From 1 to 25 of 28 Comments

1. 1. May 17, 2006 6:22 pm Link

   What this otherwise thoughtful statement fails to add to the discourse, is that we should encourge free markets in those “emerging economies” — where many of the least educated immigrants are fleeing from.

   Our policies should promote market economies, the rule of law, and freedom around the world.

   This will have a beneficial impact not only on the U.S. economy, but on economies, and human rights where it is most needed.

   — www.acsh.org
2. 2. May 17, 2006 7:10 pm Link

   Alex Tabarrok’s open letter is useless, since it does not differentiate between legal and illegal immigration.

   No one is making the argument that legal, well-chosen, pro-assimilation immigrants are net economic benefits to the country.

   What is being disputed is whether many millions of self-chosen, low-skilled, at best marginally assimilationist *illegal* aliens are good for the economy.

   Answer: they obviously aren’t.

   The pro-illegal immigration side doesn’t have many good arguments, so they often try to confuse people by conflating legal and illegal immigration.

   But I don’t wonder that Dr. Levitt has bought into the all-groups-of-immigrants-are-the-same argument, since he wrote last week how soccer stars are made, not born, when nature certainly has something to say on the issue.

   He’s a blank slater. I think of him now as the greatest Soviet Economist circa 1985 must be viewed by historians: eventually, people find out the world isn’t flat, and then you’re just another palm-reader.

   — Bill L. Lloyd
3. 3. May 17, 2006 7:35 pm Link

   Re the last part of my comment: Sorry Mr. Levitt, I didn’t realize it was Mr. Dubner that made that last post. I apologize.

   But again: Tabarrok’s letter doesn’t delineate between the effects of *legal* and *illegal* immigration on the economy.

   Lots of studies point one way and lots point the other. But Mr. Tabarrok is trying to make it sound like economists have reached a consensus on *illegal* immigration being a net benefit to the economy, which is not the case. If it were the case, he would’ve said so.

   — Bill L. Lloyd
4. 4. May 17, 2006 8:08 pm Link

   Don’t you guys ever feel embarrassed that you have absolutely nothing to say about every single substantive issue in economics or policy (war in Iraq, outsourcing, immigration, minimum wage, farm subsidies, interest rates, etc.)

   Don’t you ever blush even a teensy weensy bit that you have so much to say about sumo wrestling, Seth Roberts, etc. but nada to say about the issues that really matter?

   — south(west)paw
5. 5. May 17, 2006 8:08 pm Link

   I have to agree with Mr. Lloyd, and I sent an email to Mr. Taborrok addressing the same issue. No where in his open letter to the President of our great country does he use the word “illegal”.

   We all know the importance of immigration, and as a matter of fact, if it weren’t for immigration, the majority of us would not be here.

   We do not have an immigration problem. We DO have an ILLEGAL immigration problem.

   How can people who do not have a voice in the direction of our political process (through voting), and do not contribute financially to support services that they utilize (health care, civil protection, etc.) have a positive influence on our economy?

   I don’t see how they can.

   -Grant

   — Grant
6. 6. May 17, 2006 9:21 pm Link

   Right, Grant. You hear it so casually in the media all the time: “immigration is the hot issue,” “Americans are divides on immigration,” “immigration could tear apart the Republican Party”.

   This is all false. Legal immigration is a minor issue in this country. *Illegal immigration* is becoming the most important issue in the country.

   For instance, take Mr. Dubner’s headline “What Do Economists Have to Say About Immigration?”

   Mr. Tabarrok uses the term “immigration” no matter whether he means “legal immigration,” “illegal immigration,” or “both”. Mr. Dubner’s headline follows suit.

   Ah, words.

   — Bill L. Lloyd
7. 7. May 17, 2006 11:04 pm Link

   I agree with the other users who have left comments. I feel that, for the most part, America is very welcoming of people of other nationalities who come here, provided they will speak English in the work setting, will be nice and will not prove anymore criminal than our own.

   Yet, if someone comes over here illegally, they aren’t starting out on the right foot. And, unfortunately, the statistics show that it must not be too hard to come over; we award thousands and thousands of visas and citizenship to Hispanics annually. This doesn’t even begin to touch on the thousands from other countries. And people coming here illegally jeopardize the economy and the employment opportunities of both born-and-raised-here Americans and legal immigrants. I think the latter is the most tragic. I can think of nothing worse than trying to come here legally, only to find the illegal crowd is doing no better or worse than you are! I’d certainly want a refund for some of my application fees!

   Economically, health-wise, educationally and more, I think it comes down to this. Very few countries, if any, have a truly open door policy. Imagine if we tried to just go where we pleased, no passport, no visa, no will to learn a nation’s native language. Think we’d be welcomed with open arms? Think we would deserve to be?

   Sure we’re America, land of the free (har, har), but we have to first think of those who are already here legally; these are our people. As nice and rosy and “free loving” as it sounds to just let anyone in, we can’t do that in a nation of 300 million. We do have to be aware of the company we’re keeping.

   There’s no easy answer in this. For instance, children who have come here illegally often aren’t meaning any harm. Do we just throw them back to Mexico? Illegal adult men and women need to be judged more closely, however.

   As the others said, to try to lump illegal immigration in with legal immigration is asinine. Immigrants are wonderful additions to our huge American family. Criminals, something we have enough of on our own, are not.

   — leliathomas
8. 8. May 18, 2006 2:46 am Link

   I understand why people have a contention with the illegal vs. legal issue on immigration. This often ignores a historical perspective, however.

   Think about what is required to become a legal immigrant today, vs. 150 years ago. Would you agree there’s a difference? It used to be, if you could save up enough fair to cross over via ship from Europe, you would be stamped at Ellis island and entered into the U.S. Welcome to America.

   Does anyone believe it works like that anymore? There is a standard 3-year waiting list, which often requires the sponsorship of an employer or corporation. Foreigners working in high tech fields often get work visas relatively easy, due to the might and pull of corporate legal departments. Freelance manual or migrant laborers do not have that luxury. What corporate sponsor do they have? What legal department of dot com or Fortune 500 is ushering them into the country like so many well-respected ‘legals’ ?

   Nobody. The desperate and the destitute with families to feed are not going to wait three years on an entry list to feed their kids. You wouldn’t either.

   Yet another example where economics and economies drive the human and social/moral issues.

   With rampant xenophobia, protectionist mindsets about, people striking up vigilante crews to harass fence-crossers, and a proposed 3,000 mile fence passing in legislation I think a reality check is required. We’re building our own Berlin wall, with all it’s human, social, moral, and yes… economic consequences.

   Many who cheered the fall of the Berlin wall may be praising the wall going up on the U.S. - Mexico border. But wasn’t the lesson to be learned by all, that walls are bad for people and bad for economies?

   Looks like we get to learn again the hard way. If the drug runners can get through, so will the illegal immigrants.

   The complicated immigration process is the problem, along with a lack of awareness and information about what is required of people entering the country. It’s easier to hop a fence. You would do it too.

   For our forefathers, immigration was a simple process. Just show up. In 2006, that makes you a criminal.

   — Ericv
9. 9. May 18, 2006 7:41 am Link

   I totally agree with Mr. Tabarrok and Ericv above.

   Why does Bill forget that before pointing a finger at illegal immigrants, he needs to point a finger at big corporations and consumer products providers such as Walmart who hire more illegal immigrants than all others?

   Were it not for the wages dished out by Walmart, products and services would not have been as cheap for him today!

   — hnarsana
10. 10. May 18, 2006 8:53 am Link

    Think about what is required to become a legal immigrant today, vs. 150 years ago. Would you agree there’s a difference? It used to be, if you could save up enough fair to cross over via ship from Europe, you would be stamped at Ellis island and entered into the U.S. Welcome to America….

    For our forefathers, immigration was a simple process. Just show up. In 2006, that makes you a criminal.

    Where are you getting your history lesson from? People were still checked through Ellis Island. Their names were changed to be more “American” (my Irish ancestors had this happen). Do you realize just how “unfair” Ellis Island was? From the Wikipedia entry on it:

    “Many immigrants were tested for mental problems, physical problems and other illnesses. Those who were wealthy did not have to take these exams….In order to become a U.S. citizen, immigrants had to pass exams, including reading, writing, and a U.S. history exam.”

    Guess what? That’s a lot harder than hopping a fence, still. But is it right to just hop the fence?

    The complicated immigration process is the problem, along with a lack of awareness and information about what is required of people entering the country. It’s easier to hop a fence. You would do it too.

    For the record, I’m having to go through the bureaucracy of moving to another country myself, so I know it’s not bloody easy–not in the least. Yet if I just tried to go over, as you propose millions of people do when coming here, I’d be detained and questioned to the point of insanity, I’m sure, and with good reason. You can’t let crazy or hateful people into your country, if at all possible. This is why screening is important. There are enough of those born into a place naturally.

    — leliathomas
11. 11. May 18, 2006 10:37 am Link

    Now as I understand it, these illegal immigrants still put their children in our schools. Which means their education is paid by tax dollars.

    But they don’t report their taxes due to their being illegal immigrants.

    In fact, on NPR I remember hearing a report that the reason companies are hiring as many illegal immigrants as they are is due to the fact that they have fake social security cards, which makes it very difficult for companies to tell the difference.

    I don’t find think that inviting a million or so freeloaders that are willing to forge id’s and have demonstrated a willingness to profit by ignoring the law is good for any economy.

    — Aelstro
12. 12. May 18, 2006 11:28 am Link

    Aelstro said,

    “But they don’t report their taxes due to their being illegal immigrants.”

    Once they start forging papers and leaving a paper trail they inevitably have to pay into the system. Employers still have to take taxes out in paychecks–there is absolutely no way around this unless the workers are getting paid off the books.

    The ones getting paid off the books are usually migrants, or lowest of the manual labor jobs. They don’t have their families with them. So you can rest easy, the true ‘freeloaders’ aren’t putting their kids in school here, and milking our system.

    They’re working in the fields for a few dollars a day, so you can feel good about the cheap apple you ate at lunch. They usually send the money back home.

    In any case, the controversy doesn’t affect most people in the way they think it does. It’s not like an unwanted houseguest… they aren’t taking over your house or eating all the food, or leaving a mess for you.

    The only people with valid complaints like that are farmers near the border, who have to deal with their fences getting cut, damaged, and cattle getting out. Or cattle getting poked by the cut wires and causing wounds/infections in their livestock. They have a right to complain.

    I’m not sure why this stuff makes the rest of us feel so righteous, but… *sigh* what can ya do. That’s nationalism for ya.

    — Ericv
13. 13. May 18, 2006 11:42 am Link

    Ericv wrote:

    “sigh what can ya do. That’s nationalism for ya.”

    Well, we got to the heart of that quickly enough. Eric V. is against nationalism.

    But anyway, we’ve strayed on this thread. The original point was that Tabarrok is fudging his words to give the impression that, from a strictly economic point of view, economists have reached a consensus that *illegal* immigration is a net economic plus, which economists haven’t reached a consensus on.

    If they had, Tabarrok would’ve simply phrased their findings that way: “Illegal immigration is a net benefit to the United States’ economy”.

    Instead, he repeatedly just writes “immigration,” which means *legal immigration* in the studies he’s talking about, but, as Tabarrok knows, has come to include *illegal* immigration to people who hear the world.

    Like I said: Ah, words. But someone as smart as Dubner should be *clarifying* economists’ obfuscations, not passing them along.

    — Bill L. Lloyd
14. 14. May 18, 2006 12:19 pm Link

    Bill,

    My problem is that the legal vs. illegal distinction seems like a shallow front for other, less rational sentiments and agendas that have little or nothing to do with economics.

    My guess is the sentiment over illegality has very little to do with economics of any kind. Much like Freakonomics examination of abortion’s affect on crime.

    From a purely economic standpoint, illegal immigrants are taking the path of least resistance for economic gain, or a ‘rational self-interest.’

    Lots of other illegal activity happening every day in America. The legality issue is a debate that should probably be framed by degree, not kind.

    Are we talking about misdemeanor? Felony? How do you classify criminality of people who aren’t even citizens?

    The legal vs. illegal distinction only holds water if we’re talking about citizens bound by U.S. law.

    As far as the law is concerned, there is only one kind of immigrant. U.S. laws hold no weight over citizens from another country.

    So your concern over specifying legal vs. illegal seems to ignore the concept of jurisdiction when framing the debate from an economic PoV. Sorry. :)

    Law only applies to citizens bound by that law. All immigrants eventually become legal. Or they leave. Or they die. I’d like to assume that the economists who formed that ‘consensus’ were considering that when they framed it.

    I agree with you. We should clarify obsfucations of economists. But I suggest we go beyond just economists, and hold the same standards to everyone else as well.

    — Ericv
15. 15. May 18, 2006 1:06 pm Link

    Eric,

    The case against illegal immigration is so easy to make that people who wish to make it can make their points with clear, easy-to-follow arguments.

    The case for illegal immigration is so weak that people resort to tangents and red herrings like you do above.

    First you hint (if I’m reading you right; if not, please clarify) that people who claim the mantle of law and order when dealing with illegal immigration are really closet racists.

    Then you claim that illegal immigration isn’t a big deal because there’s “Lots of other illegal activity happening every day in America.”

    Then you ask how to “classify the criminality of people who aren’t even citizens,” and then claim that “U.S. laws hold no weight over citizens from another country”.

    I really don’t know what you’re talking about. The U.S. Congress has passed a law — along with every other parliamentary body in the world — making it illegal for a foreigner to be here without permission, and proscribing penalties for breaking that law. Not that complicated.

    So the question of whether an immigrant’s presence in the U.S. is legal or illegal is indeed and rather obviously crucial, both from a legal point of view and from the point of view of economists trying to figure out which kinds of immigration benefit a society and which don’t.

    If you really feel that “Law only applies to citizens bound by that law,” I suggest you go to Switzerland and rob a bank, then claim not to be bound by the laws of Switzerland when you’re taken to jail.

    — Bill L. Lloyd
16. 16. May 18, 2006 1:17 pm Link

    It’s interesting to follow the path that this topic has taken…

    Staying true to the Freakonomics theme:

    If you want to fix the problem completely, remove the incentive to cross the border illegally.

    If you knew that you absolutely could not get a job in this country without becoming a US citizen, what incentive would there be to cross the border in the first place?

    If you make it a crime to employ and compensate an illegal immigrant for labor or services, and you uphold the law with stiff penalties, why would you even need a wall at the border?

    — Grant
17. 17. May 18, 2006 2:52 pm Link

    Bill,

    I’ve got a simpler clarification.

    The consensus about immigration being net positive was considering immigration as a whole.

    It’s like studying the total economic benefit of the cars that exist in the world.

    You would be asking, “But what about legal vs. illegal (stolen) cars?”

    If all you’re doing is counting cars and measuring the benefit, the question of whether or not a car is stolen becomes irrelevant. A car is a car. A is A. Immigrant means immigrant.

    Legal vs. illegal is only important if the relative morality of the issue is important to you.

    Maybe it is. But that has nothing to do with net positive economic benefits, unless we’re talking specifically about taxes, social security, medicare–which we aren’t. Or the consensus wasn’t.

    Maybe the economists considered that, maybe they didn’t.

    A great reason why they wouldn’t consider those things in the consensus is the fact that most illegal immigrants who stay here eventually become legal citizens. And many illegals who intend to someday become legal citizens have forged papers, which means they end up paying into the system. And then they become legal someday, and continue paying into the system.

    Long term illegals are just legals-to-be. The bureaucratic nitpicking over status has little bearing on the economy. Classifications often have little bearing on the actual way the world works. They’re just labels. I think the economists who formed the consensus were aware that ‘illegal’ is just a label, and has nothing to do with the mechanics of economics itself.

    — Ericv
18. 18. May 18, 2006 4:27 pm Link

    Whoops. Don’t mean to intrude on a discussion, gents, but i couldn’t help notice your point about cars, Eric. You’re quite right about the notion that the economic benefit of cars taken as a whole makes no distinction between legal and stolen vehicles. However, from certain vantage points, the legal status of the cars is highly relevant, and so it is with immigration.

    Stolen cars transfer benefits from one group (those who own the cars) to another (the thieves). It may be correct that illiegal immigration is a net gain for everyone, when “everyone” includes Americans and illegal immigrants together. However, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a transfer of wealth or benefits from the first group to the second.

    Even if it does not negatively impact Americans as a whole, it certainly impacts the poorest class of Americans, as the value of unskilled labor declines. It is a remarkable feature of the economists’ letter that the solution to this problem is “to invest in our educational system,” as though somehow we haven’t been doing so. It’s not enough simply to say that we need to make these folks more competitive- a concrete & novel example of how this can be achieved would be far more persuasive.

    The trouble with measuring the costs and beenfits of illegals is that it’s hard to gauge the value of the labor they contrbute and, say, the payroll taxes that will never translate to pension obligations against the social services they partake in and the “under-the-table” wages they receive. However, the larger point about legal vs. illegal is about sovereignity. No one has the “right” to migrate from one nation to the next, and all peoples have the prerogative of restricting immigration to their respective countries.

    Personally, I’m in favor of more legal immigration, and in cutting back on the loopholes in the system. However, comparisons of a security fence to the Berlin Wall miss a major historical point: the Wall was meant to keep defectors from leaving, while the fence would keep undocumented aliens out. What those two counterpoints say about the respective nations that created them should be fairly obvious.

    — jjm4d
19. 19. May 18, 2006 8:44 pm Link

    jjm4d,

    You make a great point about the transfer of ownership, especially in regards to poorest class Americans.

    My only addition to that perspective ties in with the outsourcing debate as well.

    Nobody ‘owns’ the jobs. The corporation owns them. Nobody is entitled to anything–whether it be Americans, illegals, foreigners, or otherwise. The company or owners will decide who gets the jobs, when and where. The ownership is still in its rightful place–with the owner.

    Re: Berlin wall. Yes, it was designed to keep people in. And yes, our fence is designed to keep people out.

    Who builds the fence, or for what purpose matters not. What matters is the result, the effect. A wall is a wall. It is not only an economic barrier, but a symbol of civil, political, and cultural barriers. As a barrier, it is no different from Berlin. It serves to block access of one side from another.

    None of which are healthy for either nation involved. Economics or otherwise.

    I have a rotting fence in the yard of my house. It’s going to cost me money to replace. It doesn’t do a great job of keeping the neighbor’s leaves or the occasional wind-blown garbage out of my yard. It doesn’t keep mine out of his yard. stuff blows through, under, and around the fence. Sometimes I wonder why the fence is there at all. I will pay for a new one, and wonder why.

    My neighbor doesn’t really come into my yard, so maybe the analogy breaks down. But then, if my neighbors did come into my yard I wouldn’t particularly care as long as they weren’t peeping in the windows of my house.

    As it translates to the macro… are illegal immigrants peeping into your house? Have they even trespassed into your yard?

    So I have to ask, why does it matter? And who benefits from building a fence? I’ll tell you who–the fence company. The contractor who builds the fence. The people who manufacture fences. The people who get rich off selling the idea of a fence.

    Who benefits is a prime economics question. :)

    — Ericv
20. 20. May 18, 2006 8:55 pm Link

    Eric,

    From your comments, may I assume that you’re an open borders advocate?

    — Bill L. Lloyd
21. 21. May 18, 2006 9:02 pm Link

    I’m also curious, Eric, to know if you consider yourself an anarchist. You’ve already claimed that “Law only applies to citizens bound by that law,” and now you don’t seem to understand the moral distinction between the Berlin Wall and the proposed border wall.

    — Bill L. Lloyd
22. 22. May 19, 2006 10:03 am Link

    Eric, your fence may not keep your neighbor out of your yard, or you leaves out of your neighbors yard.

    But if you had a dog…

    — Grant
23. 23. May 19, 2006 8:56 pm Link

    Bill,

    I don’t propose open borders. My problem with a fence is that it has nothing to do with fixing our broken immigration system–which is where the root of the problem lies.

    And no, I’m not an anarchist. My point about citizenship is simple. Illegals often become legals at some point, or ‘do the right thing’ eventually. We can’t punish them for becoming legal. That would be counter-productive to our goal.

    *Deport them if they get caught, sure.*

    But I refuse to be openly hostile to them, and refuse to support anyone who is openly hostile to them.

    Our law does not tolerate vigilantism either. So, while we’re on the topic of legal vs. illegal, we might prosecute the minutemen patrols for any laws they break in seeking their ‘justice.’

    If this is *really* about the law, as you claim it to be, then you have no choice but to agree. :)

    — Ericv
24. 24. May 20, 2006 4:01 am Link

    Alex Tabarrok’s “open letter” is a greatest hits collections of sentimental cliches about immigration worthy of Oprah, not of self-respecting social scientists.

    If you are interested in learning the facts about the effects of illegal immigration, a good place to look is on Alex’s Marginal Revolution website, in the extraordinarily informative comments thread that follows this posting:

    http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/05/questions_about.html

    — SteveSailer
25. 25. May 20, 2006 5:33 pm Link

    I realize that it is rude to bring up a different topic in this thread, but I have two requests.

    1) I am writing an op-ed piece about the birth-month issue is soccer that was bandied about last week. I am especially interested in talking to Bill Lloyd about it. Perhaps he could e-mail me at dkane _at_ iq.harvard.edu.

    2) I had thought that Lloyd had completely debunked the claim that there was a birth-month effect in adult professional soccer. In private correspondance, Professor Levitt informs me that there is a documented birth-month effect with the sort of age cut-off mechanism that is described in the article. He points to the example of English soccer. Alas, because I am an idiot, I can not find a single citation to back up this claim, either on this site or elsewhere. Am I missing something?

    Thanks

    — dkane