Legalizing US immigrants would grow the GDP by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years

[bascule]

An interesting new report by the Center for American Progress:

 

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/pdf/immigrationeconreport.pdf

 

They claim a program legalizing immigrant labor would massively expand the GDP by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

 

I'm not an expert on teabaggers but

and

they would not be in favor of such legislation.

 

What do you think? Could a legalized immigrant program be a huge boon for the American economy?

[Pangloss]

What do you think?

 

We already have legal immigration and a path to citizenship. In my opinion, lumping legals in with illegals in order to make opponents look like bigots and calling them names like "teabaggers" is not a good way to get everyone talking at the same table.

 

That aside, I see two questions:

 

In terms of the illegals already here, the question is not whether legalizing them would improve the economy -- this is a generally-acknowledged point. The question is whether legalizing them would open a floodgate that we're not prepared to deal with. In terms of increasing the rate of legal immigration (as proposed by the study, which does agree with limits), the same question applies -- can we handle an increased rate?

 

Given that we've seen examples of problems caused by ideologically-increased immigration rates (e.g. France), I believe this question should not be answered ideologically, and the projected economic growth shown in this report does not address the key concerns.

[Mokele]

If the projected economic growth can support them, what other aspect is there? The problem in France is due to the fact that the economy cannot support them.

[bascule]

calling them names like "teabaggers" is not a good way to get everyone talking at the same table.

 

Say what you will. The opposition to immigration in America is largely irrational and poorly weighs the respective pros and cons. I hope the videos I linked illustrate my point. The reason this will never happen is a case of irrational hatred and prejudice. These people think it's better to have zero control over the immigration process. Illlegitimizing border crossings doesn't stop immigrants from entering the country, but it does mean we have substantially less control over the process, and are effectively cutting our government out of the tax dollars we would otherwise receive. Much like drugs or prostitution, keeping it illegal only removes government control and tax revenue.

 

I would suggest reading the book Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market which goes into extensive detail about the "three pillars of the underground economy of the U.S"

 

The question is whether legalizing them would open a floodgate that we're not prepared to deal with. In terms of increasing the rate of legal immigration (as proposed by the study, which does agree with limits), the same question applies -- can we handle an increased rate?

 

Can you demonstrate that having a legalized immigration program would actually have any impact on the immigration rate whatsoever? Approximately 5,000 illegal immigrants enter the country each day, for a total of 1.8 million per year. It's already an out-of-control problem. Can you demonstrate that legitimizing the process would actually have a demonstrable increase on the immigration rate?

 

I believe this question should not be answered ideologically, and the projected economic growth shown in this report does not address the key concerns.

 

Which are? What concerns are raised by legitimizing the process rather than having no control over it?

Edited January 9, 2010 by bascule

[Pangloss]

Can you demonstrate that legitimizing the [naturalization][/b'] process would actually have a demonstrable increase on the immigration rate?

 

I added the bold above to clarify what I believe was your point. I agree that if Podesta & Co's proposal were accompanied by increased border security then you have at least addressed the common-sense objection (i.e. illegal immigration could be prevented from increasing).

 

Congress tried to tackle that problem two years ago and failed miserably because the obvious compromise (increase security, add amnesty) could not be accepted by extremists in either party. Nor is there any sign of something like that becoming possible in the near future.

 

And THAT'S because haters keep running around calling each other things like "teabaggers".

 

 

The opposition to immigration in America is largely irrational and poorly weighs the respective pros and cons.

 

There is no widespread opposition to immigration in America. The conservative complaint is about illegal immigration. And every time you make that "mistake" here, I'm going to point it out.

 

 

 

If the projected economic growth can support them, what other aspect is there? The problem in France is due to the fact that the economy cannot support them.

 

I think you may have missed bascule's point -- the progressive position is that they create economic growth. But I would want to see the evidence. If there's conclusive, objective, non-ideological evidence to support increasing the legal immigration rate, I would support such measures. But an ideological paper from a progressive think tank? Not so much.

[bascule]

There is no widespread opposition to immigration in America. The conservative complaint is about illegal immigration.

 

I would strongly disagree with that assertion. The conservative complaint is with immigration in general.

[Pangloss]

Then you should have no trouble finding a public policy statement to that effect from a mainstream conservative organization or the national Republican party. One that does not frame the issue as "immigration reform", "upholding the law", or any other phrase that does not explicitly challenge the continuance of legal immigration.

 

I don't disagree that some conservatives are opposed to all immigration, just as some liberals desire open borders without limits. But the mainstream conservative position, and the position of the Republican party, is that legal immigration is a normal and desirable function of the country. In fact, unless I am very much mistaken, even Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and your buddy Glenn Beck support legal immigration. I don't think even Lou Dobbs is opposed to legal immigration.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Pangloss

[bascule]

Then you should have no trouble finding a public policy statement to that effect from a mainstream conservative organization or the national Republican party.

 

Oh please. That's like asking me to find a public policy statement saying "we support the Christian religion over all other religions" or "we don't think homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals". It's not something they're going to outright admit in something as open as a public policy statement, but it doesn't change the fact it's a commonly held belief among their demographic.

[padren]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the big issue that there is a demand for cheap, untaxed illegal labor? If every illegal immigrant became legal overnight and documented, reported income etc etc then they would probably move up to a better jobs, but wouldn't there still be the same companies they used to work for actively hunting out and trying to find specifically illegal (well, anyone under the table willing to work for next to nothing) workers?

 

It seems to me that is the biggest factor in the "invisible hand" driving illegal immigration. They don't come in and "take our jobs" with ultra competitive high quality / cheap rates but fill a rather specific niche of labor - a niche according to the laws of this country should not exist (violates minimum wage laws, OSHA, no SS etc).

 

 

Honestly, I think we need to treat immigration as one issue, and at the same time increase the penalties on failure to report/adhere to minimum wage laws for employers - regardless of whether they pay illegal immigrants or born citizens. We could "finesse" adherence so the cost of business is accurately represented (some are trapped in a "do or die" competitive cycle of having to hire under the table in certain industries... so it takes a bit of sensitivity to correct).

 

 

The way it is now - if parts of the economy depend on illegal labor, we can spend all the money we want to kick illegals out or "kick them up" to legitimate wage jobs, but the economy that depends on cheap labor will keep trying to fill that gap until it's corrected.

[Pangloss]

It's not something they're going to outright admit in something as open as a public policy statement, but it doesn't change the fact it's a commonly held belief among their demographic.

 

You mean like the commonly held belief that all liberals are opposed to gun ownership?

 

But okay, let's take a look at your supposition that a vast right-wing conspiracy is taking place. The conservative mainstream is collectively lying, and that the reality is that they actually don't want any immigration whatsoever. I presume the motivation that you're seeing for this deception is that they wish to avoid being accused of of bigotry/racism/hatred-of-immigrants, or something similar? Certainly that can be a strong motivation.

 

I can understand if that's how you feel, but even if it's true, so what? Why isn't it sufficient to offer opposition on the thing they SAY they're opposed to? Why is it also necessary to put words in your opponents mouths, and crude labels on their chests? What do we gain by demonization?

 

You accuse them of irrationality. That may be. But even if it is, and you've offered no evidence that it is, it does not seem to me that your accusation is any more rational, or that attacking them on this basis is anything more than two wrongs trying to make a right.

[bascule]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the big issue that there is a demand for cheap, untaxed illegal labor? If every illegal immigrant became legal overnight and documented, reported income etc etc then they would probably move up to a better jobs, but wouldn't there still be the same companies they used to work for actively hunting out and trying to find specifically illegal (well, anyone under the table willing to work for next to nothing) workers?

 

I suggest reading the report I linked in the OP. They describe a vicious cycle where because one employer is using illegal immigrants, all of them must to stay cost competitive.

 

They largely suggest that what's needed is an elastic force of low wage workers. They also suggest that if there's a legal path for a Mexican to work in the US, then they will eschew working illegally, because they will get more money by working legally without the associated risks of an illegal border crossing.

 

Will that deter every Mexican from working illegally? Probably not. But it's certainly better than what we have now.

 

I can understand if that's how you feel, but even if it's true, so what? Why isn't it sufficient to offer opposition on the thing they SAY they're opposed to? Why is it also necessary to put words in your opponents mouths, and crude labels on their chests? What do we gain by demonization?

 

If it is true, when talk shifts to legitimizing immigrants the opposition to illegal immigration will likewise shift to opposition to legitimizing immigrants.

 

We've already seen the start of this with Obama's call for legitimizing immigrants who can pay their back taxes.

 

If you insist that this is a non issue I can't really defend my position otherwise. We'll just see what the debate looks like when the time comes.

[Pangloss]

If it is true, when talk shifts to legitimizing immigrants the opposition to illegal immigration will likewise shift to opposition to legitimizing immigrants.

 

I'm afraid that opposition to amnesty does not tell you whether an opponent is also against legal immigration. There is a logical, well-defined argument against general amnesty, and a clear demarcation between and amnesty and immigration. The general public, thanks to countless movies and TV shows, has a thorough understanding of the fact that this country was built and populated by immigrants.

 

I'm not saying it's a non-issue, I'm saying that you're overstating the case, and I'm also saying that some people (not necessarily you) who overstate this case do so in order to make the opposition look like a stupid hate group in order to marginalize their legitimate concerns.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Pangloss

[bascule]

I'm not saying it's a non-issue, I'm saying that you're overstating the case, and I'm also saying that some people (not necessarily you) who overstate this case do so in order to make the opposition look like a stupid hate group in order to marginalize their legitimate concerns.

 

Well, at the same time, racism does exist, and I don't think it's unfair to say that it's far more prevalent among American conservatives than it is among American liberals. That's certainly not to say that all conservatives are racists or even that the majority of conservatives are racists, but when it comes to the types of programs proposed in this report, the majority of the opposition is going to come from conservatives.

[Pangloss]

I agree completely.

[Mr Skeptic]

Bascule, what with the current fears of unemployment, now would be a particularly unlikely time for this already unlikely policy to be implemented. As it is, now they are stuck with low paying jobs, and can't steal real jobs from American citizens. And who will do they jobs that they are doing now if they are legalized and decide to switch jobs or get paid minimum wage?

 

There is no widespread opposition to immigration in America. The conservative complaint is about illegal immigration.

 

There has always been plenty of people opposed to immigration, legal or otherwise. If you want them to come out of the woodworks, suggest eliminating the numerical quotas to immigration and going solely with the quality requirements for them. I would not be surprised if well over half the Republicans were opposed to it. Or suggest accepting nearly everyone as an immigrant (therefore legal immigrant), and nearly everyone will be opposed.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Mr Skeptic

[bascule]

Bascule, what with the current fears of unemployment, now would be a particularly unlikely time for this already unlikely policy to be implemented.

 

Indeed, we need to jumpstart the economy before an elastic labor supply will really be worthwhile.

[Pangloss]

There has always been plenty of people opposed to immigration, legal or otherwise.

 

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with this point.