Last week, approximately 50 Ricochet Members gathered in San Francisco to hear a conversation between Chuck Schwab and AEI's Arthur Brooks on the moral case for the free enterprise system.  Following the conversation was a Q&A session during which one Member asked Arthur Brooks for his thoughts concerning the illegal immigration crisis at the United States' southern border.  Brooks rejected the premise that the U.S. is currently experiencing an illegal immigration crisis, but to the extent that Americans still fret about the problem, he believes that it's likely to work itself out. 

As we've seen to be the case for a few years now, a languishing U.S. economy has caused Mexican immigration to slow significantly.  Mexicans now have a better shot at finding jobs in Mexico, whose unemployment rate has been in the high 4 to 5 percent range, than they do in the U.S.  But looking beyond what we all hope will be a temporary recession, a return to high rates of Mexican immigration is unlikely.  Why?  Because with plummeting fertility rates, Mexico's demographics are on their way to looking more and more like Europe's.  Take a look at this chart:

Mexico Fertility Rates

With fertility rates barely above replacement rate, but still falling sharply (2012's fertility rate, not included in this chart, is 2.27) Brooks predicts that by the time today's children reach voting age, illegal immigration will seem to them a complete non-issue. 

Comments:


Diane Ellis
Scott Reusser: Diane, if you're still there: Did Brooks happen to mention whether he'd been consulted by the Romney campaign? Some of Romney's rhetoric lately -- making the moral case for free markets,  defining fairness on our terms -- has been almost verbatim from his book. They've clearly read it, at least. · 1 hour ago

This wasn't discussed.  I'd guess that the Romney campaign has taken note of Brooks' latest book, though.

Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing

Scott Reusser

Astonishing

Scott Reusser: It would be nice to have an immigration policy (and an economy) in which we got a few more first-round draft picks (foreign PhD's, engineers, entrepenuers, etc) to become citizens.

Don't you see how government-influenced over-production of PhDs and other college-educated non-producers has harmed our economy and our society during the last thirty years?

I am beyond distressed by the unchallenged interventionist premises that underlie supposedly conservative immigration policies.

The US benefited immeasurably by welcoming highly educated, accomplished immigrants in the mid-20th century. It gave us a huge edge over the Soviets, for example, who saw an exodus of same.  . . .

No doubt we did gain in that bargain . . .  but don't you see that all those bright and talented people came here precisely because our arrangment, unlike the Soviet one, was a free society and a free economy in which they could pursue their inclinations without state interference?

Thank you for making my exact point that a free society (fundamentally: an economically free society) will do better for itself and its people than one in which the government attempts to manipulate dispersal of the means of production!


Joined
Mar '11
kgrant67

 

Astonishing

Improperly regulated immigration does cause problems . . . but proper regulation does not include restricting perfectly rational economic behavior. · 11 minutes ag

I agree.  If we get the government out of the labor market as well as education, health care delivery, etc. then illegal immigration would cease to be a problem.  I have heard conservatives argue that since we presently have health care, education etc. available to illegals, we must stop them at the border.  I say two wrongs don't make a right.  

Diane Ellis

BrentB67:

We can help ourselves greatly if we test citizenship for admission to public schools or any kind of government benefit or healthcare. · 23 minutes ago

Citizenship is a pretty high barrier for admission into a public school, isn't it?  I'd understand legal residency, but citizenship?  By that standard, two Indian engineers who came to live and work for Microsoft wouldn't be able to send their children to school here. 

As for the children of illegals — if they weren't able to go to school, their parents would just leave them at home while they went to work.  Not sure how a bunch of illiterate children who'll grow into adults "helps us greatly".  That really isn't a solution to anything. 


Joined
Feb '11
Xennady

Astonishing

Pretty scarey to me that supposedly freedom loving conservatives are happy to sacrificebotheconomic freedom and personal freedom to prevent a guy with a sixth grade education from mowing lawns.

Pretty scary to me that some people seem completely unable to understand or notice the political and economic consequences that flow from the open borders policy of the US government.

Let's talk about that guy with the sixth grade education. I'll assume you intend him to be an illegal alien, as otherwise you have no reason to mention him.

It's quite likely he has a family, and also quite likely that his family is receiving expensive government assistance while living here. And considering how many amnesties there have been it's quite likely he has relatives who vote for more government assistance.

So we end up with a government driven further away from the principles you espouse, thanks to actual reality.

Mow your own lawn, and don't expect me to be happy when you stick me with the bill for your yardwork in the form of higher taxes.

Scott Reusser
Joined
May '10
Scott Reusser

Astonishing

Scott Reusser

 

The US benefited immeasurably by welcoming highly educated, accomplished immigrants in the mid-20th century. It gave us a huge edge over the Soviets, for example, who saw an exodus of same.  . . .

No doubt we did gain in that bargain . . .  but don't you see that all those bright and talented people came herepreciselybecause our arrangment, unlike the Soviet one, was a free society and a free economy in which they could pursue their inclinations without state interference?

Thank you for makingmy exact pointthat a free society (fundamentally: an economically free society) will do better for itself and its people than one in which the government attempts to manipulate dispersal of the means of production!

It's your exclamation point that's made me finally abandon my support for the Soviet system.  (?????)

Mel Foil
Joined
Jun '10
Mel Foil

Astonishing

Mel Foil: 

 . . . we've lost our privacy already, it's time for a National ID Card.  . . . The only effective fence is on the desk of the employer.  . . .

Why do you want to prevent a willing employer and a willing worker from engaging in an economic transaction for their mutual benefit?

Do you favor protectionist barrier against imported goods? Or only against imported labor?

Pretty scarey to me that supposedly freedom loving conservatives are happy to sacrificebotheconomic freedom and personal freedom to prevent a guy with a sixth grade education from mowing lawns.

Are you not aware that unreasonable government interference in economic transactions, including the free movement of labor, is exactly what creates black markets--including the black market in immigrant labor? Econ 101: Further attempts to control a black market that arises from unreasonable restrictions on economic transactions will result in even more disruptive black markets.

Improperly regulated immigrationdoescause problems . . . but proper regulation does not include restricting perfectly rational economic behavior.

That's wonderful, but when you get up to 12 million of these wholesome employment transactions, between willing private parties, you begin to see significant economic and societal impacts, not all good.

Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing

Xennady

Astonishing

 . . . supposedly freedomloving conservatives are happy to sacrificebotheconomic freedom and personal freedom to prevent a guy with a sixth grade education from mowing lawns.

 . . . some people seem completely unableto understand  . . .  consequences that flow from the open borders policy of the US government.

 . . . that guy with the sixth grade education. . . .  an illegal alien  . . . . .  has a family . . . receiving expensive government assistance while living here.  . . .

Mow your own lawn,  . . . don't  . . . stick me with the bill for your yardwork in the form of higher taxes.

Lawns must be mowed! In a healthy economy, it makes no economic sense for someone as talented as me, or you, to mow our own lawns (unless we need the exercise) because society benefits more if we spend our time on more productive activities requiring greater skill. Thus, the unskilled lawnmower's unnoticed benefit is that he frees us to be more productive.  So why do you assume a native lawnmower would not eat your taxes, too?  If the immigrant lawnmower's  prospects were unhindered by his immobility within a black market, in a free market he might soon escape dependency and earn enough to support his own family.

Freedom!!!!  Is the answer to every economic problem!

Edited on June 12, 2012 at 3:29am
Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing

Mel Foil

Astonishing

Mel Foil: 

 . . .  it's time for a National ID Card.  . . . The only effective fence is on the desk of the employer.  . . .

Why do you want to prevent a willing employer and a willing worker from engaging in an economic transaction for their mutual benefit?

Do you favor protectionist barriers against imported goods? Or only against imported labor?

 . . .

 . . .  unreasonable government interference in economic transactions, including the free movement of labor, is exactly what creates black markets--including the black market in immigrant labor? . . .

That's wonderful, but when you get up to 12 million of these wholesome employment transactions, between willing private parties, you begin to see significant economic and societal impacts, not all good.

"When you get up to 12 million of these imported Japanese cars, it's not all good." In a free economy, nothing is all good. But government manipulation of economic activity is pretty close all bad.

If you want to regulate immigration in reasonable ways, fine.

But don't use immigration as an excuse for irrational economic regulation,  and don't use irrational economic regulation to try to regulate immigration. Dumb both ways.

Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing

Scott Reusser

Astonishing

Scott Reusser

 

The US benefited immeasurably by welcoming highly educated, accomplished immigrants in the mid-20th century. It gave us a huge edge over the Soviets, for example, who saw an exodus of same.  . . .

 . . . don't you see that all those bright and talented people came herepreciselybecause our arrangment, unlike the Soviet one, was a free society and a free economy in which they could pursue their inclinations without state interference?

Thank you for makingmy exact pointthat a free society (fundamentally: an economically free society) will do better for itself and its people than one in which the government attempts to manipulate dispersal of the means of production!

It's your exclamation point that's made me finally abandon my support for the Soviet system.  (?????)

A powerful form of punctuation!

If only I could find the grammatical mark to convince you to abandon your support for a centrally planned "immigration policy" to influence the movement of an economic resource, viz labor: "an immigration policy . . .  in which we got a few more foreign PhD's, engineers, entrepenuers, etc. to become citizens."


Joined
Feb '11
Xennady

Astonishing

Freedom!!!!  Istheanswer to every economic problem! · 

But economic problems aren't the only ones we face- and the present economic policies of the country make those other problems vastly worse.

To pick one example the open border policy hasn't turned California into a free market paradise- it turned it into something close to the opposite.

I think we should notice this sort of event, and not merely retreat into our happy theories that tell us everything is a-ok.

It isn't. We've tried the open borders, free trade policy route and the result is that the United States is brokest nation in history.

We need to obey the first rule of holes, and stop digging.

Sealing the border would be a good first step- no matter what theories get violated.

Grendel
Joined
Apr '11
Grendel
Astonishing: I'm a believer in free markets, and therefore support free flow of goods, capital,and labor across borders--subject to reasonable safety regulations. ...I've never understood people who claim to support free markets, yet want economic barriers for labor markets.  The obvious free market solution to illegal immigration is to raise legal immigration quotas to levels high enough to reflect economic reality.

Free labor market is achieved by the not entirely unobvious approach of moving assembly plants off-shore.  But people are not microchips and cannot be abstracted from their labor.  So when you "import labor" through immigration you get the people and all the attendant complications.

In any event, even if the Latin American invasion is on the wane, we still have millions of illegal residents, and an immigration policy that aims not to satisfy national labor requirements but to realize the anointed vision of St. Edward Kennedy.

Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing

Xennady

Astonishing

Freedom!!!!  Istheanswer to every economic problem! · 

 . . .  the open border policy hasn't turned California into a free market paradise- it turned it into something close to the opposite.

we should  . . . not merely retreat into our happy theories  . . . .

 . . . We've tried the open borders, free trade policy route and the result is that the United States is brokest nation  . . . .

 We need to obey the first rule of holes, and stop digging.

Sealing the border would be a good first step- no matter what theories get violated.

Are you opposed to free trade?

The free market--including free flow of goods, capital, and labor  across borders, with reasonable regulations for health and safety--is not some frivolous theory.

It's a foundation of free society.

"Sealing the border" is merely a theory, never executed successfully, unless you count Eastern Bloc experience.

California's problem is not an economy too free, but the opposite.

Just as unreasonable restrictions on movement of goods create problematical black markets in goods, so do unreasonable restrictions on movement of labor create problematical black markets in labor. To try to solve such problems with even more restrictions ("Seal the border!") violates your first rule of holes.

Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing

Grendel

Astonishing: I'm a believer in free markets, and therefore support free flow of goods, capital,and labor across borders--subject to reasonable safety regulations. ...

Free labor marketis achieved by the not entirely unobvious approach of moving assembly plants off-shore.  But people are not microchips and cannot be abstracted from their labor.  So when you "import labor" through immigration you get the people and all the attendant complications.

In any event, even if the Latin American invasion is on the wane, we still have millions of illegal residents, and an immigration policy that aims not to satisfy national labor requirements but to realize the anointed vision of St. Edward Kennedy.

Yes, if you prevent the labor from coming to the factories,  the factories will go to the labor. (We might rather have the Mexicans come here for some of the jobs than have the factories go there with all the jobs.)

People--like everything else--are not unalloyed goods. But the problem with our immigrant population is less  something about them and more something about the way we treat immigrants nowadays. I do not support coddling immigrants in the least. The path to citizenship should be demanding.

Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing

Thanks to all for so politely tolerating my heresy on immigration, but now it's time for me to attend to other necessities so I will have to leave the last word to whoever wants it.

My apologies to Diane for my part in distracting the discussion away from the demographic path she had initially suggested. Usually the course and highlights of any conversation about immigration are almost always too predictable, but this was the most civil discussion I've ever had on the subject with my fellow conservatives. Thanks.


Joined
Feb '11
Xennady

Astonishing

Are you opposed to free trade?

Yes.

It's a foundation of free society.

No, the rule of law is the foundation of a free society. And unless you want to argue that the US was not a free society for most of our history then your argument here is obviously false.

"Sealing the border"ismerely a theory, neverexecuted successfully, unless you count Eastern Bloc experience.

Wrong. The US controlled its borders and set immigration policy successfully for most of our history.

California's problem is not an economy too free, but the opposite

And just how do you think California got that way? Hint: It involved open borders and elections.

Just as unreasonable ... so do unreasonable...

Why do you get to decide what is reasonable and what isn't?

Obviously, I disagree with your assessment of what is reasonable.

Let's put this to a vote. I say open borders is a political loser- as shown by the failure of the Bush amnesty bill, among many other examples.

That matters, if you believe in democracy.

I do. Do you?

Duane Oyen
Joined
May '10
Duane Oyen

Astonishing: Thanks to all for so politely tolerating my heresy on immigration, but now it's time for me to attend to other necessities so I will have to leave the last word to whoever wants it.

......... Usually the course and highlights of any conversation about immigration are almost always too predictable, but this was the most civil discussion I've ever had on the subject with my fellow conservatives. Thanks. · 6 minutes ago

Astonishing, your points, a majority of which I agree with, are all well taken except for the one fatal flaw.  We are not voluntarily funding free education, food stamps, and health care- those attractive benefits are granted by essentially shaky court decisions (e.g., Plyler, the Cal court ruling against Prop 187, etc.)

Put sensible security speed bumps on the border, enforce the laws about documentation, increase the legal numbers (particularly of guest workers- ignore the unions), require English proficiency to remain after 2 years, and offer special green card opportunity to those who attend US grad schools.  All of that inheres to our ultimate benefit. 

And stop with the inflammatory anti-immigrant language.

Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing

Diane Ellis, Ed.

Aaron Miller:

But Mexicans aren't sneaking into the country because of overpopulation. And it's not just young Mexicans.

That's not the argument.  It's that there will be fewer of them to immigrate in the first place.  If their fertility rate trends continue, they will be a contracting population very soon.  I'm curious to know why that is. 

Here's a "duh" explanation for the fertility rate trends: among the formerly rather staunchly Catholic populace, an increasing acceptance and use of birth control. (It's somewhat interesting how the study I linked seems both to compound and to confound the effects of upward social mobility and availability birth control.)

Now that I seem to have figured out how women don't get pregnant, next I will set my mind to figuring out how they do.

Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing

Xennady

Astonishing

Are you opposed to free trade?

Yes.

It's a foundation of free society.

No, the rule of law is the foundation of a free society. And unless you want to argue that the US was not a free society for most of our history then your argument here is obviously false.

"Sealing the border"ismerely a theory, neverexecuted successfully, unless you count Eastern Bloc experience.

Wrong. The US controlled its borders and set immigration policy successfully for most of our history.

California's problem is not an economy too free, but the opposite

And just how do you think California got that way? Hint: It involved open borders and elections.

Just as unreasonable ... so do unreasonable...

Why doyouget to decide what is reasonable and what isn't?

Obviously, I disagree with your assessment of what is reasonable.

Let's put this to a vote. I say open borders is a political loser- as shown by the failure of the Bush amnesty bill, among many other examples.

That matters, if you believe in democracy.

I do. Do you? · 

I'm biting my tongue, in multiple places, because I already promised you the last word.


Joined
Feb '11
Xennady

Astonishing

I'm biting my tongue, in multiple places, because I already promised you the last word.

I missed that. But feel free to respond tomorrow, if you want to bother.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In