allowing more legal immigration - controlled immigration and the
deportation of illegal alien/criminals
expand free trade - insure they pay appropriate taxes if they want to
work in the US but not become citizens
de-escalate the war on drugs - if rec drugs are decriminalized they
will be taxed - no thanks
scaling back the U.S. welfare state - illegals shouldn't be able to
use services they don't pay for


On May 24, 8:50 pm, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The realities behind the immigration debateByJeffrey Miron| Published: 
> 05/18/10 at 12:00 AM
> Arizona’s new immigration policy, which requires aliens to carry immigration 
> papers and directs the police to detain “suspected aliens,” has re-ignited 
> debates over how to reduce illegal immigration. Most of this debate involves 
> wishful thinking: the claim that stricter border controls or Arizona-like 
> measures can make a real difference. The reality is that only four policies 
> can significantly reduce illegal immigration.
> The first is allowing more legal immigration. This point is obvious but worth 
> emphasizing. The United States has an illegal immigration problem because it 
> restricts legal immigration. So long as large wage differences persist 
> between the U.S. and other countries, especially Latin America, the desire to 
> immigrate will persist and occur illegally if it is not permitted legally.
> Legal migration, moreover, is good for America and rest of the world. 
> Immigration allows people in poor countries to seek a better life here, 
> bringing ideas and energy with them, and it shows the world that many people 
> still regard America as the land of opportunity. Many immigrants are far 
> poorer than the poorest Americans, so helping them makes far more sense than 
> operating a generous welfare state.
> Restrictions on immigration are also costly, since they create black markets, 
> generate violence, and spawn corruption. Fences and borders patrols are 
> expensive, and they do not seem to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants. So 
> any attempt to reduce illegal immigration should eschew enhanced enforcement 
> and instead increase legal immigration.
> The second way to reduce illegal immigration is to expand free trade. If 
> goods can move freely across countries, the demand for low-skill labor will 
> shift from the United States to poorer countries, raising wages there 
> relative to here and reducing the incentive to immigrate. NAFTA and CAFTA, 
> while steps in the right direction, still contain substantial impediments to 
> trade between the U.S., Mexico, and Central America, and broader free trade 
> agreements with South America do not yet exist. Since free trade makes sense 
> independent of immigration concerns, this policy change is a no-brainer.
> A more controversial way to shrink illegal immigration is de-escalate the war 
> on drugs. Many Latin American economies are dysfunctional in part because of 
> the corruption and violence that the war on drugs generates, and residents of 
> those countries cross the U.S. border in part to escape that violence. Full 
> legalization would be the most effective response, but even a major reduction 
> in enforcement would shrink the violence significantly. Mexico’s drug trade 
> has been violent for decades, but the explosion in deaths resulted from 
> Felipe Calderon’s misguided escalation beginning in late 2006.
> A further policy that might reduce immigration is scaling back the U.S. 
> welfare state, although the impact of any such change is unclear. Despite 
> common perceptions, immigrants do not make especially high use of the social 
> safety net or migrate mainly to collect these benefits; most come to the 
> United States seeking work. If immigration were substantially more open, 
> however, large-scale migration in response to generous benefits would 
> plausibly increase. So it makes sense to either reduce that generosity or 
> condition benefits on legal residence for a significant number of years.
> The policies that will do little to shrink illegal immigration are increased 
> border enforcement, stiffer punishments for employers who hire illegals, or 
> aggressive arrest policies such as those adopted in Arizona. These measures 
> are ineffective because they do not change the fact that wages in the U.S. 
> are attractive compared to wages in poor countries. And, for centuries, 
> immigrants have endured amazing hardships to seek higher income or a better 
> life in America. Longer or higher fences will not change that.
> Instead, stepped-up enforcement will drive more activity underground, 
> generate more violence along the border, impose costs on law-abiding 
> employers, and embitter residents of poor countries toward the United States. 
> Ramped up enforcement is a feel-good gimmick that allows politicians to claim 
> they have done something about illegal immigration, even though they know the 
> reality is different.
> None of the options for addressing illegal immigration is perfect; each 
> generates significant losers as well as winners. But the changes advocated 
> here all improve the U.S. economy by reducing or eliminating policies that 
> impose significant costs independent of immigration. So the U.S. should 
> abandon its obsession with the anti-immigration policies of the past and 
> instead address the real causes of illegal immigration.Jeffrey A. Miron is 
> Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies at Harvard University 
> and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. Miron blogs 
> athttp://jeffreymiron.comand is the author of Libertarianism, from A to Z, 
> from Basic Books.Read 
> more:http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/18/the-realities-behind-the-immigration-debate/#ixzz0otlkuFRW
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>  
> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Reply via email to