The Golden State versus the Lone Star State, Or Who Does Immigration Better?
An absolutely fascinating response to my offering on immigration in today's Wall Street Journal:
Having read your most welcome piece on immigration in this morning's WSJ, I must ask whether there's an element to the immigration problem that doesn't get the discussion it deserves: specifically, the immigration problem as a function of the welfare state and big government. As a native Texan who returned home in 2010 after five years in California, one passage in your piece especially struck me:
"In agricultural regions, entire towns have turned over—with a little zig-zagging, you could hike from town to town for much of the 450-mile length of the Central Valley without hearing any language but Spanish."
The same may be said for much of southern and rural Texas, of course, but few regard that as suggestive of a problem. Why is it problematic, then, in California? I believe you and those of like minds on the California-specific phenomenon -- Victor Davis Hanson comes to mind -- are quite right to be concerned, but only after returning to Texas do I draw the instructive contrasts that may explain why. Two historical anecdotes may be useful:
1) When the Bracero US-Mexico agricultural guest-worker program was implemented in 1942, Texas was the only state to opt out of the initial implementation. The Lone Star State preferred a wholly open border, and did not wish to restrict migrants to one specific economic sector. As Texans know, the openness of the border with Mexico has shut down only recently, with essentially unrestricted crossings in both directions possible well into the 1990s.
2) The end of the Bracero program came in 1964, after much lobbying against it from the California-based United Farm Workers under the leadership of Cesar Chavez. The labor leader's status in California as the designated Hispanic civic icon is deeply ironic, given his union's practice of setting up "wet lines" to target and often physically assault Mexican immigrants whose presence threatened the dominance of the union.
In one state, then, you have a tradition of comparatively free labor markets coupled with minimal government services; and in the other, you have a tradition of restricted labor markets coupled with high government services. It's the latter where immigration, and specifically illegal immigration, is rightly perceived as profoundly problematic. As has been demonstrated in many spheres, it's the welfare state that arrests and even reverses the processes of self-sufficiency and integration that make American democracy so versatile and enduring.
It's easy to turn this line of thought into an anarcho-libertarian trope on the healing power of pure markets, and I don't wish to suggest it's that simple. The Texas/California contrast is rooted in governance, yes, but also in history: the Tejanos, as I can attest firsthand, have been a large and historically contiguous presence in our state in ways the Californios never were. In our reactions to a Hispanic-migrant influx, that matters too. Nonetheless, I wonder whether we as conservatives ought to examine more closely the possibility that the immigration problem is really a consequence of the signal problem of our era: the problem of the massive state.
Thanks for all the fine work you do at Ricochet and elsewhere.
Is the immigration problem a consequence of the problem of the massive state? In my judgement, it is indeed.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: The Golden State versus the Lone Star State, Or Who Does Immigration Better?
I've come to believe that much of the difference between Texas and the other border states is tax policy. That our relative tranquility on immigration and a host of other issues is due to the fact that Texans don't feel that they are being taken advantage of by the illegal population. No, we don't have the generous services., you don't need them, but everyone - legal and illegal alike - pay into our system through sales and property (rent) taxes. I think this makes for a much more equitable arrangement and society at large reflects it.
Re: The Golden State versus the Lone Star State, Or Who Does Immigration Better?
Peter --
Great piece in the Journal.
As to the response you reproduce above, I'm not sure I buy the argument that illegal immigration is a problem here in California, but not in Texas. Illegal immigration places enormous strains on both states' school systems (as evidenced by low graduation rates and poor test scores); it places strains on the health care system and emergency room waiting times; and in terms of assimilation, I highly doubt that immigrants to Texas assimilate any faster than do those here in California.
Solutions? No one's got one that A) allows us to regain control of our borders and crack down on new illegal immigration activity, while B) treating existing illegal immigrants humanely. The closest thing I can think of that would address both parts of the equation is Reagan's IRCA, and that failed spectacularly because the political will to address point A just didn't exist.
Re: The Golden State versus the Lone Star State, Or Who Does Immigration Better?
"You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state." Milton Friedman.
Since Texas-style welfare is considerably less comprehensive than California's, it is easy to appreciate that illegal immigration poses relatively less of a threat to the fisc of the Lone Star State. However, both border states must comply with the welfare mandates of the federal government; mandates that exert a continued magnetic attraction on poor people living south of the border.
In short, federal reform of the welfare state is perhaps more essential than border control in solving the problem of illegal immigration.
Nov '10
Re: The Golden State versus the Lone Star State, Or Who Does Immigration Better?
Don't ever call a proud Tejano a Mexican, if you value peace and quiet and not getting angry lectures.
Re: The Golden State versus the Lone Star State, Or Who Does Immigration Better?
Great column, Peter. I agree with George....
... but does the minimum wage also play a role? There is the oft-repeated line that illegals are doing the jobs that the rest of us are "unwilling" to do. But if employers had the flexibility to hire people at lower wages, would we suddenly find more citizens and legal residents "willing" to do those jobs? I really don't know the answer.
Nov '10
Re: The Golden State versus the Lone Star State, Or Who Does Immigration Better?
Adam Freedman: Great column, Peter. I agree with George....
... but does the minimum wage also play a role? There is the oft-repeated line that illegals are doing the jobs that the rest of us are "unwilling" to do. But if employers had the flexibility to hire people at lower wages, would we suddenly find more citizens and legal residents "willing" to do those jobs? I really don't know the answer.
Oh, thank you for raising that point. It seems obvious to me, but I'm not sure how often I've seen anyone else say that.
Oct '11
Re: The Golden State versus the Lone Star State, Or Who Does Immigration Better?
Mr. Robinson, I enjoyed your article this morning in the WSJ, but question your mention of studies which suggest that the contributions of illegals is greater than their cost. I live very near the Redwood City area you mentioned. The schools in RC have an extremely high percentage of undocumented students. Our hospital emergency rooms are full of patients whose bills will be paid by the taxpayers. Even our charities are mostly benefiting those who are here illegally. But what bothers me the most is the total disregard by many for our laws. If we can ignore immigration laws, then no law is respected and we might as well only live by our own personal rules. That, to me, is a very scary proposition as it seems that there are many who have little or no moral compass. I will support the GOP candidate who takes a strong stand for legal immigration and against illegal immigration. The law matters.
Mar '11
Re: The Golden State versus the Lone Star State, Or Who Does Immigration Better?
This is absolutely the problem, the welfare state in CA is burdened to care for those who come to receive the handout, not by those who come to work. It is that simple and always has been. You get no traction saying this because you obviously lack compassion.
Do we have anyone talking this way on the political scene?
All I ever hear is defend the borders like its Terra Nova versus the dream act. We must get to the message that the welfare state is more destructive to our culture than helpful, and government regulation and intervention at levels far removed from the problem needs to be rolled back.
Edited on Oct 14, 2011 at 10:23amRe: The Golden State versus the Lone Star State, Or Who Does Immigration Better?
Excellent point, Adam. Many illegals are undoubtedly performing jobs Americans are not allowed to do. Mark Steyn develops this theme in some detail in After America. Illegal immigration functions as sort of an escape valve preventing a collapse in services from mandatory over-pricing of low-skilled labor. As the regulatory state piles on the burdens--minimum wage increases, mandatory benefits of all sorts, regulatory costs--employers turn to "undocumented workers" who are de facto exempted from all the usual burdensome laws and regulations.
Edited on Oct 14, 2011 at 10:29amOct '10
Re: The Golden State versus the Lone Star State, Or Who Does Immigration Better?
Diane Ellis, Ed.: Peter --
Great piece in the Journal.
As to the response you reproduce above, I'm not sure I buy the argument that illegal immigration is a problem here in California, but not in Texas. Illegal immigration places enormous strains on both states' school systems (as evidenced by low graduation rates and poor test scores); it places strains on the health care system and emergency room waiting times; and in terms of assimilation, I highly doubt that immigrants to Texas assimilate any faster than do those here in California.
Ah, assimilation isn't as much of a problem in states like Texas and Arizona, since there is such a long Hispanic history in those places. Healthcare and school systems are a problem, but I'm always hesitant to draw such conclusions since I think the dristrict-level government monopoly on education prevents the marketplace from adjusting (school choice and vouchers! woo!).
Dec '10
Re: The Golden State versus the Lone Star State, Or Who Does Immigration Better?
George Savage
jobs Americans are not allowed to do
Remember the highly publicized busts for public consumption at the slaughterhouse of some reasonably well-known corporation running a chicken factory farm?
In a rural area as far from the border as possible, viz., Georgia, North Carolina, the media in tow, who later broadcast images better suited for PETA fundraising drives than for primetime news shows, these highly choreographed shakedowns fostered the misleading impression that the Feds were effective, interested, and involved in doing something about illegal immigration.
The real point of their deception, however, was to show illegal aliens who were in fact earning standard pay and “benefits” (relative to industry practices) while doing a job that attracted few citizens. They misused the 1% in conformity with the myth to hide the majority of illegal aliens who work in entry-level jobs because their undocumented status got them hired by beating the system in avoidance of minimum wages and absurd regulations that made it too costly to hire willing citizens.
These theatrics presaged Fast & Furious: Government manufactures a crisis to justify the regulatory Leviathan’s onerous overburdening of business which further consolidates the collectivist bureaucrat’s power.
Oct '10
Re: The Golden State versus the Lone Star State, Or Who Does Immigration Better?
1) "Texans understand that immigrants come to Texas to work, not to collect handouts."
Then there should be no problems with denying non-citizens who came to the U.S. illegally and their co-dependents free public education, free gov't benefits, free healthcare for the poor. (let's make police protection an exemption)
If you are a libertarian, the idea of immigrants (legal or illegal) moving from one country to another to find work is not the problem.
2) It is ironic that California is now a deep blue state, where it has voted for the Democratic Party for president since 1992. It was the only state where the tea party had zero effect in 2010. Wasn't the 1986 Amnesty Reagan signed supposed to help the GOP in assume a "permanent majority" in places like California?
3) "Although illegal immigration has in recent years been drying up—according to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center, it has fallen to 300,000 in 2009 from 850,000 in 2000."
The Great Recession of 2008 probably had something to do with that.
Edited on Oct 14, 2011 at 11:33pmOct '10
Re: The Golden State versus the Lone Star State, Or Who Does Immigration Better?
Forget the Great Wall of America. Just make sure your state is a low tax, low regulations state. Deny FREE public education, healthcare, welfare, benefits to those who are not citizens. Avoid the welfare state model of california.
Oct '10
Re: The Golden State versus the Lone Star State, Or Who Does Immigration Better?
But don't most of them pay little or no taxes, like most poor workers? Since most of them earn so little because of extremely low salaries.
re generous services, how much is the U.S. spending per child on public education?
Edited on Oct 14, 2011 at 9:01pm