ROBERT ROBB
Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.
The following is a thought experiment, a useful exercise borrowed from political scientist Charles Murray.
I’m not ready to advocate for the ideas sketched out below because I’m not ready to accept the premise that precedes them. It’s sort of thinking out loud in print – or whatever the digital equivalent of “in print” might be.
The premise is this: What if, as a practical matter, the United States cannot effectively limit the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country? What policy changes would best accommodate that reality?
Now, before addressing that, I need to meander a bit regarding the economy and immigration policy.
I do not believe that our economy needs a steady influx of low-skilled workers, contrary to the claims of many in the business lobbies. Over the long haul, the inflation-adjusted wages of low-skilled workers in the country have been stagnant or falling. They perked up a bit during the pre-pandemic period of the Trump administration. But the long-term trend line has been clear.
A stagnant or declining price of something – in this case low-skilled labor – isn’t an indication of a shortage of it. In fact, just the opposite. There may be low-skilled labor shortages at existing wage rates. But there are very few jobs in the economy for which there would be shortages at any wage level. Immigration policy shouldn’t be used to undercut upward pressure on low-skilled wages.
Nor do I believe that there has been a real effort to enforce our immigration laws. Our de facto immigration policy can be described as follows: We will make a half-hearted effort to capture those crossing the border illegally. However, if illegal immigrants escape capture at the border, or become illegal by overstaying a legal visa, and otherwise obey the law, they will generally be left alone to establish a new life in this country.
I have written many times that the key to reducing illegal immigration to manageable levels is the requirement that all employers use the E-Verify system to confirm legal eligibility for new hires. Currently, use of the system is mostly voluntary, although it is supposedly required in Arizona. Mandatory use of E-Verify would effectively lock out illegal immigrants from the formal economy, substantially reducing the incentive to run the risks of illegal entry.
The greater preponderance of asylum seekers, rather than those trying to evade capture, changes the dynamic. They have overwhelmed the ability of the system to process them and established a third way to gain entry to the country for an extended period of time, in addition to illegally crossing the border or overstaying a visa.
I would support first adopting mandatory E-Verify and tightening up and expediting the asylum process. But things are so bad elsewhere that these measures might not be enough. The number of low-skilled workers attempting to immigrate into this country may still overwhelm our ability to stanch the flow.
One more meander. The answer to things being so bad elsewhere isn’t increased U.S. aid to those places. What improves economic opportunity and living standards is well known: free markets and the rule of law. Where those are lacking, U.S. aid is wasted. Where they exist, U.S. aid is not only not needed, it is counterproductive – putting the emphasis on governmental rather than private sector activity.
So, what if the flow of low-skill immigration is beyond the ability, or will, of this country to control and constrict? What policy accommodations would be in order?
In the first place, the flow should be legal rather than illegal. And the immigrants should be able to work to support themselves from the time of arrival, something not always the case under existing immigration laws and policy. That means substantially increasing the ability of low-skilled immigrants to obtain a work permit for this country from their country of origin.
It also means severing the tie between work permits and specific jobs. As a very general proposition, at present an employer wanting to import low-skilled workers applies to do so subject to various requirements, and the subsequent work permit is tied to that job. The dynamics of the low-skilled labor market exceed the ability of an employer-centric system to keep up. Moreover, such a system gives employers disproportionate pricing power over wages, to the disadvantage of both native-born and immigrant workers.
The distinction between citizens and immigrants regarding eligibility for social welfare benefits – such as Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, TANF – should be sharpened. Current eligibility requirements differ, but as a very general proposition, legal immigrants are eligible after a period of years. A new social compact would be offered. Low-skilled immigrants would be given an opportunity to come to this country and make their own way. There should be a pathway to citizenship, but a much longer one than currently exists. And our country should no longer accept dual citizenships. You are either part of our polity fully and exclusively, or you are not.
Importing a large and steady influx of low-skilled immigrants would put downward pressure on the wages of native-born low-skilled workers. Less so if legal and not tied to specific jobs or employers, but consequential nevertheless. Expanded income support to low-skilled citizens would be in order, either a guaranteed minimum income or an expanded earned income tax credit. I’ve long favored Milton Friedman’s proposal of a negative income tax to largely replace the welfare state. However, if our immigration policy is to include sharply expanded legal low-skilled work permits, income support for those disadvantaged by the policy shouldn’t await larger, more fundamental reform.
The work permits could be, initially, for a period of time, say five years. However, I would make them easily renewable and provide a pathway to permanent residency and citizenship. I don’t think a temporary guest worker program would as fully abate the drive to illegally immigrate.
Those who are currently in the country illegally should be given the opportunity to opt into this expanded legal work permit regimen. That would actually put some upward pressure on low-skilled wages generally, benefiting both immigrant and native-born workers.
This thought experiment is entirely about low-skilled immigration. I favor generally unlimited immigration for high-skilled workers. They are unquestionably a large net economic benefit, and have a negligible effect on high-skilled wages for native-born workers, in contrast to the dynamic in the low-skilled labor market. Inflation-adjusted incomes for high-skilled workers in this country have steadily improved over time.
I don’t share the concern of others about assimilation, with respect to either high-skilled or low-skilled workers. The low-skilled workers are fleeing polities that don’t work to come to one that does. It shouldn’t be an excessive burden, or excessively hard, to explain and inculcate what makes the difference. Beyond that, in a pluralistic polity, to each his own.
This is a thought experiment because I don’t think the country needs a substantial and steady influx of low-skilled immigration and I believe it depresses the wages and opportunities for native-born low-skilled workers. Optimally, we would control rather than accommodate low-skilled immigration.
However, the failures of political economy in other countries and domestic politics may render the optimal unachievable. Some thought needs to be given to how, if necessary, to bring order to the disorder of low-skilled immigration into the country.
