Economic Bulldozer

In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, the author takes issue with recent attempts to control immigration and penalize those here in the country illegally. In defense of the Dream Act, William McKenzie makes the common economic argument concerning the economic benefits of immigration, both legal and illegal. But in places like Texas and Arizona, we are not talking about computer programmers, engineers, or doctors. We are primarily talking about uneducated and unskilled workers whose chief benefit to the economy is to keep wages low.

He also cites the common, and, in, my opinion, flawed argument that laws against illegal immigration do not stop it and therefore it is near worthless to try and improve, let alone enforce those laws. The merit of this argument is beyond me. Are laws against robbing banks worthless because they do not stop people from robbing banks? Does that mean we should give up and legalize bank robbing?

There certainly is room for compassion regarding the plight of illegals living in the U.S. But there is room for irritation as well. Not everyone who enters the U.S. brings valuable skills with them. Those who do not do little to increase the productivity of the U.S. and actually, in many cases, provide a net loss where social, governmental, and educational services must be expanded and tailored to meet the needs of immigrants.

There is also the argument that, even if many immigrants lack the skills and education to contribute to the U.S. economy, their children will acquire the skills lacking on the part of their parents and become productive and contributing members of the U.S. But much of this argument is speculative. It is assumed, or perhaps just hoped, that the children of illegal immigrants will grow up to be engineers, doctors, architects, etc. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Allowing millions of undocumented immigrants into to the U.S. on the statistical probability that some of them will, someday, acquire useful and needed skills and add to the economic vitality of the U.S. is a gamble. Because it is a gamble, the public should be made aware of the odds and the costs involved and decide if it is one they want to take. Unfortunately, the public is usually excluded from decisions regarding immigration.

Economics should be only one consideration in the debate over immigration. There are other considerations involved as well, e.g. the cultural, political, and social costs of immigration; and at what point does immigration become migration. But, as is increasingly common in the U.S., the economic considerations of policy are used to bulldoze all others. Perhaps the U.S. should consider altering its immigration laws to accommodate illegal immigrants trying enter the U.S. Perhaps we should also consider examining policy reforms to not only consider the aspirations of illegal immigrants, both those already here and those who want to come here, but to assess the ability of immigrants' to achieve those aspirations once they are here. Many people want to be doctors or architects. Few become doctors and architects. Regardless of one's opinion on the matter, the costs and benefits of immigration, economic or otherwise, is a discussion worth having.

There are many costs to immigration on the scale we are witnessing today. The economic cost is just one of them. Because it is the most "objective" and "scientific" analysis, the economic measurement has become the preferred one. The social, cultural and political costs are just as real. But, because they involve less quantifiable and "scientific" concerns, they are avoided, even shunned. Nevertheless, those costs are real, and we ignore them at our own peril.