My last post presented views about the pros and cons of immigration in the US as well as in regard to its political ramifications for Democrats and Republicans. In particular, the evidence suggests that low skill American workers are likely to be adversely impacted by low skill immigrants and immigration is also perceived as a threat to cultural and social cohesion. But we also know that, overall, immigration has been a net plus for this country.
However, as I have pointed in a recent post, statistical assessments based on “average” or “overall” benefits cannot cut it for those groups that feel to bear the brunt of a policy. So how do we decide which immigration policies are optimal? Ideally, we would like to design an immigration policy that while it creates benefits for some it does not create losses for anyone else. This is similar to what welfare economists call a Pareto optimal solution. It appears, though, that in the case of immigration this is pretty much close to impossible. Alternatively, we could design immigration policies that increase the total welfare (utility) of society even if some members’ welfare drops. It seems that this – the so-called utilitarian principle – has been the implicit premise of the US immigration policies. That’s why we like to declare “immigration is good for the country.” Obviously, utilitarianism implies a trade-off of welfare among groups. Trade off some of your welfare so society gains overall.
There is yet a third criterion to consider in evaluating a policy. Those who are the weakest should benefit the most from a policy. This would suggest that we put some restrictions to the inflow of low skill immigrants and expand the inflow of high skill immigrants who would compete against native workers with greater job security. This is what David Frum suggests in his Atlantic piece I cited in my last post. It is also reflected in the recent policy proposal of the Trump administration. Should such immigration ideas be enacted they would satisfy the “America First” political motto of Americans with nationalist priorities. In this case, an official immigration policy would be more favorable to low skill jobs avoided by Americans, as in farming, and to high skill jobs, especially in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) fields where there is a serious deficit of native talent. Of course, such a targeted immigration policy may not satisfy the internationalist view that the US should remain a welcoming destination of migrants without imposing criteria driven by narrow national interests.
The problem with adopting a nationalist approach to immigration rules is that it fails to address the reality of the 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the country. It would also be severely tested by immigrants who try to enter the country illegally as they flee lawlessness, violence and economic depravity in their home countries. In recent years, these immigrants have primarily come from Central American countries and have provided the fodder for President Trump’s anti-immigration stance.
Stemming the flow of illegal immigrants who seek an economic and safe haven in the US will require that we go beyond nationalist policies and adopt a more internationalist approach that calls for nation building. This means we need to have coherent and sustained policies that support the countries of Central America to escape the cycles of crime, economic depression, and state dysfunction. There is a model of nation building we can follow in this effort. It’s the European Union. Financial and state-building assistance without the political ties of the EU.
Despite any cynical view that the core founding members of the former European Community expanded for the goal of creating markets for their industries, the main effect of expansion has been the integration of administratively and economically weak countries with the stable and advanced democracies of Western Europe. The weaker countries were states that came out of periods of dictatorship (Greece, Spain, Portugal) or from the Soviet Block. To speed up the growth and advancement of these states, early on, the EU allocated significant capital out of the common budget to promote goals of social, developmental and economic cohesion. For example, the 2014-2020 plan has allocated 807 billion Euros to be distributed on an as-needed basis to the 28 member states. Thus, the Czech Republic is slated to receive about 12 billion Euros and its old partner Slovakia another 7.3 billion Euros. These monies go a long way to upgrade and build new infrastructure, run social assistance programs, improve education, and so on. No matter whatever else one can say against the EU, the fact remains that it has engaged in a nation building effort the world has never seen before.
Interestingly, the US recognized the need to assist Central America (CA) countries, in particular those in the north end of the region, that is, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador (the North Triangle). In 2015, Congress approved the sum of $2.6 billion to be distributed to these countries through 2019. Judging from the sharp decline of immigration from Mexico thanks to economic gains following NAFTA, we can conclude that development programs help countries retain their people. Indeed, third-party monitors of these programs have recorded noticeable progress in various areas, like poverty, crime, law and order, and public administration. At the same time, the continuing sizable flows of migrants from CA suggests that the US assistance has not been large enough to stabilize these countries.
Worse even, last April, President Trump announced cuts in these programs as a way to punish (!) the CA countries for sending (!) their destitute people up north. This has been denounced as totally counterproductive but to no avail so far. It is baffling that “America First” nationalism feels comfortable with the reality of a rich and successful homeland surrounded by small impoverished and dysfunctional countries that we can help but refuse to do so.
It is time we recognized that immigration is a challenging issue that affects Americans differently depending on their socio-economic situation. A blend of measures that accommodate national priorities and the internationalist spirit that looks at America as a force of good for weaker and needy countries would be a better way of thinking about immigration.
Let's Reason 