Of the tens of thousands of economists in America, George Borjas is one of the handful who specialize in doing empirical research on the effects of immigration. His crucially-needed expertise has taken Borjas all the way to an endowed chair at Harvard, yet few other economists have followed his successful career path, preferring to theorize (and moralize) about what immigration ought to be doing based on a handful of bumper-sticker notions. An interesting case of market failure that some economist should investigate …

Borjas writes to fellow Harvard economist Dani Rodrik:

1. The thing I object to most in the proposal is the amnesty of 12 million illegal immigrants WITHOUT addressing the fundamental border enforcement problem. For a number of reasons (fairness, incentives), it is irresponsible to address the question of what to do with the current 12 million illegals without first resolving the issue so that we do not have to revisit this again in a few years. I have no problem with taking some sort of action that will bring the illegals “out of the shadows” at some point. But it’s probably prudent to do nothing about this until we make sure that this is not a problem that will recur yet again.

2. As for the guest worker program, I think that your perspective [in favor of a guest worker program] involves more than a little wishful thinking. Can you really guarantee that the guest workers will in fact be temporary workers? How are you going to get them to go back? Have you thought about how the U.S. judicial system will react to a lawsuit brought about by someone who doesn’t want to get into the plane ride home? What’s to prevent them from becoming illegal immigrants in the end?

Think of the German experience. As a very wise person once said about that experience: “we wanted workers and we got people instead.” Guest workers tend to get sick, tend to get married, procreate, etc., and all of these inevitable life events open up entitlements in the U.S. system that cannot be ignored–some of which are very costly. So your guest worker idea is, to a significant extent, a permanent immigration increase being sold as a temporary inflow.

Now, you and I can debate over whether such an increase is desirable. I don’t think so, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise if you can prove to me that the gains to “us” are sufficiently large (and it is the definition of “us” that we probably disagree most about). But the debate must be conducted in a transparent and honest way: this is not really about temporary workers at all, it’s really about permanent immigration.

And, again, because it is people we are importing–not just workers in a widget factory–there are non-economic issues that cannot be ignored (culture, language, security, etc.) unless you are proposing that the guest workers be packed away in some warehouse from the day they arrive until the day they are shipped back home.

3. I’m glad to hear you and I agree on the underlying economics–there are downward pressures on wages. I don’t know if Lant would agree–I saw him give a talk in Milan the other day and a big bullet in the PowerPoint was: no evidence of wage effects! It’s funny how people (on both sides of the political divide) are willing to put aside the elements of supply and demand when they want to argue for open labor flows.

4. The point system is great. I would love to think that, at last, someone paid attention to something I said! But I doubt it.

VDARE.COM readers are used to immigration unrealism from the left.

Sally Kohn writes on Common Dreams:

Thankfully, immigration reform is progressing in Congress. There are 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States who have made invaluable contributions to our culture and economy and deserve the basic rights and dignity that citizenship provides.

Yet some nasty provisions stand out in the compromise Senate legislation - prioritizing highly-skilled English speaking immigrants over working class immigrants and people of color whose families are already here, and blocking the opportunity of citizenship for future “guestworkers”, continuing the two-tiered system of discrimination and exploitation that currently exists. Instead, if we examined the root causes of migration, we might actually help - rather than punish - immigrants.

She follows up with some points on NAFTA that actually do have some merit (specifically on how agricultural subsidies are subsidizing immigration and increasing poverty in Mexico)-however what I I think might be of more interest to VDARE.COM readers is the range of opinion expressed in the commentary.

some examples:

I do NOT blame them for coming here — they’re desperate. But so are America’s undereducated and low-skilled workers. Shouldn’t they be paramount in our concerns?

I live in Long Island too, the Hamptons, it is ridiculous. I remember when there were no Hispanics to do the work, the bosses were forced to pay up, and everyone managed….Still, it just isn’t right, we should have been lifting up the ones already here.

The intellectual discussion here bothers me. I am 71 years old. I paid into social security for 46 years. I started out poor and never made a lot of money (women are still paid less). I finally saved enough to buy a house in a working class area. My older sister and I live there.

This area used to be a quiet place where people knew each other and took care of their properties. Even after Katrina, we were able to put a block party together. A well-integrated one; blacks, whites, and legal Hispanics.

This has changed rapidly. We have been taken over by large numbers of Hispanics. Crime has increased. Our neighbors who have young children are afraid of the drugs which seem to be everywhere. People who could afford it have moved.

I spent much of my life living in places that where not “the best part of town”. I put my money and a lot of work into this place. What do I do now? In another year, I won’t even speak the language. Sometimes, I’m afraid of going outside. The majority of my income comes from social security. If it will be available to illegal aliens, will I lose some of mine?

If I were the only working class person to be affected, I could say that I just fell through the cracks. But I know that many of us are in the same boat.

So, what happens to Americans? Who speaks for us?

Now, keep in mind, Common Dreams is the most popular left leaning web site.

VDARE.COM readers can add their own comments here–I’d be careful to focus on the likely audience.

My own comments:

The question that needs to be asked here: why should working Americans pay for problems created by corporate-sponsored NAFTA?

It is the most wealthy, high income and politically influential Americans that have supported NAFTA, illegal immigration and that have reaped the bulk of the economic benefits. The fundamental problem with the current immigration policy is that these wealthy interests keep their profits-and the costs are socialized.

I would argue that instead, the wealthy interests that have garnered profits from NAFTA and illegal immigration should take some responsibility-and set things right both for working Americans and for working Mexicans.

Granting 12 Million illegal immigrants citizenship isn’t going to come for free. The social benefits that are now made available to each and every American are close to $10,000/year per adult citizen. The US gets 10 million applications for immigration each and every year. Currently, only around 800,000 are legally admitted(another amnesty might change those numbers). We need to ask ourselves whether we are selecting those immigrants that are making America a better nation for those already here and a better member of the world community–and what type of selection process might meet those ends?

There is strong indication that increased access to US labor markets has done nothing to decrease poverty in Mexico. That raises the question of what might actually help?

I think we need to look at seriously taxing the wealthy in both the US and Mexico to set this situation right. Collecting the existing $25,000/violation fines on employers that violate US immigration law-and applying those revenues to infrastructure and alleviation of poverty in Mexico is perfectly reasonable. Long run, those fines are too low to be really effective-the profits from illegal immigration are so substantial to employers that for fines to be effective, they would need to be much larger and more regularly enforced.

It would take only $60 Billion/year to alleviate all of the most extreme poverty in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. Correcting major regional infrastructure problems would be done for even less.

These issues can and should be addressed.

So, 41 Senators can’t block the Kennedy-Bush immigration bill and it can pass with 50 votes (plus Cheney).

Harry Reid wants to extend debate in Senate to a second week, following Memorial Day. But no hearings.

Sen. Kyl says the final version of the draft bill will be finished tonight. Well, that’s a relief! We wouldn’t want the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body™ casting a crucial vote on a monumental bill that will vastly affect the United States of America for the rest of the 21st Century that wasn’t even finished being written yet, much less read. Oh, wait … they just did … Nevermind.

Watching C-SPAN, it appears that Ted Kennedy is functioning as the MC of the Senate proceedings, a lot like he did with the 1965 immigration bill and the 1990 diversity visa bill, neither of which turned out to function at all like Senator Ted told his fellow Senators they would. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me thrice … ah, to hell with it …

A commenter adds:

Fool me thrice, and it’s time to purchase lethal finials.

After peaking around the time of the South Central Riot of 1992, “tagging” in Southern California fell way off by 2000. But in 2005, the “writers” (as they call themselves) started to get ahead of society’s clean-up immune system, and graffiti is showing up everywhere now as Latino gangs get bigger and stronger. A couple of nights ago, some moron calling himself “Dwako” spray-painted his name six feet wide in about ten places on homeowners’ walls on my street. (If you had as imbecilic-sounding a name as “Dwako,” would you advertise it?)

Looking at Dwako’s handiwork, I finally understood the current fad in the more prosperous Mexican neighborhoods of LA for incredibly expensive security fencing around houses. Homeowners are shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for elaborate wrought iron fences eight feet high with knife-blade finials on top and the most over-the-top decorative work embedded in the fences (fleur-de-lis, eagles, etc.)

Obviously, the increase in gang violence (which is caused by the huge number of 10-19 year old Latinos who are the product of the ex-illegal alien Baby Boom that followed the 1986 amnesty law) is driving the need for security, but why not just put up cheaper concrete block or wooden fences to keep out intruders, like in my neighborhood? Well, one reason is because, unlike walls with their inviting flat surfaces, vandals can’t satisfactorily tag a wrought iron fence because it’s mostly air.

By the way, isn’t it nice to see lethal finials on fences become popular in America? It shows how Latin American and American cultures are synthesizing into one rich pageant. South of the border, it’s been traditional for homeowners to embed broken bottles on the tops of their walls. But, with the greater prosperity found in our country, Latinos can now afford to impale intruders with custom-designed blades.

Fortunately, the new 326-page Kennedy-Bush amnesty bill will solve all the problems associated with Latino gangs. I haven’t quite reached the section of the bill that explains how it will do that, but I’m sure it’s in there somewhere.

[Crossposted At Isteve.com]

In the Corner, they’re arguing about the amnesty, and whether you can call it amnesty. Here’s what John Podhoretz [Email him]had to say:

Monday, May 21, 2007 Amnesty: An Honest Question   [John Podhoretz] What action, short of deportation or imprisonment, wouldn't be amnesty? 05/21 11:46 AM

Various people answered him, quickly:

Monday, May 21, 2007 You Answered My Honest Question Honestly   [John Podhoretz] After 45 e-mails on my earlier question, I can now say for a certainty that any form of "immigration reform" — meaning not merely stricter enforcement of sanctions but also a system to "regularize" the status of illegals— would be deemed "amnesty" by its opponents. 05/21 04:31

I agree, first of all, because I see nothing wrong with either deportation or imprisonment for illegals, and second, because the meaning of amnesty is letting them get away with it and profit from it, and at the price of $5,000 for getting away with illegal border crossing, they’re making a lifetime profit of more than a million dollars.(More on economics, later.)

And that’s what they’re trying to get away with here. The tagline on Scarface was “He loved the American Dream. With a Vengeance.” These are people who wanted the American Dream enough to sneak across the borders and steal it. Why would anyone want them to get away with it?

Not everything in the 326 pages of the Kennedy-Bush immigration bill is bad. For example, some of the reforms of legal immigration might be mildly beneficial. By some reports, the number of legal immigrants admitted on a family reunification basis would drop from over 90% under the ridiculous current system to about 60%, with others being admitted on a new Canadian-style point system emphasizing education, work skills, English-proficiency (a system I’ve advocated for the U.S. since 2001). And visas for the adult siblings of recent immigrants would be cut out. If the point of immigration policy is to benefit current citizens and our posterity (see the Preamble to the Constitution) rather than foreigners who happen to be recent immigrants relatives, these changes makes more sense.

Of course, there are catches: this improved system wouldn’t kick in for another eight years, while all the relatives in the pipeline get shoved through, and relatives would still make up the majority of legal immigrants afterwards.

Now, here’s the interesting point. You might think that the Bush Administration would have tried to prepare the ground among Republicans before last Thursday’s announcement of the Kennedy-Bush bill by letting immigration skeptics know that some actual reforms were coming along with all the sell-outs. Nobody else is very interested in the subject. Reforming legal immigration is a good idea, but nobody except the hard-core immigration skeptics at VDARE, CIS, and a few other places has been talking about it. In the current environment, rationalizing legal immigration seems like a rather bloodless bit of good government wonkery compared to doing something about the national disgrace of rampant illegal immigration. Fixing legal immigration is actually very important–although the most effective fix would be cutting the number of visas for a lengthy number of years while we assimilate past immigrants–but it’s just not part of the current debate, and, quite reasonably, it won’t be as long as illegal immigration is out of control.

Still, you would think that the fact that a few of the ideas of immigration skeptics like me made it into Kennedy-Bush bill (although I’m sure they were put in by Senate Republicans like Sen. Kyl, not the Administration) would have been used by the Bush Administration in an attempt to butter up the immigration skeptic wing to not be so immediately hostile to the bill. That’s straight out of Lobbying 101 — appeal to the ego of potential critics. Tell us we are helping make this a better country through some of our brilliant ideas.

I certainly am not surprised I didn’t get a get a phone call from Karl Rove before last Thursday, trying to get me excited about bits of the upcoming package, but, what about, say, Hugh Hewitt or the National Review boys? They’ve been good soldiers in the Bush Army, except on immigration. So, why didn’t they get a call?

The simplest answer seems to be that the Bush Administration is deeply emotional about immigration, trumping even Iraq. They’ll deal happily with Ted Kennedy, but if you don’t toe the Bush line on the borders, you are a bad, bad person.

[Crossposted at Isteve.com]

Martin Hutchinson, who did an article for us once, has a Bears Lair column on immigration and it’s effect on the relatively classless society that has evolved in the US.

The immigration bill brought forward and apparently likely to pass demonstrates an unattractive new political trend in the United States: the end of the classless society for which the U.S. has been famous and the opening of yawning political as well as economic gaps between rich and poor.

Traditionally, the United States has been economically unequal, but without a sharp divide between rich and poor in the political arena. Democrats represented the South, minorities and unionized labor, while Republicans represented small business and the professional classes. The truly rich have always been more or less evenly divided between the parties. Thus, except for a brief period in 1932-46, the U.S. never had a real class-based politics.

One economic force was always likely to change this; the steady increase in inequality seen in the United States since about 1969.

[The end of the classless society, PrudentBear.com, May 21, 2007]

He compares the situation to the situation in H. G. Wells’s The Time Machine, :

H.G. Wells postulated in his 1895 “Time Machine” the ultimate destination of a Latin American–style social system. In his future 800,000 years hence the human race has divided into two species, the eloi, who do no work and live only for trivial aesthetic pleasures and the morlocks, sub-men who work underground keeping the mechanical civilization running. Wells’s fantasy seemed far-fetched after 1920, as equality increased and the working classes became both educated and comfortably off. However the fantasy looks a lot closer to reality in 2007 than it did in 1957, when the movie was made.

Read the whole thing.

John Heilprin writes at Associated Press

Tensions run high on immigration, and the bargain reached last week sparked intramural hostility between Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. and Sen. John Cornyn , R-Texas, who had a bitter exchange during the last closed-door meeting before a deal was announced.

Cornyn, who opposes the agreement, said that McCain, a supporter, has apologized to him for launching a profanity-laced tirade at the Texan accusing him of holding up the deal.

If they think tensions are high now, just imagine the situation in which a bad deal gets passed that even more significantly reduces wages and working conditions for Americans.

Hugh Hewitt is a Republican, and has generally supported President Bush over the past seven years. But after being told by Tony Snow and Senator Kyl that critics of the bill should actually read the thing, he has actually done so, and he’s not happy. He’s not happy in great detail, with eight posts on specific things that are wrong with it.[ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

His basic conclusion on the rush to amnesty is that it’s going far too fast, even if it were a good idea in the first place.

There are so many problems with this bill that it should not be introduced in the Senate absent a period of open hearings on it and the solicitation of expert opinion from various analysts across the ideological spectrum. Even were it somehow to improbably make its way to the president’s desk, if it does so before these problems are aired and confronted, the Congress would be inviting a monumental distrust of the institution. There is simply too much here to say “Trust us,” and move on. The jam down of such a far reaching measure, drafted in secret and very difficult for laymen much less lawyers to read, is fundamentally inconsistent with how we govern ourselves. Summary Of The Fine Print Read, And NZ’s Easy To Use TextHugh Hewitt, May 20, 2007

The “too fast” conclusion, by the way, is shared by John Fund in the Wall Street Journal. I say again, John Fund in the Wall Street Journal thinks it’s going too fast!

And may I say that if Tony Snow asked me if I’d read the bill before criticizing it, I’d ask him if the Senators were going to read it before voting on it.

As I remarked yesterday when noting the sudden flurry of excellent postings on the Dow Blog, the Senate Amnesty/Immigration Acceleration Outrage has been stimulating. In fact, the number of first class articles is remarkable, many showing proficiency with the subject matter which can only have been gained discreetly when taking a publicly visible patriotic stance was lonelier and more dangerous.

From a quality point of view, I do not think Steven M. Warshawsky’s posting yesterday on the American Thinker web site can really be bettered:

Out-of-control immigration represents the greatest existential challenge of our time. By “existential challenge,” I mean a public policy problem that goes to the heart of what it means to be “American” and which threatens to fundamentally, and perhaps permanently, alter American society for the worse

…the bill provides for increased border security — something ordinary Americans want — desperately — but which we all know will never happen under our current federal leadership. Until our political and economic elites take border control as seriously as the rest of us do, millions of illegals will continue to stream across the border looking for work and waiting for the next round of “legalization.”

This bill must be defeated. As unacceptable as the status quo is, it is far preferable to the future scenario envisioned by the Kennedy-Bush immigration bill: an increasingly Hispanicized country, divided between rich and poor, with a stagnant working class… Indeed, the demographic changes wrought by this bill are likely to make a meaningful conservative movement in this country — one dedicated to the traditional American principles… a practical impossibility.

(The Kennedy-Bush Immigration Travesty May 20 2007)

Illustrating how extraordinary the times are, Warshawsky cites five pieces of “excellent commentary” at the end of his essay. Steve Sailer’s latest, of course, but two usually orthodox Neocons, Debbie Schlussel, and a satirical National Review article. This actually breaks the taboo over there and cites Peter Brimelow!!!

Can you believe that the Republicans are handing us (Democrats) the future on a silver platter? An analysis of ethnic voting patterns done by Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubenstein projected three Democratic victories for every Republican one if current population trends (i.e., a growing minority vote) maintain themselves or intensify.

The article in question is here. Senators are going to need to keep their phones off the hook.