American economy. In “Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope,” the USCCB, in conjunction with the Mexican bishops, states that “the United States needs Mexican laborers to maintain a healthy economy.” Why? The paragraph does not say.
Another USCCB policy paper, written to buttress the case for legalizing illegal immigrants, inadvertently blows away that factoid: “Undocumented immigrants from Mexico alone contributed between $154 billion and $220 billion to the Gross Domestic Product of the United States in 2000.” Let’s accept that higher number, and inflate it to $250 billion to account for inflation and additional illegals. This year, the U.S. will have a $12,000 billion economy (see table 1.1.5), so they contribute about 2% of the GDP. By way of comparison, the Federal Reserve Board expects GDP to grow 3.5 to 4% this year. So this vital segment of the American economy, in strictly economic terms, is equivalent to perhaps six or eight months of decent growth.
You may object that people are not cold statistics, and that it is inhuman to consider them as such. Very true, but it is expedient to demolish the pragmatic argument first, so we can clarify the issue (and I would also point out that the USCCB is the one making the utilitarian case, not me.) If high-immigration apologists would make a straightforward moral argument, we would not have to get into pragmatics. Of course, the USCCB does make that moral argument, though these two paragraphs of theirs are irreconcilable:
II. Persons have the right to migrate to support themselves and their families.
35. The Church recognizes that all the goods of the earth belong to all people.
When persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right.
III. Sovereign nations have the right to control their borders.
36. The Church recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories but rejects such control when it is exerted merely for the purpose of acquiring additional wealth. More powerful economic nations, which have the ability to protect and feed their residents, have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows.
If something is a “right,” it is something to which a person is entitled regardless of the circumstance. In that respect, how can there be a “right to migrate,” that is, the right to cross national borders, if nations have the “right to control their borders”? Which right trumps which?
If you read the documents and position papers of the USCCB, you come to the inescapable conclusion that they do not regard illegal immigration to be a “real” crime. Indeed, you come away with the impression that people should be allowed to travel, reside, and work wherever they want, and with no restrictions. Anyone who thinks differently is in need of conversion:
Faith in the presence of Christ in the migrant leads to a conversion of mind and heart, which leads to a renewed spirit of communion and to the building of structures of solidarity to accompany the migrant. Part of the process of conversion of mind and heart deals with confronting attitudes of cultural superiority, indifference, and racism; accepting migrants not as foreboding aliens, terrorists, or economic threats, but rather as persons with dignity and rights, revealing the presence of Christ; and recognizing migrants as bearers of deep cultural values and rich faith traditions.
I solemnly disagree with the USCCB’s esteemed bureacrats on this one. I believe that all immigration should be drastically curtailed by 80-90%, and this belief does not spring from “cultural superiority, indifference, [or] racism.” Rather, I object to high immigration levels precisely because it is socially unjust to allow it.
States have a prior moral duty to their citizens. That’s their place in God’s temporary plan for us, until Christ comes to reign in glory and then we won’t need states anymore. In the meantime, the world is divided into polities that are supposed to protect their citizens from harm, and provide an environment for them to flourish.
The Church teaches that states (and we) ought to consider the effects of a given action on the poor, before enacting any law connected with economics. This is called the “preferential option for the poor.” We can thus see that in the Catholic scheme of things, states take care of their people, and should care particularly for the poor and the most vulnerable.
High immigration levels hurt the poor and the vulnerable, and are thus immoral. How do they do that? Through supply and demand: immigrants, legal or illegal, flood certain parts of the labor market, driving down the price of labor. Businesses love that, but it ends up screwing over the people who were already in the U.S., including less recent immigrants. If these labor market segments were more static, businesses would be forced to train these workers, give them better equipment, and pay them more.
High immigration levels not only hurt the poor and the vulnerable in the U.S., but also in Mexico and other countries, too. It allows underdeveloped nations to ship their “surplus” population abroad, instead of dealing with their own faulty economies.
Illegal immigration fosters disrespect for the law, but even legal immigration keeps poor people poor. How can the bishops’ conference possibly support such a harmful thing?
Well put, Eric.
The church is to proclaim the imminent return of the Prince of Peace and His reign, and we should seek to exemplify that in our worship and our charity, in our provision for those most helpless and defenseless in this world.
But true justice and equity will not be firmly established until Christ’s reign and clearly the poor we shall always have with us. We shouldn’t let that be a reason to establish governmental policies and taxation methods which exasperate law-abiding citizens and supplant the Church’s social mission which is an adjunct of its spiritual one. To the extent that political position is given sway by the shepherds of the flock is dangerous in that it further lends political power to those who would rather those most in need of the care and nurture of the church to rely on the care and nurture of a paternalistic government, rather than our Heavenly Father.
Thanks for bringing this up, Eric. It didn’t make sense to me when the USCCB’s position seemed to be in favor of low-wage jobs.
I can give you one correction: that statistic about how little income tax the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay isn’t really a good indicator of how much people contribute to the economy. (I might even say that paying Federal taxes contributes to the enemy of the economy!)
Income is a reasonable representation of the economic value of one’s work, but, as we know, income tax isn’t linearly proportional to income. Furthermore, the bottom 50% of taxpayers isn’t the same as the bottom 50% of wage-earners.
There probably is a suitable statistic to make the point you want to make: maybe some figure about the bottom half’s share of national income.
If anyone’s looking for a talking point on the subject, here’s a phrase you can use: importing cheap labor “sets one group of poor people against another”.
I am saddened by the fact that our bishops don’t really try to solve the real problem. How to encourage Mexico to change, so that there is enough good jobs down there for their people?
That will diminish the illegal immigrant problem.
Besides, I think that it is ironic, that Mexico wants an open border North, but I’ve read that their Southern border is very hard to cross, because of even poorer people trying to get in.
Illegal immigrants may “contribute” $200 billion to the economy but this is certainly a gross figure. Like most people they consume about as much as they produce. From an economic standpoint we should compare their tax contribution to the government services they require. It is a huge net burden on the rest of us to educate their children, care for them when they are sick, and imprison them when they break the law. In fact, they pay relatively little in taxes.
It is the rich and powerful who benefit from immigration. It drives up property values and depresses wages. With the exception of migrant farm labor and a few categories of technically skilled workers, there is no shortage of any kind of labor in the US. Employers, who compete with each other, simply can’t pay the kind of salaries it would take to fill positions with domestic workers. Of course, if the supply of these workers dried up, they would all find a way to stay in business.
The answer to poverty in places like Mexico, is for their governments to reform their economies. Economists understand exactly what it takes to do this. Unfortunately, the collectivist policies favored by the hierarchy in some third world countries have exacerbated poverty.
RC, agreed that the amount of taxes paid isn’t a terribly accurate measure of economic productivity, especially when most illegals get paid “under the table.” That’s why I used the USCCB’s numbers, because they seemed to think it was a compelling statistic.
Anna, I was going to include that point about Mexico’s treatment of its own illegal immigrants: they deny healthcare to them, for example, and they deport people without so much as a hearing. Yet they say it’s “racist” if illegal Mexicans aren’t treated as if they are legal residents or U.S. citizens. It’s pure, cynical maniplulation of our politically-correct elites, not a plea for justice.
Another point worth making is that the effects of illegal immigration are disproportionately spread out. It’s really a regional problem, mainly in the southwest U.S., though there are pockets of illegal immigrants in every big city. They place tremendous strain on inner-city urban areas, which do not have excessive amounts of money to help the poor. It doesn’t really affect affluent suburbs, at least not directly.
The greatest danger of illegal immigration is the destabilization of otherwise secure borders. It is not the effect on the labor pool, as most immigrants (legal or not) take the jobs that Americans themselves will not do, and end up contributing to the economy in the long run.
The Lady in the Harbor calls out to those “yearning to breathe free,” while those already here forget that they, too, are descendants of immigrants. While their ancestors may have come legally, that hardly made them more welcome.
Then, or now.
Damn furriners. Keep em all out, I say.
That’s not exactly true, David — many Americans won’t take jobs that immigrants take because the positions don’t pay very well, and the working conditions are terrible. But one big contributing factor is that immigrants are willing to accept sub-standard wages and working conditions. Employers see no particular need to improve either one, because they can always get another low- or no-skilled immigrant to do the work.
As for immigrants contributing to the economy over the long run, that is debatable. Many immigrants certainly do, and I’m not diminishing their contributions. However, because of the “family reunification” provisions in immigration law, legal immigrants can bring in all kinds of non-productive relatives — great-aunts, grandparents, etc., who end up being cared at state expense.
We’re all descendants of immigrants, yes, but it doesn’t follow that therefore we ought to let a large number of immigrants into the country.
The solution to the immigration problem is simple and proven. The albanians of Kosovo have pointed out the way. You allow guest workers to come in legally and in large numbers. You slap a 3% tax on participants in the guest worker program and use the proceeds to improve conditions back home, to be administered by a federally chartered public/private US corporation. Ownership is divided by the previous year’s 3% tax haul.
The truth is that repression causes most economic migration, whether it is through explicit physical violence or insane levels of red tape that only part for those with government insider connections.
The ultimate effect of such a system is sharply reduced immigration from Mexico (and let’s face it, Mexico’s the real problem here) as the political class realizes they’re going to be overthrown by a well financed effort led by people who they have insulted to the point where they had to leave their families and live very hard lives because of bad acts by the Mexican political class.
The problem has always been that the US is trying to hold back a tide that Mexico, for domestic political reasons, is encouraging. This would reverse the roles and eventually lead to better government in Mexico and reduced low-income earner flow across the border.
Some people will always come across. There are families that have been moving back and forth across the present border for centuries. It would be unwise and unjust to thwart that sort of natural flow. The economic and political problems are the consequence of an incompetent Mexican political class creating a tsunami of immigrants that just does not stop.
Once that fact is recognized, you see that standard restrictionists are playing King Canute while standard free borders advocates are playing the punk kid in a ‘B’ prison movie. Neither role is proper.
“Immigrants! I’ve been having trouble with immigrants ever since I came to this country.”
More seriously: Here’s what I think should be the starting point for discussions of this issue – the Catechism’s teaching:
===quote on===
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
===quote off===
And if Paragraph 2 doesn’t happen, then what? Is Paragraph 1 in any way affected? If not, this is at least de facto a call for universal open borders and the erasure of national sovereignty.
Fine for an eternal universal institution to think in those terms. Disastrous for a finite particular institution.
As most immigrants (legal or not) take the jobs that Americans themselves will not do.
Not true. Out of desperation they take jobs at a lower wage than American workers accept, depressing wages for unskilled work. Zoe Baird, caught with an illegal immigrant nanny, could certainly have found someone to do the work at twice the wage she got away with paying. She could easily have afforded it.
One advantage of immigrants from Mexico: they’re usually Catholic, thus further pushing the Protestants into minority status.
Good analysis.
The illegal immigrants are unskilled labor and, because they are neither permitted to be here and are not protected–both by law–they must accept low wages and poor working conditions. They do depress unskilled labor wages for native or legal immigrant workers. [Actually, legal immigrants typically must demonstrate an abiility to support oneself and one’s dependents upon being granted visas and citizenship. We had to fill out such documents on behalf of our internationally adopted children.]
There are also public safety issues [not to mention the potential use of the Mexican border by Islamofascists] with illegal aliens. The M13 gangs in No VA are very dangerous. Thank God their crime and violence appear to be contained within their communities, but I’d sure hate to be at the wrong place at the wrong time–with my children in tow.
The US Bishops’ position about illegal immigration is just wrong and boneheaded, if I may say so. They do deliberately aid and abet illegal immigration. The international/missionary arms of the Church (whether they originate in Rome or the US or wherever) should be seeking to improve the living conditions in Mexico. That is how the Church can meet its social justice aims toward this group of people. V Fox wants the US to take on its racial/socio-economic problems at our own cost. Mexico does not want to fix it.
It may be true that the fact that illegals do not pay taxes is not a measure of their economic productivity. Nonetheless, the fact that they don’t pay in, while they receive from various social welfare programs makes them a net drain on US society’s and government’s resources. I cannot count the times lately where I’ve been in the Supermarket [a discount store] and a crowd of Latinos are there cashing their WIC vouchers. They have their anchor citizen babies and every body benefits.
My policy prescriptions are for the US govt to make some peirodic big and visible mass deportations. We cannot get every one, but a periodic showing of seriousness will put the fear of God into some of these folks and make them leave on their own or deter future illegal activity–at least for most. I do not have a problem with a “guest worker” program on a going forward basis. Why shouldn’t some one be able to live in Mexico (or CA) and just cross the border daily on a commute to work, while living in his home country–from US to these countries as well. [The downside is that the wages are spent in Mexico, not the US; but it is another way to provide injections into the Mex economy which may be the real problem to be solved.] I’m sure some tax treaties can be developed–hopefully with some fairness to the US.
We do need some tighter controls and monitoring of when visas and other immigration docs expire for legal immigrants. I am not sure what can be done about the next thing b/c of what I understand constitutional language to be, but I’d like to see some conditions on the anchor babies as citizens, ie, the family must be living here legally for 6 mos prior to the birth perhaps, so as to exclude transients and illegal immigrants’ offspring. Of course, illegal (or all?) aliens should be excluded from benefitting from any social welfare programs.
Sorry for the long post.
FYI–The VA legislature has approved, by large margins, it appears, restrictions on state welfare programs to illegal aliens over 19. They’re unwilling to deny the kiddies an edjamacashun, it appears. It’s a good start. Warner could veto, but the margins appear pretty veto proof–not that I know the required margins.
“That’s not exactly true, David — many Americans won’t take jobs that immigrants take because the positions don’t pay very well, and the working conditions are terrible.”
Depending on the job itself, it’s unlikely that the market would allow a reasonable wage. So it goes to those willing to be paid the UNreasonable. It’s unjust, but it’s what happens. As to working conditions, being a live-in health care aide to an elderly person, with rarely a day off, may be “terrible” to you and I. But to a woman from a Third World country, it may be the break she’s been looking for.
“We’re all descendants of immigrants, yes, but it doesn’t follow that therefore we ought to let a large number of immigrants into the country.”
This is almost exactly the argument used against every wave of immigrants for nearly two centuries now. (By the way, please define “large.”)
Victor: I assume that “may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions” means pretty much what it says.
And I continue to maintain that Catholic teaching has to be the starting point for these discussions – i.e. – that the discussions should be about how to apply that teaching to particular sets of facts.
My answer to the USCCB: Mind your business. Watching these men spout ignorant banalities absolutely burns me up.
Sage:
I’ve never been an apologist for the USCCB’s sense of priorities, and I’m not now, to suggest that social issues, inasmuch as they concern Catholic social teaching, are usually their business. After all, churches are traditionally places in which to claim sanctuary, n’est ce pas???
The USCCB seems to be at war with the 10 Commandments, including “thou shalt not steal” and thou shalt not covet. .” as they deny the reality of private property, apparently believing that property is theft.
As to Mexico, how can it improve if all of its most entrepreneuring citizens have fled to the US?
Eric,
That is so false to claim that Americans don’t want the jobs.
Blogworthies LV
Because The Blog from the Core simply can’t cover everything. Noteworthy entries @ ut unum sint, Instapundit.com, Ancient and Future…