Selected Quotes from The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration by Professor Gordon H. Hanson.

Quotes Selected by Chuck McGlawn.

It is a 52-page report commissioned by the Council on Foreign Relations. I am not going to try to abbreviate the contents of the Dr. Hanson Report. I am just going to share with you some of the quotations that should have some effect on your thinking about so called Illegal Immigration. We will quote some of Dr. Hanson remarks found in the Foreword, Introduction, Current U.S. Immigration Policy, Illegal Immigration and the U.S. Economy, Benefits and Costs of Immigration, Reforming Immigration Policy and Final Considerations

In the FORWARD, Professor Gordon H. Hanson approaches immigration through the lens of economics.

By focusing on the economic costs and benefits of legal and illegal immigration, Professor Hanson concludes that stemming illegal immigration would likely lead to a net drain on the U.S. economy.

Hanson argues that guest worker programs now being considered by Congress fail to account for the economic incentives that drive illegal immigration, which benefits both the undocumented workers who desire to work and live in the United States and employers who want flexible, low-cost labor.

In the INTRODUCTION Professor Hanson says, “From a purely economic perspective, the optimal immigration policy would admit individuals whose skills are in shortest supply and whose tax contributions, net of the cost of public services they receive, are as large as possible. Admitting immigrants in scarce occupations would yield the greatest increase in U.S. incomes, regardless of the skill level of those immigrants. In the United States, scarce workers would include not only highly educated individuals, such as the software programmers and engineers employed by rapidly expanding technology industries, but also low-skilled workers in construction, food preparation, and cleaning services, for which the supply of U.S. native labor has been falling.”

[T]here is little evidence that legal immigration is economically preferable to illegal immigration. In fact, illegal immigration responds to market forces in ways that legal immigration does not.

Illegal migrants tend to arrive in larger numbers when the U.S. economy is booming [When they are needed.] and move to regions where job growth is strong. Legal immigration, in contrast, is subject to arbitrary selection criteria and bureaucratic delays, which tend to disassociate legal inflows from U.S. labor-market conditions.

Two-thirds of legal permanent immigrants are admitted on the basis of having relatives in the United States. Only by chance will the skills of these individuals match those most in demand by U.S. industries.

[T]emporary legal immigrants come to the country at the invitation of a U.S. employer, the process of obtaining a visa is often arduous and slow. Once here, temporary legal workers cannot easily move between jobs, limiting their benefit to the U.S. economy.

Quotes from ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND THE U.S. ECONOMY: “Between 1960 and 2000, the share of working-age native-born U.S. residents with less than twelve years of schooling fell from 50 percent to 12 percent.”

Native-born U.S. workers with low schooling levels are increasingly hard to find. Yet these workers are an important part of the U.S. economy—they build homes, prepare food, clean offices, harvest crops, and take unfilled factory jobs.

Illegal immigration also brings low-skilled workers to the United States when the productivity gains of doing so appear to be highest. During the past twenty years, Mexico has experienced several severe economic contractions, with emigration from the country spiking in the aftermath of each downturn. In terms of the economic benefits, this is exactly when one would want workers to move—when their labor productivity in the United States is highest relative to their labor productivity at home. Long queues for U.S. green cards mean there is little way for legal permanent immigration to respond to such changes in international economic conditions.

Quoting from BENEFITS AND COSTS OF IMMIGRATION:  “Overall, immigration increases the incomes of U.S. residents by allowing the economy to utilize domestic resources more efficiently”

Immigration generates extra income for the U.S. economy, even as it pushes down wages for some workers.

More workers allow U.S. capital, land, and natural resources to be exploited more efficiently. Increasing the supply of labor to perishable fruits and vegetables, for instance, means that each acre of land under cultivation generates more output. Similarly, an expansion in the number of manufacturing workers allows the existing industrial base to produce more goods.

The annual immigration surplus in the United States appears to be small, equal to about 0.2 percent of GDP in 2004.

[L]ower wages for low-skilled labor mean lower prices for labor intensive goods and services, especially those whose prices are set in local markets rather than through competition in global markets. Patricia Cortes finds that in the 1980s and 1990s U.S. cities with larger inflows of low-skilled immigrants experienced larger reductions in prices for housekeeping, gardening, child care, dry cleaning, and other labor-intensive, locally traded services.

Lower prices for goods and services raise the real incomes of U.S. households, with most of these gains going to those in regions with large immigrant populations.

The total impact of immigration on U.S. residents—the sum of the immigration surplus (the pretax income gain) and the net fiscal transfer from immigrants—would be unambiguously positive.

If immigrants are a net fiscal drain, the total impact of immigration on the United States would be positive only if the immigration surplus exceeded the fiscal transfer made to immigrants. For low-skilled immigration, whether legal or illegal, this does not appear to be the case.

In REFORMING IMMIGRATION POLICY: [Remember this report was published in April 2007]  Liberty Views suggest that you read this segment yourself. We  make this recommendation because, “There are no easy answers to U.S. immigration problems.”

“One issue on which most members of Congress agree is that border and interior enforcement should be expanded. At current enforcement levels, as many as 400,000 new illegal immigrants are probably still entering the country on net each year, and halting that flow will require a further increase in the already substantial resources devoted to the task.

“The expenditures on border enforcement (more than 0.1 percent of GDP) are already greater than the fiscal benefits of reducing illegal immigration (less than 0.1 percent of GDP).

Currently [2007], U.S. employers, by virtue of asking workers for identification at the time of their hiring, can plausibly deny having knowingly hired illegal immigrants. A system of electronic verification would potentially eliminate plausible deniability, placing a greater burden on employers to screen out workers who are unauthorized for employment. But by any measure, halting illegal immigration is likely to be a net drain on the U.S. economy.

 Professor Gordon H. Hanson is the director of the Center on Pacific Economies and professor of economics at University of California, San Diego, where he holds faculty positions in the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies and the department of economics. Professor Hanson is also a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and coeditor of the Journal of Development Economics. He obtained his BA in economics from Occidental College in 1986 and his PhD in economics from MIT in 1992.

Prior to joining UCSD in 2001, he was on the economics faculty at the University of Michigan (1998–2001) and at the University of Texas (1992–1998).

Professor Hanson has published extensively in the top academic venues of the economics discipline. His current research examines the international migration of high-skilled labor, the causes of Mexican migration to the United States, the consequences of immigration on labor-market outcomes for African-Americans, the relationship between business cycles and foreign outsourcing, and international trade in motion pictures.

In recent work, he has studied the impact of globalization on wages, the origins of political opposition to immigration, and the implications of China’s growth for the export performance of Mexico and other developing countries. His most recent book is Why Does Immigration Divide America? Public Finance and Political Opposition to Open Borders (Institute for International Economics,

For more current recommendations, read A Better Immigration Policy for America
Each year, the United States turns away thousands and thousands of highly skilled immigrants who want to join the U.S. labor force. It does this by setting aside more work visas for people chosen randomly by a lottery than for those who possess demonstrably greater abilities, by sending home many of the foreign graduates it has helped to educate, and by admitting an absurdly low number of immigrants for the size of the U.S. economy. As a result, the United States squanders a fantastic opportunity to foster innovation and accelerate economic progress, according to Independent Institute Research Director Alex Tabarrok. READ MORE

The No-Brainer Issue of the Year: Let High-Skill Immigrants Stay, by Alex Tabarrok (The Atlantic, 12/20/11)

Launching the Innovation Renaissance: A New Path to Bring Smart Ideas to Market Fast, by Alex Tabarrok; a TED Kindle book

Entrepreneurial Economics: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science, edited by Alex Tabarrok

Cause and Effect From Someone Who KNOWS By Chuck McGlawn

We have read and abbreviated (below) The New Alabama Immigration Law: A Preliminary Macroeconomic Assessment written October 2011 by Samuel Addy, Ph.D. Director of the Center for Business and Economic Research Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration

The University of Alabama

Dr. Sam Addy joined the Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER) in 1998 and assumed the position of Director in 2007. He holds an M.S. in Mineral Engineering from the University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. in Mineral Economics from The Pennsylvania State University.

In this role as Director, he regularly speaks to groups and organizations on topics including the Alabama economy, economic policy, economic development, and workforce development. Dr. Addy works with CBER’s economic research program and has directed and conducted economic impact studies for numerous public and private clients across the state. Other areas of emphasis include assessment and analysis of Alabama’s workforce; fiscal policy; socioeconomic analysis for transportation and other development projects; and environmental and climate change issues. Sam has published in academic journals and is often quoted in local, regional, national, and international media.

In his recent article he points out that, “Economies are demand-driven so any policy, regulation, law, or action that reduces demand is misguided and will not contribute to economic development…” He goes on to say, “Instead of boosting state economic growth, the law HB56  is certain to be a drag on economic development…”

Dr. Abby doesn’t blame the well intentioned lawmakers, or the citizen supporters of HB56, however misguided, “those that tend to favor the law focus on its intent but often not on its actual effects.” Dr. Abby says, “[T]he law is likely to drive a portion of … illegal immigrants out of state or underground. [D]emand in the Alabama economy is reduced since the income generated by these people and their spending will decline. That results in a shrinking of the state economy and will be seen in lower economic output, personal income, and fewer jobs  (Emphasis added) than would otherwise have been.

Dealing with some of the misconceptions, he says. “What about the argument that illegal immigrants are a drain on resources because they don’t pay taxes? Yes, illegal immigrants use some public services but they do pay taxes and the economy enjoys some benefits as a result of the demand created by their presence.” He goes on to say, “[T]he level of income they receive many illegal workers will not have to pay federal income tax because of the standard deduction and personal exemption allowed. Indeed, they could receive earned income tax credit, which many do not file for because they wish to remain below the radar and because their status makes it practically impossible. In addition, they make payroll taxes with little chance of ever benefiting from those social safety net programs unless somehow they become legal.” [Where have we heard that before?]  However, [illegals do] “pay sales and property taxes directly and indirectly through their income spending and consumption activities.”

Near the end of his paper, Dr. Abby joined the throng by adding, "Although there’s an ongoing debate about the costs and benefits of illegal immigrants, it is generally accepted that immigration, as a whole, has a net positive effect on the national economy."

Dr. Abby concludes with, “Bottom-line, the law will be costly to the state economy even without consideration of [increased] enforcement costs. Is it possible to amend the new immigration law so that it keeps the admirable intent but also increases demand in the economy, brings more of the informal economy into the light, boosts economic development, and facilitates continuation of the economic strides that the state has been making? In short, what we need are laws and policies that will keep Alabama on a ROLL.

My own conclusion is that any one that favors keeping HB 56 and enforcing it, has some other agenda than economic benefits to the National economy, benefits to the Alabama economy and a better life for not only those immigrants that will be affected but the people of Alabama.

Cause and Effect Can Solve the Immigration Problem By Chuck McGlawn 12/02/2011

The US and especially Alabama is about to get a real-life lesson on “Cause and Effect”. That is if the courts stay out of Alabama’s H.B. 56, passed on June 9, 2011. Alabama can now boast of having the nation’s harshest anti-immigrant law. The law makes it a crime to be without status.  The Court intervened in Arizona, removing the real teeth from SB 1070 and averting the real economic disaster. Alabama might not be as lucky, the dominos are already falling.

It is real easy to say, as Center for American Progress has that, “$40 million—A conservative estimate of how much Alabama’s economy would contract if only 10,000 (8%) of the  undocumented immigrants stopped working in the state.”  It is a lot harder to say, how does Chad Smith of Smith Farms, replace the $300,000 lost because of labor shortages in the wake of H.B. 56. Harder still what happens to the supervisory staff (likely citizens) that lose their jobs? What happens the piano teacher that loses 25% of her students because of lost profits and lost jobs. Will she be able to make her mortgage payment? How wide and how deep does the loss of $300,000 profit go? Let me say. it touches everyone. Homeless Freddie doesn’t eat today because waitress Madge didn’t get her regular tips from the Jones’ family who couldn’t afford their Friday Family Feast at the local Pizzeria because increased cost of food for every night dinner drained the Friday Family Feast Funds. Tony’s profits, are cut because he must have new menus printed to reflect the new higher prices. (By the way, I am taking up a collection for a “hit-man” for the idiot that says, “The printer’s business is up”) There is just no way that the incremental pain and suffering can be measured and set forth in any research study.

If Alabama is successful and every undocumented immigrant self-deports, Alabama will lose over 18,000 jobs and 2.6 billion in economic activity according to a Perryman Group study   
Alabama’s State Senator, Scott Beason continues to say HB56, is a “jobs bill” although this is contrary to all evidence. Based upon all available economic research and evidence, the Federal Reserve Bank declared “there is no evidence that immigrants crowd out U.S.-born workers in either the short or long run.” It further found that
Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that immigrants expand the economy’s productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization. (Emphasis added)  This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker. At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers.
And concerning HB56, economists almost universally (Emphasis added) concur that: Anti-immigration laws like Alabama’s are jobs and economic growth killers. These laws play well politically, but are based on flawed economic logic. The reason for this is that, as Michigan economics professor Mark Perry says, “There is no fixed pie or fixed number of jobs, so there is no way for immigrants to take away jobs from Americans. Immigrants expand the economic pie.”
What will HB56 do to Alabama’s economic pie?  A study by the Perryman Group, produced an “An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Undocumented Workers on Business Activity in the US with Estimated Effects by State and by Industry” as we have said above, The study concludes that if Alabama is sucessful and every undocumented immigrant self-deports, Alabama will lose over 18,000 jobs and 2.6 billion in economic activity, and these numbers are even understated:
Therefore, with HB56 standing alone (the “static scenario”) without any “contemporaneous adjustment” at the federal level, Alabama stands to lose over 51,000 jobs and 8 billion in economic activity. (BTW, this is the present situation.)
Because of these staggering numbers, the analysts conclude:
The most compelling conclusions from this assessment are (1) the undocumented workforce is vital to US business growth and prosperity (and, in some cases, sustainability) and, thus, (2) an enforcement-only and removal approach is simply not viable. . .
The Perryman Group’s analysis indicates that the undocumented workforce has a positive effect on the economy. It is becoming more and more apparent that Dr. Keivan Deravi, an economics  professor at AUM and budget adviser to the Legislature, was right, HB56 “wasn’t supported by facts and wasn’t based on real economic theories and research.”
The Cause and Effect lesson will become very clear when, the second most asked question in Alabama, right behind “Where are your papers” is, “Where are our profits?”

Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal (Part 2) by Chuck McGlawn

An unsigned e-mail, “Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal”, has been floating around the internet for a few years. It is a metaphor for all the legal families and all he illegal families in the US. The Message, Illegal Immigration hurts YOU and YOUR FAMILY.

The e-mail starts with: You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California.

The premise: Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted. Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

This premise is followed by comparisons in the results that lead the reader to the conclusion that indeed, Illegal Immigration hurts YOU and YOUR FAMILY.

However, Logic teaches that if your “premise” is correct, and your logic is correct your conclusions will be correct.  However if your “premise” is correct, and your logic is incorrect your conclusions will be incorrect. Surprisingly if your “premise” is incorrect, and your logic is incorrect, you do not know if your conclusions are incorrect or not. Lastly, if your “premise” is INCORRECT, and your logic is correct your conclusions will be INCORRECT

In Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal the premise is INCORRECT, it states that Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table."

That is not true, says Mark Kirkorian, the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies [This is an organization that not only
vigorously opposes illegal immigration they oppose the high level of legal immigration. On their web site they admit that, “The data collected by the Center during the past quarter-century has led many of our researchers to conclude that current, high levels of immigration are making it harder to achieve such important national objectives as better public schools, a cleaner environment, homeland security, and a living wage for every native-born and immigrant worker.”]

During a debate at the Cato Institute Kikorian said, “Most illegal immigrants work ON THE BOOKS (Emphasis added) They’ve given a fake or a stolen Social Security number…” This means they are paying the same Income Taxes that Joe Legal pays, with no hope of getting a refund check if they overpay. This also means that they are paying the same Social Security Taxes as Joe Legal. (Please remember whatever is taken out of Jose Illegal’s pay is matched by their employer, and sent to the Federal Government.) Jose Illegal does this with no hope of ever collecting any social security money. It means that their Social Security payment goes to the government, and the government uses the money to cover current Social Security checks (maybe yours).

You can see the debate at http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=7334. I invite you to watch the entire debate, but you can hear the above quote soon after the 45 min. mark.

So when the E-Mail says, “Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.0 0 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

That is not true Mark Kirkorian, the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies says, “Most illegal immigrants work ON THE BOOKS (Emphasis added)

Jose Illegal may earn less but working ON THE BOOKS he is subject to the same laws as Joe Legal.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

That is not true Mark Kirkorian, the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies says, “Most illegal immigrants work ON THE BOOKS (Emphasis added)

There are laws covering mandatory group coverage for full time workers if the company employees a certain number of employees. The law covers everyone. However, since Jose Illegal has given an invalid or stolen Social Security number in order to work on the books, his vital medical history is being stored under someone else’s name. So, if the US ever adopts a realistic guest worker program Jose Illegal will not have the benefit of a medical history when receiving future medical services.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has 9,631 .00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.

That is not true Mark Kirkorian, the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies says, “Most illegal immigrants work ON THE BOOKS (Emphasis added)

If you do not see by now that the author of the e-mail has an agenda. STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. He may truly believe immigration is destructive, but he is wrong. Almost all economists agree that immigration, both legal and illegal provide a NET GAIN to the US.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc..

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month..

This statement reveals the authors agenda. Remember the premise Jose Illegal’s parents, wife and kids are here in the US "consuming all of our free goodies", who does he have in his homeland to whom is he sending money???




I am not saying that no one is hurt by illegal immigration. It is bound to happen. I will say this when government involves itself in immigration control you will have distortions that are the source of the destructiveness.





Editors Note: All are invited to comment on what I have said in this article which goes out under my name. I can verify what I say. I cannot verify what you think I said.

Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal (Part 1) by Chuck McGlawn

An unsigned e-mail has been floating around the internet for a few years. Perhaps it has landed in your in-box a time or two, maybe a time or six. You are coaxed to open the e-mail  by the Subject, “Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal” Even if you do not read the entire e-mail the message it conveys becomes very clear, very soon. That very clear message being, “Illegal Immigration hurts YOU and YOUR FAMILY”. The heading just above the comparisons reads, “DO YOU THINK THIS IS FAIR? THIS IS YOU, THE LEGAL”. That statement casts you as Joe Legal. If you read the entire e-mail you will see that “Joe Legal” and “Jose Illegal” are metaphors for all the legal families and all he illegal families in the US.

The e-mail starts with: You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California.

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

Seems very clear Jose Illegal is not paying his fair share of the Income Taxes. However, a closer look will reveal that Jose Illegal is responsible for MORE INCOME TAXES not less. The more taxes that Jose Illegal is responsible for are Federal Income Taxes

If Jose paid income tax he would pay the lowest rate of 15%. Fifteen percent of $15.00 is $2.25. That means Jose would pay $2.25X40 hours. That would net the Federal Government $90.00 per week or $4,680.00 per year.

However, by working off the books at $15.00 per hour, Jose he adds $10.00 for every hour he works to the profit of the job on which he is working. His boss pays the highest tax bracket of 35%. Thirty five percent of $10.00 that Jose adds to the profit from the job is $3.50. So, by being paid under the table Jose actually generates an extra $1.25 in Federal income tax revenue for every hour he works. That would be $1.25X40 hours=$50.00 per week, times 52 weeks =$2,600 per year. Multiply that by the 12,000,000 illegals $31.2 billion. Look closer at statistics about illegal immigration, a few are true, a few are false, most are only half true. And the half-truths are the ones that really mislead.

Who You Gonna Believe The Undocumented E-Mail or Your Lying Eyes. By Chuck McGlawn

Distorting the effect of immigration on the US Economy is no difficult task. All it requires is an uninformed populace, (No shortage there.) a bump up in unemployment, (Even if the bump-up is localized.) and a shrinking press looking for a scandal to report, (Unemployed news writers are plentiful.) and up pops a Cottage Industry of forwarding e-mails, and You-Tube videos about some isolated stories about the horrors of immigration. You know this you have received them and you have become part of the transmission belt by forwarding them. 

Some of the stories you get are the truth, some are half-truths and some are outright fabrications. Many if not most are the effects observed in an isolated place by a single individual that may have an agenda and he may see things and report his observations in a way that supports that agenda. Let me invite you to look at a more complete picture. 

Giovanni Peri an associate professor at the University of California, Davis, and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has conducted comprehensive research on “The Effect of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity” His research covered the effects of immigration on the total output and income of the U.S. economy. 

This is accomplished by comparing output per worker and employment in states that have had large immigrant inflows with data from states that have few new foreign-born workers.

Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that:

Ø    Immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity.

Ø      Stimulate investment.

Ø      Promote specialization.

This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker. At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers.

Immigration in recent decades has significantly increased the presence of foreign-born workers in the United States. The impact of these immigrants on the U.S. economy is a mixed bag hotly debated.

Ø      Some stories in the popular press suggest that immigrants diminish the job opportunities of workers born in the United States.

Ø      Others portray immigrants as filling essential jobs that are shunned by other workers.

Economists who have analyzed local labor markets have mostly failed to find large effects of immigrants on employment and wages of U.S.-born workers (see Borjas 2006; Card 2001, 2007, 2009; and Card and Lewis 2007).

The information that follows summarizes recent research by Peri (2009) and Peri and Sparber (2009) examining the impact of immigrants on the broader U.S. economy.

Ø      These studies systematically analyze how immigrants affect total output.

Ø      Income per worker.

Ø      Employment in the short and long run.

Consistent with previous research, the analysis finds no significant effect of immigration on net job growth for U.S.-born workers in these time horizons. This suggests that the economy absorbs immigrants by expanding job opportunities rather than by displacing workers born in the United States.

 

At the state level, the presence of immigrants is associated with increased output per worker. This effect emerges in the medium to long run as businesses adjust their physical capital, that is, equipment and structures, to take advantage of the labor supplied by new immigrants. Finally, immigration is associated with an increase in average hours per worker and a reduction in skills per worker as measured by the share of college-educated workers in a state. These two effects have opposite and roughly equal effect on labor productivity.

Immigration effects on employment, income, and productivity vary by occupation, job, and industry. Nonetheless, it is possible to total these effects to get an aggregate economic impact. Here we attempt to quantify the aggregate gains and losses for the U.S. economy from immigration. If the average impact on employment and income per worker is positive, this implies an aggregate “surplus” from immigration. In other words, the total gains accruing to some U.S.-born workers are larger than the total losses suffered by others. (It is from “losses suffered by others” group that all the negative stories are generated.)

First, there is no evidence that immigrants crowd out U.S.-born workers in either the short or long run. Data on U.S.-born worker employment imply small effects, with estimates never statistically different from zero. The impact on hours per worker is similar. We observe insignificant effects in the short run and a small but significant positive effect in the long run. At the same time, immigration reduces somewhat the skill intensity of workers in the short and long run because immigrants have a slightly lower average education level than U.S.-born workers.

Second, the positive long-run effect on income per U.S.-born worker accrues over some time. In the short run, small insignificant effects are observed. Over the long run, however, a net inflow of immigrants equal to 1% of employment increases income per worker by 0.6% to 0.9%. This implies that total immigration to the United States from 1990 to 2007 was associated with a 6.6% to 9.9% increase in real income per worker. That equals an increase of about $5,100 in the yearly income of the average U.S. worker in constant 2005 dollars. Such a gain equals 20% to 25% of the total real increase in average yearly income per worker registered in the United States between 1990 and 2007.

 

So please, stop with the stories of your next door neighbor’s Uncle’s School teacher’s brother in law lost his dry walling job to an immigrant. Because it is just as true or just as false, that my cousin’s exercise instructor’s room mate’s brother replaced an immigrant at a Hardware Store job.

The third result is that the long-run increase in income per worker associated with immigrants is mainly due to increases in the efficiency and productivity of state economies. This effect becomes apparent in the medium to long run. Such a gradual response of productivity is accompanied by a gradual response of capital intensity. While in the short run, physical capital per unit of output is decreased by net immigration, in the medium to long run, businesses expand their equipment and physical plant proportionally to their increase in production.

How can these patterns be explained? 

The effects identified above can be explained by adjustments businesses make over time that allow them to take full advantage of the new immigrant labor supply. These adjustments, including upgrading and expanding capital stock, provide businesses with opportunities to expand in response to hiring immigrants.

This process can be analyzed at the state level (see Peri and Sparber 2009). The analysis begins with the well-documented phenomenon that U.S.-born workers and immigrants tend to take different occupations. Among less-educated workers, those born in the United States tend to have jobs in manufacturing or mining, while immigrants tend to have jobs in personal services and agriculture. Second, within industries and specific businesses, immigrants and U.S.-born workers tend to specialize in different job tasks. Because those born in the United States have relatively better English language skills, they tend to specialize in communication tasks. Immigrants tend to specialize in other tasks, such as manual labor. Just as in the standard concept of comparative advantage, this results in specialization and improved production efficiency. 

Figure 1
Communication/manual skills among less-educated U.S.-born workers

Sorry the graph did not copy.

Note: The data on average communication/manual skills by state are from Peri and Sparber (2009), obtained from the manual and communication intensity of occupations, weighted according to the distributional occupation of U.S.-born workers.

If these patterns are driving the differences across states, then in states where immigration has been heavy, U.S.-born workers with less education should have shifted toward more communication-intensive jobs. Figure 1 shows exactly this. The share of immigrants among the less educated is strongly correlated with the extent of U.S.-born worker specialization in communication tasks. Each point in the graph represents a U.S. state in 2005. In states with a heavy concentration of less-educated immigrants, U.S.-born workers have migrated toward more communication-intensive occupations. Those jobs pay higher wages than manual jobs, so such a mechanism has stimulated the productivity of workers born in the United States and generated new employment opportunities.

To better understand this mechanism, it is useful to consider the following hypothetical illustration. As young immigrants with low schooling levels take manually intensive construction jobs, the construction companies that employ them have opportunities to expand. This increases the demand for construction supervisors, coordinators, designers, and so on. Those are occupations with greater communication intensity and are typically staffed by U.S.-born workers who have moved away from manual construction jobs. This complementary task specialization typically pushes U.S.-born workers toward better-paying jobs, enhances the efficiency of production, and creates jobs. This task specialization, however, may involve adoption of different techniques or managerial procedures and the renovation or replacement of capital equipment. Hence, it takes some years to be fully realized. 

Conclusions

The U.S. economy is dynamic, shedding and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. Businesses are in a continuous state of flux. The most accurate way to gauge the net impact of immigration on such an economy is to analyze the effects dynamically over time. Data show that, on net, immigrants expand the U.S. economy’s productive capacity, stimulate investment, and promote specialization that in the long run boosts productivity. Consistent with previous research, there is no evidence that these effects take place at the expense of jobs for workers born in the United States.

References

Borjas, George J. 2006. “Native Internal Migration and the Labor Market Impact of Immigration.” Journal of Human Resources 41(2), pp. 221–258.

Card, David. 2001. “Immigrant Inflows, Native Outflows, and the Local Labor Market Impacts of Higher Immigration.” Journal of Labor Economics 19(1), pp. 22–64.

Card, David. 2007. “How Immigration Affects U.S. Cities.” University College London, Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration Discussion Paper 11/07.

Card, David. 2009. “Immigration and Inequality.” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 99(2), pp. 1–21.

Card, David, and Ethan Lewis. 2007. “The Diffusion of Mexican Immigrants during the 1990s: Explanations and Impacts.” In Mexican Immigration to the United States, ed. George J. Borjas. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Peri, Giovanni, and Chad Sparber. 2009. “Task Specialization, Immigration, and Wages.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1(3), pp. 135–169.

Peri, Giovanni. 2009. “The Effect of Immigration on Productivity: Evidence from U.S. States.” NBER Working Paper 15507.

You Can Deny Individual Rights, but do not call it The Rule of Law

by Chuck McGlawn 9/18/10

There is a phrase that has drifted into common use, no, it has exploded, into common use. It is a phrase that forty years ago its application would have been welcomed, and would have been celebrated by Conservatives, Right-Wingers and Libertarians alike. But, forty years ago Conservatives, Right-Wingers and Libertarians were almost just one group. That was forty years ago. Before we get into that phrase, let us take a brief look at that same “Conservative, right-wing and libertarian” landscape.

Today the conservative movement has grown so large that they now include some special interest Conservatives. The conservatives have divided themselves into three very distinct but very much overlapping factions. There are the, I guess we will have to call them the Old-Conservatives. They adhere to the basic conservative beliefs. They oppose high taxes, foreign aid, corporate and social welfare, farm subsidies and government regulations. They are strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution. These Conservatives call themselves “Small Government Conservatives”.

The small government conservatives typified by the motto of The John Birch Society. One of the earliest and defining conservative organizations. Robert Welch, the founder and President of The John Birch Society said in the Blue Book, “The motto can be summed up in just five words less government and more responsibility”.

The small government conservatives could merge quite easily with libertarians and right-wingers. [The regular readers of this Liberty ViewsLetter know that the historic definition of right-winger is an advocate of less government.] This means small government conservatives, libertarians and right-wingers are still largely just one group. The other two conservatives groups still adhere too many of those small government planks, with a few planks added.

Let us call the second group of conservatives the, “Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.” conservatives. The additional planks they add to the conservative platform are “Be ready for war with Iran” plank, They functions as if the Iranians are on the verge of having nuclear weapon capability, with a burgeoning ballistic missal delivery system so that they will soon be able to lob the big one onto New York or Washington DC. This is, of coarse a slight exaggeration.

A close corollary to that plank is the “close the borders”, because “every job done by an illegal is a job stolen from an American.” AND, “with open borders the Iranians do not have to wait for a missal delivery system to be developed, they can just carry suitcase nukes across the ‘open border’, and BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, goodbye to San Diego, Phoenix and Dallas.” The libertarians, and right-wing (those who are advocates of less government) would not mesh too well with these brands of conservatives.

The third wing of the conservative movement is, (and remember there is much overlapping.) the “Religious Conservatives”. Therefore, some of each of the other groups adheres to some of the planks that are added by the religious conservatives. The religious conservatives add to the platform these planks: “no abortion”, “no stem cell research” and “marriage is to be defined as being between one man and one woman”.

Now The Phrase

The phrase to which I refer is “The Rule of Law” Now I am very familiar with the term. I and many conservatives have been using it for decades to describe man’s natural or God given rights. The concept of the “Rule of law” plays heavily in any understanding and any explanation of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. The line from the Declaration that says, “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights… to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” And that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness were man’s natural rights. The basics of the Rule of Law.

I am not alone in this appraisal.

“These unwritten principles of equality, autonomy, dignity, and respect are said to transcend ordinary written laws that are enacted by government. Sometimes known as natural law or higher law theory.”
(see) http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Rule_of_Law

“Natural Law, the unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed. Natural law is often contrasted with positive law or statutes, which consists of the written rules and regulations enacted by government.” (see) http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Natural_Law)

The Rule of Law

“…maxim states that men should not be trusted to rule others unless their rule is tempered by fixed laws that prevent tyranny. Laws that prevent individuals from accumulating wealth by force, laws that prevent those in high office from exercising power over the populace without restraint, laws that prevent the majority from acting without a due regard for the rights and well-being of individuals, laws that prevent the powerful from plundering the weak. The Rule of Law is what our heroes died for in past wars for liberty.” “…not the cruel edicts of tyrant dictators or divine right decrees of kings -- is the bedrock of human justice, the philosophical cornerstone of these United States, and the foundation of hope for all mankind.” (Emphasis added)
(see) http://lilt.ilstu.edu/rrpope/rrpopepwd/articles/definition.html

You may have heard it said of America,

"Ours is a nation of laws. We are ruled by laws, not men.’ What does this mean? Before America was born, men and women were ruled by kings who claimed the right to rule, who changed the law to suit their every whim. This was considered intolerable by our founding fathers; That, no written law may be enforced by the government unless it conforms with certain unwritten, universal principles of fairness, morality, and justice that transcend human legal systems.”

That is what was meant by the Rule of Law.(see) http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Rule_of_Law

Recently, we have seen the phrase “Rule of Law”, used to describe and justify the most egregious acts of majorities against minorities. To demonize and vilify men and women that come to this country to make for themselves a better life in pursuit of happiness. Men and women who just want the opportunity for nothing more than to make our beds and mow our lawns.

In the America, that I know and love the “Rule of Law” once described a revolutionary change in man’s relationship with his government. It represented a giant step forward in the evolution of mankind that was the point of demarcation from the brutal “might makes right”, and the dictatorial “Devine right of Kings”, into a whole new paradigm that man was capable of self government. And the Might makes Right and the divine right of Kings were consigned to the “Trash Heap” of history. That man had RIGHTS, inalienable rights that came to him by just being born. And, that man himself could create governments and limit that government to just protecting man’s inalienable rights.

I am saddened to say, that many conservatives are duped. They have abandoned their traditional moral values that respect life, liberty and property. They have abandoned the principles of the Rule of Law and God-given rights as recognized by the Declaration of Independence, and have turned their backs to the Rule of Law and instead embraced the interventionism of socialist central planning and the expanded intrusive State. And they have ignominiously chosen the phrase “Rule of Law” as the banner under which they march. To those conservatives, I invite a visit to and a more thoughtful reading of the Declaration of Independence.

To these misguided conservatives I offer this gently remind that George Orwell’s “Doublethink” means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. This means you will not be able to limit our government to the adherence to The Rule of Law as understood by our Founding Fathers, while advocating the most blatant laws that enable the majority to act without a due regard for the rights and well-being of individuals.

With the conversion of our once proud Republic into an unbridled Democracy, you can deny individuals there God Given “unalienable rights” by simple statutes, but please do not call it “The Rule of Law”.

Immigration Cause & Effect May be Rearing its Head

by Chuck McGlawn
From Phoenix comes, “Go away”, say the proponents of SB 1070 they argue that the exodus of illegal immigrants can only help Arizona's economy. Najmuddin Katchi sees it differently. The shopping center that holds his small shop is almost empty. The Food City supermarket closed this spring, then the furniture shop, then the pizzeria. The giant apartment complex across the street, once brimming with tenants, is two-thirds vacant. Katchi is behind on his store rent, lamenting that, after the 29th of July, “Maybe I have to close the store." His customers, mostly Latino immigrants, are packing to leave the state before the nation's toughest law against illegal immigrants takes effect July 29.

It's hard to determine how much of the neighborhood's woes stem from Arizona's immigration laws and how much from the state's economy, battered by a once red-hot housing marked that cooled. Katchi's says, “Revenue was already sagging before April 23”, but since SB 1070 was signed into law, sales have plummeted.

Bob Dane, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, in Washington, which argues for stricter immigration standards and estimates that illegal immigrants cost Arizona taxpayers $2.5 billion annually. But, it's hard to get solid data on illegal immigrants and the economy. A 2007 report from the Congressional Budget Office that reviewed 29 studies labeled as "modest" the burden on state budgets.

Judith Gans of the University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, say “even people whose families use more government services than they pay in taxes still help the economy. In a 2008 study, she found that Arizona immigrants contributed $29 billion annually to the state economy, representing about 8% of its activity. When immigrants leave, Gans said, "stores experience dramatic drops in sales. Apartment owners who rent to immigrants have high vacancy rates and risk losing their buildings. Legal workers or renters or consumers don't generally step in quickly enough to prevent these businesses from experiencing real additional hardship."No one has measured the effect of SB 1070 on businesses, or the number of immigrants it has prompted to leave Arizona. But merchants say the repercussions are clear — not just in how it's prompted many families to leave the state, but scared others enough to curtail their regular activities. "The economy's already bad, but SB 1070 is like a bullet in the head to us," said Osameh Odeh, 35, whose Eden Wear clothing store was empty. I have laid off workers and don't pay his utility bills until the day they come due. Additionally, Odeh is a resident of the middle-class suburb of Gilbert and has cut back his purchases at home. Edgar Vela lives in another comfortable suburb, but his ability to spend money at home hinges on the success of his Salvadoran restaurant at 43rd and Thomas, La Pupusa Loca. He just closed his neighboring bakery last week and has laid off six employees. His daughters, both doctors, now come in on weekends to work the floor.The impact spreads, Vela was told that the breadwinner renters in Vela’s rental property had been arrested by Arpaio's deputies, and they could no longer pay the rent. The bank foreclosed on Vela’s rental house.

Faviola Davenport, 42, owns 3Girlz Retail across the street from Vela's restaurant. Davenport, who emigrated legally from Mexico 23 years ago, expects she will close the shop next month. Davenport said that if the law takes effect she will probably abandon Arizona as well. SB 1070's supporters say legal residents like Davenport have nothing to fear from the law, which bans racial profiling. But earlier this year, Davenport said, she was stopped by a police officer on her way to work. She said the officer did not believe she was in the country legally and warned that he could refer her to immigration authorities for deportation.THE CAUSE Davenport said "They don't want Mexicans," THE EFFECT "So we'll leave."

Nine States & The Liberty ViewsLetter Backs Arizona on Immigration

BUT Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox Doesn’t Get It

By Chuck McGlawn 07/15/2010

Disclaimer: I personally think that Arizona and the other nine States have made a bad decision concerning immigration. Please read on.

In an article by Associated Press Jul 15 (see http://tinyurl.com/Liberty-ViewsLetter-285A) David Runk reports that Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox ( I do not think he gets it) said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states that will be supporting Arizona's immigration law.

The Liberty ViewsLetter, along with all supporters of Liberty, could also support this approach to immigration. We have always said here that Immigration question is answerable only by individual States. The Thirteen original States insisted on having that power here at the time of Constitutional ratification.

Additionally, logic dictates that Washington DC could never know the population needs of all of the thirteen original States, or all of the 50 existing States.

The Constitution wisely denied the US Congress power over Immigration. Framers made it very clear in Article 1 Section 8 that Congress only had the power, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” not immigration. That is correct gentle reader the Constitution granted to Congress no power over immigration.

With that said, let me quickly say I think Arizona and the other nine States have made a bad decision. I think it is especially bad for Michigan. Michigan is going through a greater economic decline than most other States. Therefore, Michigan NEEDS CHEAP LABOR, more than any other State, even if that immigration happens to displaces Michigan workers, which studies show does not happen. The only exception is among high school dropouts.

The New Migrant Worker Policy This Could Spawn
If the ten States are successful in establishing State authority over Immigration, then it would also follow that the other States would have the same authority. In other words migrant workers could not work in any State that did not allow it, but could work in States that did allowed it. Just for the sake of discussion, let us say that the State Government of Alabama was the only State that passed a law that invited migrant workers. The State could put any kind of restrictions it wanted: the length of stay, what kind of jobs they could take, who they could bring along and the kinds of Social Services to which the migrants could apply. One mandate would be the migrant must secure round-trip passage to a the State and return passage to their Nation of origin. Upon entry to the State, the migrant would surrender the return passage to the Nation of origin. It would be understood that flagrant violations of the State imposed restrictions or State and or City Statutes could trigger a deportation hearing. The outcome of this hearing could lead to a sentence of a probation period or outright deportation. We believe these restrictions and limitations would lead to compliance to the restrictions and laws leading to the mutual benefit of both the State and the worker.

If it is, as I suspect, the State would experience a rise in the economic output. Even if the migrants were doing no other kind of work than standing outside of Home Depot and being picked up to do minor repair work for an unskilled homeowner. This activity would increase the sale of hammers, saws, lumber, nails, bricks, etc would start the economic growth process.

Some Handyman Services may experience a brief downturn. However, the smartest among them would begin going to the Home Depot for laborers. They would be able to reduce their bids for work that needs done. Lower bids would increase the demand for more work and thus the sale of more hammers, saws, lumber, nails, bricks, add to the list PVC pipe sprinkler heads, timing devices, cement, energy saving double pain windows, granite counter tops recessed lighting etc would accelerate the economic growth process.

This is just the first round. The second round would manifest itself in the hiring of more clerks at the Home Depot to accommodate increased sales. Those newly hired clerks will stop collecting unemployment compensation, reducing the State Budget. The newly hired clerks would be taking their paychecks and buying clothes, shoes, CDs, IPhones, movie tickets TVs, etc. be taking their wages and spending it.

The third round of the economic growth process occurs as property values begin to rise, pushing up property taxes that can be used to fund better schools or reduce the need for other taxes to pay for State Programs.

The forth round will come when a neighboring State decides to compete for some of that CHEAP LABOR and then we will see that economic growth process spread across State lines.

We have ignored the fact that the move that is taking place will allow the ten States to reject migration. While that alone is not a good thing, but creating a situation where other States, including the ten, will have the power to encourage immigration, well that is a good thing. And one thing that will die in this move are the fabricated or annectidoal stories about how migration is a net lose to any State that encourages migration, and at the same time discourage providing social services to migrants.

“States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders,” said, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox Wednesday in a legal brief filed on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law. We believe that to be true, and the corollary is that States have the right to encourage migration.

However, in this instance one need only scratch the surface to learn what pushes Cox in this direction, he is one of five Republicans running for the office of Michigan governor. It is a sad day when a candidate for Governor of a major State is using racism to attract voters in this highly charged environment. And I hope he is successful. Because if the National Government’s lawsuit prevails, saying that in essence it is the responsibility of the National Government to set immigration Laws. This is truly a, lose lose situation. Either the National Government will usurp another power over the States or the States will have the power to use racism to limit liberty. The silver lining is that States will have the authority to decide.

The Declaration of Independence: Solution to the Immigration Problem

by Chuck McGlawn
If the Declaration of Independence was the Mission Statement for our National Government, (and I think it was.) then immigration would be a question for each individual State.

It seems as if our National Constitution recognized that aspect. Here is a Constitutional sandwich dealing with the powers of Congress, on both sides of our National Government’s power over immigration. The Constitution says, “…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, (not immigration) and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures…” (Emphasis added) That is correct gentle reader the Constitution granted to Congress no power over immigration.

Please remember what the Declaration of Independence said about the Power of the National Government, it was, “to secure” man’s natural rights that, “governments are instituted among men, deriving its just powers from the governed.” Now, take yourself back to 1781 for the ratification of the Articles of Confederation. Take yourself back to 1789 for the Ratification of the Constitution; you lived in one of the thirteen States, and under the jurisdiction of that State. Did you as a citizen of, let us say Georgia have ANY power to dictate the immigration policies of the State of New Hampshire? Of course, you did not. Moreover, since governments, “deriving its just powers from the governed” it only follows that the only State to which to which you had any power over the immigration policies would be Georgia.

Now, let us say that Connecticut and Massachusetts both having similar economic circumstances. In addition, Connecticut opted for easy entry and easy come and goes to migrants, while Massachusetts took a hard line on migration, with more and more border guards, and stiff penalties for people who hired migrants. This would be a huge cause and effect learning lesson for each State’s Administrators. Other States would also learn from the experience

With the Declaration of Independence as the Mission Statement for our National Government, when the law passed granting the National Government the authority to establish a Social Security Administration the Supreme Court would have had to deliberate for about 30 seconds before declaring a National Social Security unconstitutional. Without a National Social Security, migrants would no entitlement on which to make a claim. However, if New Hampshire and Georgia had a form of Social Security safety net, then you could take whatever steps necessary to prevent migrants from collecting Social Security benefits.

With the Declaration of Independence as the Mission Statement for our National Government, education would be administered at the State level. Each State would either choose a tax supported Public School system, or leave education to privately owned schools brought into existence by the free market, or a combination of both. State Administrators would decide who attends and who does not attend Public Schools. Additionally, State Administrators may pass that decision down to the County level. In smaller School Districts, efficiencies and inefficiencies would reveal themselves faster and more completely.

Almost everyone agrees that our National Government exercised too much power over individuals. Almost everyone agrees that our National Government has usurped power from the States and from the people of those States. With the Declaration of Independence as the Mission Statement for our National Government, that usurpation would not have taken place. This means the current problem of migrants overloading our emergency rooms would not exist if we did not have a too powerful and too dictatorial National Government to control admission procedures to privately owned hospitals. This means the current problem of migrants signing up for the IRS “Earned Income Tax Credit” would not exist without a too powerful National Government to create an Internal Revenue Service. This means the current problem of migrants bring their children and overloading our school system would not exist without a too powerful National Government to dictate admission procedures to State funded tax supported or privately owned Schools.

With the Declaration of Independence as the Mission Statement for our National Government, States would be competing with all the other States for populations. State Governments call populations the “Tax Base”. Therefore, with competition being what it is, no State could ignore such a powerful impetus to State growth or to State stagnation, and State Administrators would learn in short order, which the migrants produced.

A Philosophical Libertarian on Immigration by Chuck McGlawn

Before we build the Berlin Wall across our southern border with Mexico. Answer this question “What harm does Juan do when he comes to the US and takes a job?” I can hear the answers now. They include the following:

• Their children overload our educational system. They lower our educational standards and test scores. They force tax payers to cough up more money to build additional schools.
• They overload and cause the closing of our Hospital emergency rooms.
• They qualify for Social Security benefits and threaten to destroy the system.
• They qualify for and sign up for the IRS “Low income tax credit, to list just a few.

Please note that these are the very institutions and systems, government schools, taxpayer paid medical services, Social Security and the IRS, that the conservatives and the right wing have been trying to dismantle for decades.

If you ask the question, “What harm does Juan do when he comes to the US and takes a job?” make sure the answer given is harm that Juan does, and not a harm that WE THE PEOPLE have built into our system.

Another question I would ask is, “What is it that makes a rat-trap anything other than just a piece of wood and some wire?” The answer is the cheese. If we take away the cheese, we stop attracting RATS. As for Mexicans who have marketable skills, like the ability to repair refrigerators, or transmissions, or can build fences, lay brick, or even mow and make our yards look better, and can save us money in the process, money that we go out and spend on other things that create other jobs, then I say welcome neighbor.

The opposition is quick to jump in with, “but we need to protect the jobs of our skilled laborers”. That protectionist policy has all but destroyed our automobile and steel industries. Tariffs that reduced the importation of these items, forced the extra-national auto and steel companies to become more efficient to make their product even more attractive, while giving our domestic producers a free pass on meeting competition. This continued until the disparity in the respective products became so great that the pressure to reduce tariffs swept through Congress to the detriment of the domestic producer.

Just like protectionist tariffs harmed American buyers, forcing higher prices. A wall or fence or more border guards will cause Americans to pay higher prices than is available for labor, and will have the same effect.

If you ask the question, “What is it that makes a rat-trap anything other than just a piece of wood and some wire?” Make sure the opposition still wants to limit immigration after we have removed all the cheese.

My own unique approach is based on my interpretation of the Declaration of Independence. I take the Declaration as the Mission Statement of the US Government. To paraphrase it, all humankind has the right to move about the planet in “pursuit of happiness”. Therefore, the National government does not have the authority to limit immigration. States, on the other hand, can put limitations on immigration. This step would answer the question as to whether immigration is a net gain or a net loss. I believe the Mexicans with marketable skills would migrate to the states that provide opportunity, and the RATS would migrate to the States that provided the cheese, and the US would get a huge lesson in “cause and effect”.

Lastly, when I hear someone say, “But we are a nation of laws, I am not against legal immigration, if they would just follow the LAW.” I have this powerful urge to ask that person, “If a law were passed that made stupid a crime would you turn yourself in for prosecution?