Advocatus Diaboli

Hibernation

2006-07-04T13:22:00.000-07:00

Too busy to blog at the moment. Regular blogging should resume in a week or two.

LOL

2006-06-17T03:04:00.000-07:00

David Hensel, 64, from East Grinstead, West Sussex, was told the laughing head would be part of the summer exhibition.

But at a preview he found that just a piece of wood intended to support the head was on display on the plinth.

The Academy said the judging panel assumed the two pieces were separate and decided the support was better.

Amnesty: Stuck On Stupid

2006-06-15T02:40:00.000-07:00

What's is this Pence plan that's being talked about? Is this Pence fellow, supposedly a bona fide conservative, really this stupid? I'm not sure how this resolves any of the substantive points against amnesty; all it does is muddy the waters in the hopes that the American people are too stupid to know the difference. Unless Pence is too stupid to know the difference, which I concede, given the quality of arguments in favor of mass immigration, is a distinct possibility.

Examining Immigration Policy More Closely

2006-06-14T22:11:00.000-07:00

How do we define what makes an immigration policy good or bad? A lot of the rhetoric on the pro-immigration side implicitly sets the bar low, ridiculously low, to more or less this question: Does the benefit of immigration exceed the cost? There are several problems with this formula.

1) We can do better. While I am skeptical that the long-term and comprehensive costs are less than the benefits of current illegal immigration, this is still the wrong question. The appropriate economic question is: Are these immigrants the best immigrants we can get? Even if one accepts that massive immigration is good, that does not mean that mass immigration among the unskilled and uneducated is the optimal policy. Would, for example, immigration among the skilled and educated be of more benefit? Simply put: Can we do better? Economics is about achieving the optimal, not merely that-will-do policy analysis.* If there is a better immigration policy, then we should adopt it.

2) Underestimation of costs. Massive immigration causes real economic losses that are undestimated or ignored in cost-benefit analysis. First among these costs is crime. Killing or injury individuals carries real economic costs (not to mention the emotional impact on the victims, their families, and society). Incarceration then compounds that cost further.

Most cost-benefit analysis does not include the cost to educate immigrant children (around $7,000 per child per year), usually because the children themselves are American citizens. Likewise, welfare and medicaid costs for the American born children of immigrants are excluded from most calculations. This is inexcusable because these children are a direct result of immigration policy, even if they are not "immigrants" themselves. Another cost is the degradation in the quality of public schools. Flooding public schools with low SES students and English learners is a tremendous burden to our public school system that our lower and middle classes depend on; the education of their children suffers as a direct result of massive immigration, reducing the lifetime economic output of those educated in increasingly ineffective public schools. Finally, immigrants place inflationary pressures on our economy in several sectors, principally housing and health services. By importing poverty we import more uninsured, which causes medical prices to increase. As discussed in a previous post and contrary to popular belief, immigrants actually increase the cost of housing.

3) Underestimation of intangibles. Most agree (or at least say they agree) that American welfare should be the exclusive policy concern of American immigration policy. Immigration policy should not be formulated by placing any weight on the benefits to the immigrants themselves (some traitors disagree). If one accepts this premise, how do we not account for the pyschic disutility created by massive immigration? A 45-year-old construction worker doesn't want to have to learn Spanish to keep his skillset competitive. Soccer moms don't want to be bombarded by a foreign language when they visit the super market. They want to live in the country the grew up in; they want to feel at home at home; they don't want to feel like a foreigner in their own country.

Contrary to popular belief, these costs should be considered in economic analysis if the purported objective is to maximize native well being. Though these sorts of costs cannot be precisely defined (they're intangibles) they should bias the analysis in favor of less immigration. If the benefit of massive unskilled immigration is small (if there are long term benefits at all, they are small), one should reject the policy because of the presence of many intangible costs (a partial list of intangible costs: increase in inequality, loss of monolingual society, loss of national cohesion, chance of irredentism, and fear of crime).

*Immigration must be necessarily limited by transition costs and assimilation concerns. Given this limitation, we should offer the limited spaces to the immigrants that will be of the greatest net benefit to America.

Jewish Ideological Tendencies

2006-06-14T16:23:00.000-07:00

Steve Sailer discusses some tendencies of Jewish idealogy he has observed. First on his list is a tendency toward Utopian delusions (Communism, Socialism, Neo-Conservatism all have elements of Utopianism).

One possible explanation for the Utopian tendency is that Jews are much more secular than the general population. Religion is a human universal. It's possible that religion satisfies inherent desires for purpose, for meaning, and for immortality. Secular peoples, lacking the fulfillment religion provides, might then seek this purpose from political idealogy and creating paradise here, today (success ensures their immortality as well). Religious peoples, however, tend to accept the imperfection of this world for the promise of paradise in the next, staving off Utopian impulses.

Sailer also mentions reverence for the "all-knowing-scholar-sage." This is also consistent with the secular explanation because this is essentially the replacement of a religious priesthood with a secular priesthood. The priest or rabbi gives us guidance on how to live our lives, and so too does the secular priesthood of "all-knowing-scholar-sages."

Comments

2006-06-13T13:47:00.000-07:00

After chiding Tyler Cowen for his comment policy, I have just discovered my comment "moderation" option was enabled. The problem was I wasn't moderating them because I didn't know I needed to. Sorry to any readers who wondered why their comments weren't being posted, I just thought nobody wanted to comment! The option has been disabled and they should post immediately.

Gender Diversity, Again

2006-06-12T21:54:00.000-07:00

In an earlier post, I remarked on the importance in gender diversity in marriage. The Guardian has an interesting story about the differences between men and women's reading habits. The piece is full of all sorts of speculation, but one thing struck me. Only 6 of the top 20 books for women were written by men. For men, only a single book in the top 20 was by a woman author. Why might this be? Men relate better to other men, and women relate better to other women. We're just different. Gay marriage will rob children of that difference.

A boy raised by two lesbians will not have a father, and a girl raised by two gay men will not have a mother. And for those children raised by two partners of their sex, they are denied the mother-son or fauther-daughter dynamic. For all the crap that Freud spewed, I do think he was on to something in one instance--a lot of us do seek out wives that remind us of our mothers and husbands that remind us of our fathers. Does this tendency serve some useful function, does it help us choose the right sort of mate? At the minimum, I think, we should have a little more humility about redefining marriage, for humanity and the institutions we depend on are a lot more complex (and complexity implies fragileness) than is commonly regarded.

Tyler Cowen Rationalizes Comment Policy

2006-06-12T12:26:00.000-07:00

Readers of Marginal Revolution have probably noticed that on most immigration posts Tyler and his coblogger have been disabling comments. Tyler says that's because of the low quality of the comments on emotionally charged issues. Not only that but protecting himself from humiliation on his own blog is actually in the interest of free and open debate, "stochastically speaking and properly construed over time." He also cautions not to "overanalyze this." I guess he's already done that for us (e.g. "stochastically speaking and properly construed over time," censorship promotes the exchange of ideas, which I take to mean his ideas). Very libertarian of him, right?

Does Immigration Increase or Decrease Housing Prices?

2006-06-11T12:45:00.000-07:00

Angry Bear, curious if the last few years in real wage growth in construction are different than the trend over the last 20, calculates that even in the last two years, with a booming housing market, real compensation for construction wages still declined. Yet the construction industry promises us that despite all economic evidence to the contrary there really is a labor shortage. No, falling wages are a sure sign of a labor surplus. Using the logic of the pro-immigration folks, I guess this means we must deport illegals rather than let the market work itself out, right? I mean, if we can't let wages change in response to limited supply, why should we let it change in response to too much supply?

The effect on real wages is simply common sense and is time and again proven by the data. Lots of commenters to Angry Bear's post, however, opined that the benefit of all this was found in cheaper housing for the consumer. But is this true? The answer is: Probably not. This seems counterintuitive until one realizes that immigrants are not just building houses and apartment complexes, they're buying them too. Large immigration waves usually appreciably impact housing prices; this is nothing revolutionary.

Now, if Tyler Cowen had his way and we encouraged immigrants to live in shantytowns, housing prices might drop or remain unchanged with an influx of immigrants. But they don't live in shantytowns, thankfully. Immigrants drive up the price of housing because they're not just producers of it, they're consumers of it. This is made even clearer when one realizes that only a fraction, around 10%, of all illegals work in the construction industry. For every one immigrant working in construction, there are nine others that don't but still need a place to live. That doesn't seem like an equation for lower housing prices, but the open borders crowd believes what it wants to believe, evidence and logic be damned.

Related Posts: Here, Here, and Here.

Xenophobia

2006-06-10T23:41:00.000-07:00

The epithet "xenophobe" is often used in a manner that suggests that any fear of foreigners is irrational. Such a proposition would require foreigners to differ only in superficial characteristics--diet, skin color, height, body type, taste in music and so forth. Surely fearing foreigners because they like different music or spicey cuisine falls within the realm of irrational or overblown fear, and is therefore properly described as xenophobic. But not every difference between cultures is superficial. Send one of the "Queer Eye" guys to Iran or Saudi Arabia and tell him not to be xenophobic. He has nothing to fear, right? Of course he does. Reverse the scenario, this time the Muslims move to Paris or NYC where there are many openly gay individuals. Should the gay community not fear the flood of fundamentalist Muslims into their country? Should they all quell their concern despite every rational reason not to?

Update: 62% of the Dutch believe Islam is incompatible with European life. Most of the left here in America, and a large portion of the right, would consider this statement xenophobic.

Diversity & Marriage II

2006-06-09T15:15:00.000-07:00

John Rowe made an interesting point in the comments over at The Volokh Conspiracy that I thought I'd share:

Another theory I think that needs to be explored is given that a) gay couples don't naturally have children, but b) do and will have children regardless (perhaps because all human beings have a natural urge to parent), perhaps the process of getting from a to b will have the effect of screening for more responsible people among gay parents, a sort of "responsibility effect" if you will.

For instance, heterosexuals don't need to do anything but "the act" to conceive. And clearly the pathologies that we see with single parent households are compounded by the fact that such mothers are often poor, uneducated, young and clearly "not yet ready," to have children.

But a lesbian couple going to a sperm bank or two gay men adopting have to jump through endless hoops of responsibility, and are likely only to have children when they are financially ready and responsible for it.

Good points. I have viewed the current crop of child-rearing gays to be something of an elite group (by motivation and affluence, at least), though many of these children are the result of heterosexual unions, so it's difficult to tell how much the screening effect would impact average parent quality. We probably won't know for some time how effective gay households are in rearing children, but something like what John Rowe describes could work to negate any intrinsic detriment gay marriages possess.

Lose-Lose-Lose Situation

2006-06-09T13:52:00.000-07:00

Cliff May at the corner's take on the the left's reaction to Zarqawi's death:

· If Zarqawi kills Americans, he’s winning!

· If Zarqawi kills innocent Iraqis, he’s still winning because he’s proven that the Americans can’t stop him! Bush is losing!

· And even when Zarqawi is killed, he’s still winning because the Americans have made him a martyr which is useful to the cause — the cause to which two years ago Zarqawi could not be linked!

Bin Laden’s own Director of Communications couldn’t spin
developments better than that.

Gender Diversity & Marriage

2006-06-09T12:11:00.000-07:00

The "diversity is our strength" crowd oddly never mentions the gender diversity of traditional marriage. A mother is just not the same as a father. Consequently, gay marriage cannot be the functional equivalent of traditional marriage. Men and women are *gasp* different, each possessing different strengths and different weaknesses. They're different as children, as young adults, and as parents. In many ways, a man and a woman complement one another, one's weakness is another's strength.

Most of us have had a friend who either lost a mother or a father. The fatherless boy wishes he could play catch or go fishing with his dad, the motherless daughter wishes she had a mother to help plan her wedding, take weekend shopping trips, or discuss relationship woes. A boy being raised by a single mother doesn't desire another mother. Having a really great uncle doesn't replace one's mother; and having a really great aunt doesn't replace one's father. But having a great, involved uncle can serve us a substitute for an absent or deceased father. The lesson: Gender matters, it matters a lot.

When one loses a parent, they're not just losing an additional caregiver, they are losing half of the whole that is marriage. Gay marriage gives us two halfs and no whole, two yings or two yangs but no yin and yang. It's incomplete and inferior.

Zarqawi Dead!!!

2006-06-08T02:14:00.000-07:00

It's for real this time. Great news.

Malkin has the video of the announcement.

Role Reversal

2006-06-05T22:16:00.000-07:00

This humorous flash cartoon demonstrates just how crazy our immigration policy is.

Literally Unbelievable

2006-06-05T20:49:00.000-07:00

A married wealthy DC-area lawyer blames Bush and "religion seeping into politics" for her abortion. Wow. Bush made her have unprotected sex. Bush made her "take [her] chances and hope for the best." She clearly had no other choice, being a healthy and wealthy married woman. It's difficult to imagine that "Dana L." accomplished much with this piece. A slim majority of Americans support abortion rights in general because they're sympathetic to a number of difficult circumstances--the pregnant high school girl or the poor unwed mother of five. I doubt many read this and think to themselves, "thank God this woman had the choice, I can't imagine what her life would have been like without it."

H/T to K.Lopez of The Corner

Addendum:

I noticed that the author of the article doesn't understand how emergency contraception works. Dana wrote, "This all could have been stopped way before this baby was conceived if they had just let me have that damn pill [emphasis added]." Emergency contraception works in one of several ways. It can prevent the ovum from being fertilized by keeping it in the ovary or it can prevent implantation of the blastocyst. Emergency contraception works up until the blastocyst (a small clump of cells) attaches itself to the lining of the uterus. This is one reason why some have moral problems with emergency contraception and with oral contraception in general (the pill can prevent implantation as well, though that isn't its principal mode of action).

The reason that emergency contraception is not considered an abortion is that pregnancy is defined medically as beginning upon implantation rather than conception. I believe that emergency contraception should be legal and reasonably accessible, but it's important to get the facts straight.

Fairness & Taxation

2006-06-05T20:20:00.000-07:00

A lot of people like to think of estate taxes as one of the many ways we "level the playing field" between the rich and the poor. The main argument for retaining estate taxes, then, is not one of efficiency but equity. Gregory Mankiw (yes, that Mankiw) makes an excellent argument that repealing the estate tax is actually the fairer policy. He quotes a previous column of his:

Consider the story of twin brothers – Spendthrift Sam and Frugal Frank. Each starts a dot-com after college and sells the business a few years later, accumulating a $10 million nest egg. Sam then lives the high life, enjoying expensive vacations and throwing lavish parties. Frank, meanwhile, lives more modestly. He keeps his fortune invested in the economy, where it finances capital accumulation, new technologies, and economic growth. He wants to leave most of his money to his children, grandchildren, nephews, and nieces.Now ask yourself: Which millionaire should pay higher taxes?... What principle of social justice says that Frank should be penalized for his frugality? None that I know of.

How Can Homosexuality Be Genetic

2006-06-05T00:52:00.000-07:00

When it's obviously maladaptive? I have encountered a few theories here and there which try to explain how a trait that seriously hinders reproductive success could nevertheless exist in around 5% of the population.

One that comes to mind is the idea that homosexuals are good at helping the over all family survival (they would, therefore, further their own genes through their family members).

Another idea is that gays were pressured to marry and reproduce by a culture hostile to their sexual preference. This seems reasonable for at least the last several thousand years (unless homophobia is itself genetic).

I have my own theory (which I am quite certain is nothing new, I just haven't seen it). What if several reproductively positive genes (intelligence, creativity, or a great fashion sense) combine to predispose one to homosexuality? These genes would aid reproductive success alone or in some combinations, so they would be propelled from generation to generation. It would only be in a particular combination that they would predispose one to homosexual preference.

Clueless

2006-06-05T00:24:00.000-07:00

In defending the McKennedy amnesty proposal and McCain's refusal to campaign for a fellow Republican who opposes McCain's amnesty policy, Ruben Navarrette writes dismissively of the alternative (full article here):

"All they have is this quaint theory that if we crack down on employers, let local cops enforce immigration law, or put troops on the border -- all of which Bilbray supports -- illegal immigrants will find it so inhospitable here that they will simply self-deport.
It could happen -- as soon as hardened criminals self-arrest, self-convict and self-imprison [emphasis added]."

Great analogy, Ruben! Illegal immigrants are just like hardened criminals! Way to inspire sympathy! Later, he explains that it's not "anchor babies" that keep illegal immigrants in America but "anchor jobs" (right after he says that cracking down on employers won't solve the problem!):

"The assumption is that people risk their lives to have babies on U.S. soil so the infants are first in line at the welfare office. That's dumb. If you want to know what keeps illegal immigrants in this country, it's not anchor babies. It's "anchor jobs'' provided by U.S. employers, many of them Republicans [emphasis added]."

WAIT A MINUTE, Ruben! Denying illegals employment as a way of attriting the illegal population is a pipedream, but the only thing that's keeping them"anchored" are jobs? In addition to contradicting himself, I think Ruben misunderstands what an anchor baby is--it's hard to deport somebody who is providing for their US citizen child, both morally and legally. More importantly, that child, as a US citizen, can sponsor both parents for citizenship. That's why they're called anchor babies, Rube.

Monogamy Optional

2006-06-03T00:27:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sullivan gives us one more reason to oppose gay marriage. He writes:

"Dan [Savage] and I agreed that moderate hypocrisy - especially in marriages - is often the best policy. Momogamy [sic] is very hard for men, straight or gay, and if one partner falters occasionally (and I don't mean regularly), sometimes discretion is perfectly acceptable. You could see [Erica] Jong bridle at the thought of such dishonesty. But I think the post-seventies generation - those of us who grew up while our parents were having a sexual revolution - both appreciate the gains for sexual and emotional freedom, while being a little more aware of their potential hazards. An acceptance of mild hypocrisy as essential social and marital glue is not a revolutionary statement. It's a post-revolutionary one. As is, I'd say, my generation as a whole."

This is not the first time Sullivan has hinted of his dislike for monogamy. Take for example his writing that gay men have a "greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets." That is, he says, one of the many reasons why gay marriage would strengthen traditional marriage.

H/T to Althouse (with lots of debate in the comments).

Social Security Trust Fund: Accounting Fiction?

2006-06-01T23:28:00.000-07:00

There's a debate over at Dean Baker's blog about the Social Security Trust Fund. I think both Dean and his detractors are actually both correct. Dean took issue with the description of the fund as an "accounting fiction." With respect to the government as a whole, it is. The fund is made up of government bonds, so the government owes itself money. It's no different than if you wrote yourself an IOU for $100, you'd be no better off. Read the comments to both of his posts (here and here) for some background on where people are coming from. But I think Dean's also right. I commented:

"I think what Dean Baker is trying to say is that with respect to social security (and ONLY social security) the assets are real. I think he's right there. It's probably better just to look at the trust fund as a government commitment, commitments which must be financed by issuing more debt or raising taxes when the time comes.

"Of course what is an asset to SS is a liability to the general government, so the government as a whole is no better off. The money isn't really saved, which is why the language of a "trust fund" is so deceptive. The situation we have today is no different than if the government committed to pay for future benefits through issuing debt and increasing taxes. Yet that does not mean these commitments are fiction, they are real, but instead of money sitting in a bank the commitment is the promise of more debt and higher taxes. "

More Phony "Labor Shortages"

2006-05-30T12:00:00.000-07:00

Dean Baker picks up another phony labor shortage article (for more background, see here and here). As any econ101 student should know, genuine shortages of any kind produce rising prices (in the case of labor, wages). Yet when we look at the trends for wages in jobs traditionally filled by immigrant labor--construction, maintenance, and food service--we don't see a trend of rising wages, we see a trend of declining wages. Declining wages, as any econ101 student should know, are evidence of a labor surplus. Dean Baker, again, skewers this all-too-common fallacy.

As the article reports, there are a huge number of less-skilled jobs waiting to be filled by immigrants, but almost no visas are available for immigrants to come across the border and work at these jobs legally.

To prove this case, the article quotes Stephen P. Gennett, president of the Carolinas chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America (a builders’ trade group), “we have a problem here, a people shortage.”

While Mr. Gennett is undoubtedly knowledgeable about the state of the labor market for construction workers, he also represents an organization that has a clear interest in this issue, they want cheap labor. Ordinarily, the claim that there is a people shortage would imply that wages are rising at an extraordinary rate. (This is the way economists ordinarily think about markets – shortages mean higher prices.) This means that there is a quick way to verify Mr. Gennett’s claims about a people shortage: see if wages in construction have been rising at an extraordinary rate.

A quick trip to the Get Detailed Statistics section of the Bureau of Labor Statistics website tells us that inflation adjusted wages for construction workers have actually fallen about 5 percent since 1980, a period in which productivity has increased by more than 70 percent. So, we have wages falling in spite of a labor shortage – not where I learned my economics.

Laws Are Like Sausages

2006-05-24T21:07:00.000-07:00

It's best not to see them being made. John O'Sullivan has the latest on the "foul smell" emanating from the Senate.

Bad History

2006-05-22T21:38:00.000-07:00

Razib of the Gene Expression has a good post on why the Da Vinci Code is historically inaccurate. He's uncomfortable having to agree with the fundamentalists, but sides with truth.

That being said, why does it matter that The Da Vinci Code is historically inaccurate? Some readers might view it as fantasy, but the problem is that it is billed as historical fiction (see the preface to the book). 45 million Americans have read this book, that's 20% of the population. A small minority, on the order of millions, claim to have had their view of the Bible and Christianity altered. This is nothing to sneeze at, if a new religious movement claimed millions in a few years we would take note.

For me, the biggest problem with The Da Vinci Code is that the fundamentalists are right! All the critiques that the fundamentalists make about The Da Vinci Code have a lot of truth in them, and when I'm agreeing with fundamentalists, something is wrong. It puts them on the same side as the majority of Biblical scholars, and that hasn't happened in a long time. Instead of "refuting" scholarly debunkings of the inerrant or literal character of the Bible, fundamentalists are now drawing from the wellspring of New Testament scholarship to debunk a rival superstition.

Among the many historical inaccuracies, he lists:

1) Christians did not overwhelmingly believe Jesus Christ was human before the Council of Nicea

2) The Council of Nicea had little to do with what books were included in the New Testament

3) There were celibate Jewish males around the time of Jesus, and if they were celibate they were very likely to have expressed the opinions that Jesus himself expressed (in other words, basic conditional probabilities here, even if Jewish males were unlikely to be celibate at this time, Jewish males who expressed the religious opinions that Jesus reputedly did were far more likely to be celibate than the basal frequency)

4) The Dead Sea Scrolls say nothing about Jesus (though they give us an interesting glance into the minds of radical Jews of the time)

Wow

2006-05-19T17:56:00.000-07:00

Woman rips her husband's testicles off--with her bare hands.

The 52-year-old Tioga-Nicetown man, who we are identifying only by his first name of Howard, arrived home late Wednesday, hours after his wife allegedly tore off two parts of his genitalia with her bare hands. Surgeons at Einstein successfully managed to repair the damage.

Coulter Goes After Amnesty/Bush

2006-05-19T06:25:00.000-07:00

Coulter has a new column on immigration and it's not too kind to El Presidente. Some highlights:

"At least Bush has dropped his infernal references to slacker Americans when talking about illegal immigrants. In his speech Monday night, instead of 47 mentions of "jobs Americans won't do," Bush referred only once to "jobs Americans are not doing" — which I take it means other than border enforcement and intelligence-gathering at the CIA. For the record, I'll volunteer right now to clean other people's apartments if I don't have to pay taxes on what I earn.

"Instead of a moratorium on new immigration, I'd settle for a moratorium on the use of the expression "We're a nation of immigrants." Throw in a ban on "Diversity is our strength" and you've got my vote for life.

"Bush calls this the "rational middle ground" because it recognizes the difference between "an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years." Yes, the difference is: One of them has been breaking the law longer. If our criminal justice system used that logic, a single murder would get you the death penalty, while serial killers would get probation. Bush claimed the only other alternative — I assume this is the "irrational extreme" — is "a program of mass deportation." Really? Is the only alternative to legalizing tax cheats "a program of mass arrest of tax cheats"? This is the logic of the pro-abortion zealots (aka "the Democratic Party"): Either lift every single restriction on abortion or ... every woman in America will be impregnated by her father and die in a back-alley abortion!

"Bush thinks it's not fair to favor people with special skills — a policy evidenced by his Harriet Miers pick. How about this: It's not fair to want to go out with someone just because that person is attractive and has a good personality because it discriminates against people who are ugly with bad social skills! That's our immigration policy.

Martinez Campaign 2004

2006-05-18T08:41:00.000-07:00

A Polipundit reader points to a google cache of his campaign website which promises Martinez is against amnesty, and states that "immigration must always be legal" (PDF of webpage). Senator Martinez is, of course, one of the authors of the Hagel-Martinez Bill.

Aftermath of Speech

2006-05-18T08:23:00.000-07:00

I didn't put much faith in the initial reports of the speech Monday helping El Presidente. The the opinion-making conservative intelligentsia (the base-maker) wasn't happy with it and however elitist this sounds, that matters a lot. Compare to the Miers debacle; many Republicans and conservatives trusted the President's choice because they trusted the President. It took awhile for disastisfaction to percolate among the base, but it did. The conservative intelligentsia exposed the truth and the base shifted away from the President. Those loyalists, like Hewitt, looked pretty foolish by the end of that fiasco.

It's also important to note that even if the a majority of the American public prefers Bush's immigration proposal, this does not translate into Bush being more popular. He has alienated virtually all Democrats and most moderates. His base stayed with him very strongly until Miers (and to some extent, Katrina), but immigration is decimating his remaining support. Bush's poll numbers will continue to sink because a small and shrinking percent of Republicans support his immigration plan (as of today, it's 60%).

For Presidential approval ratings, I prefer Rasmussen's tracking poll (he was the most accurate in the 2004 Presidential election and his results were much more consistent). Kaus says that tommorrow's data will have him at 36%, a record low for this poll (a 3% drop from the day of the speech).

Price & Quantity Supplied

2006-05-17T16:30:00.000-07:00

I'm heartened by this Cornyn amendment to the Senate bill but I have trouble believing it will do much without specifying how wages affect the "willingness" of American workers to fill a job.

The amendment protects U.S. workers by requiring the Department of Labor to certify that there is not a U.S. worker who is able, willing, qualified and available to fill the job position that is offered to the foreign worker.

More econ101. Price is central. A firm can advertise X job for $5.25/hour and when no Americans bite, are they in the clear? Americans will work any of the jobs currently done by illegals for a higher wage. And if there is a shortage of workers (no workers "available"), a higher wage will induce more workers to enter that field. That is how markets work; this is what we call supply and demand. Why are we afraid to let the market work? We wouldn't want income inequality to decrease or anything!

Kaus Eviscerates

2006-05-16T05:11:00.000-07:00

Bush's speech. As usual his analysis is spot-on. Bush proposed creating a national ID for every foreign worker. Sounds good, right? Not as effective as a national ID for everybody, but still good. WRONG.

How would creating an i.d. card for foreign workers prevent illegals, using forged documents, from posing as U.S. citizens? Why should employers require someone who seems to be a citizen to show a "foreign worker" card? (Presumably the idea isn't that employers will doubt the U.S. citizenship of any job applicant who looks "foreign.")

Among other criticisms Kaus, again, points out the dishonesty of the "back of the line" meme (see Lawrence Lindsey's excellent piece), and points to a promsing alternative circulating by email, the "exit amnesty":

You have 60 days to arrange your affairs and leave. If you leave during this exit amnesty period and have committed no other crimes against the American people, you will suffer no penalty or recriminations. You will not be harassed or persecuted in any manner while you depart from our nation. ...
If you leave voluntarily, you will be free to enter the U.S. in the future without prejudice or discrimination. You will be allowed to apply for lawful immigration to the U.S. in the future. However, you will be given no special privileges and will have to wait in line like every one else. And you will have to wait in your country not ours.
If you do not take advantage of our generous offer, and if you are caught after our amnesty ends, you will be banned from the U.S. for life. You will never be readmitted to the U.S. for any reason whatsoever. If you attempt to return to the U.S. after you are banned, you will be criminally prosecuted.

LIARS!

2006-05-16T05:02:00.000-07:00

So says McClure of Polipundit are those who claim to be conservatives and oppose Bush's immigration proposals. They aren't conservatives. They are LIARS.

If you think that is amnesty, then you are either a moron or a liar. If you ar truly a Republican to begin with, if you are truly a conservative, then you will applaud this speech and support the reforms he has articulated. Otherwise, you are not a Republican. You are not a conservative. You are a LIAR. A LIAR

Symposium on Bush's Speech

2006-05-16T04:59:00.000-07:00

Some interesting reactions over at National Review Online. John O'Sullivan, like most of us, predicted most of the content of the President's speech and was unimpressed:

I listened to the speech with some nervousness because my Chicago Sun-Times column was a critique of it, written and sent to press about two hours before Mr. Bush began speaking. (No shameful Fleet Street tabloid deception here—I leveled with the readers.) But would I be shown up as a laughably out-of-touch hack who had forecast all kinds of arguments the president never said and whose criticisms were accordingly wide of the mark?

Within minutes—no, seconds—I knew I was safe. Every misleading point I had deconstructed, every shallow rhetorical device I had unraveled, every omission I had forecast—all were trotted out, present and incorrect. None of this suggests any great insight on my part. The speech was a tired and tiring repetition of all the president’s previous sayings on immigration. Like them it was designed to suggest that he would be tough on border security and illegal immigration when in fact the small print of his proposals amounts to the “open door” that he celebrated in his peroration.

Why We Don't Need "Comprehensive" Reform

2006-05-13T05:39:00.000-07:00

Andrew C. McCarthy on the search for the "Big Answer" and why we shouldn't go there:

The problem with this controversy is the seeming sense that it is essential for us to strike some kind of comprehensive solution. Although the proposed solutions are radically different, the sense of urgency for the Big Answer is common among all disputants, whether they are from the trans-nationalist, post-sovereign Left (for whom “rights” for illegals are a natural fit), the portions of the Right kindly toward illegal immigrants due to political/economic calculations, and those on the Right opposed to rights for illegals owing to cultural/economic/rule of law/national security concerns (in whose number I count myself).

I continue to be mystified by this. Government almost always resists hard choices, and thus when it occasionally tries for the Big Answer, it is virtually always the Wrong Answer. See, e.g., intelligence reform, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc., etc. Jonah will hopefully correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve always thought Hayek explained the reasons for this – which lie in the inability of fallible humans to foresee and rationally regulate all downstream consequences of ambitious schemes – as well as anyone.

Freakonomics Falsehood

2006-05-11T05:20:00.000-07:00

A commenter on Levitt's blog has challenged a central fact of Levitt and Dubner's recent NYT's column "A Star Is Made." Levitt starts the column:

If you were to examine the birth certificates of every soccer player in next month's World Cup tournament, you would most likely find a noteworthy quirk: elite soccer players are more likely to have been born in the earlier months of the year than in the later months.

But the diligent work of a skeptical commenter, Bill Loyd, has uncovered the truth. There is no consistent pattern. The data for 1983 cited in support of this thesis is an outlier. Loyd looked up over 1,000 World Cup players and found that the split was 51-49%. In many years there were more players born in the last half of the year.

Levitt has refused to defend the column and has (as of yet) also refused to concede the point.

UPDATE: Levitt has now conceded that the World Cup data does not support his thesis and provides some interesting data for hockey.

Proof

2006-05-07T06:59:00.000-07:00

The single best thing we can do to reduce illegal immigration and attrit the illegal population is to penalize employers and conduct raids on worksites that employ them.

Already, without any actual enforcement, the power of this approach is being illustrated:

Rumours are rampant in the city's immigrant communities that federal agents are swooping down into neighborhoods and plucking undocumented workers from restaurants, car washes and even soccer fields.

"My employees are nervous to come to work now," said Ana, a Woodhaven, Queens, hair salon owner who called the Daily News to report an unsubstantiated raid of a Latino food restaurant on Jamaica Ave. and 104th St. "I really don't know what to tell them."

Iraq Mistakes

2006-05-07T05:33:00.000-07:00

Jeff Goldstein has a superb must-read post on the troop level controversy.

No Moral Relativism Here

2006-05-05T03:56:00.000-07:00

Lithwick makes an astonishing statement in her article on the Moussaoui sentencing:

"These jurors understood that for this country to kill a terrorist for his ideas, hopes, and dreams is not much different than the terrorist's desire to come here and kill us for ours."

Wow. Are you kidding me?

Funniest Video Ever

2006-05-03T22:30:00.000-07:00

Russert really makes a fool of himself. Wow.

Direct link to video here.

Partial transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Secretary, if, if demand is up but supply is down, why are the profits so high?

MR. BODMAN: For that reason.

MR. RUSSERT: No, think about that.

MR. BODMAN: You know?

MR. RUSSERT: Play it out.

MR. BODMAN: Demand is up.

MR. RUSSERT: Correct.

MR. BODMAN: Right?

MR. RUSSERT: Right.

MR. BODMAN: So you’ve got more demand, you’re going to force price up.

Assimilation or Conquest?

2006-05-02T02:36:00.000-07:00

Charles Krauthammer sums it up perfectly:

If you found a stranger living in your basement, you would be far more inclined to let him stay if he assured you that his ultimate intent is just to improve his own life and not to prepare the way for his various cousins waiting on the other side of your fence.

And that's the critical issue that the demonstrators and their supporters ignore. Is the amnesty they are demanding/requesting the beginning or the end? Is it a precedent or a one-time -- last-time -- exception? Are they seeking open-ended immigration, or do they agree that they should be the last wave?

Diversity, Virtue or Vice?

2006-05-02T01:16:00.000-07:00

It's both, I think. But I've always thought of true diversity as more of a challenge to a peaceful, unified society than anything else. It's a credit to the American system that it has brought so many different peoples together peacefully and prosperously.

Jim Pinkerton (who is a convert from the open borders crowd thinks so too):

"There's nothing wrong with a Spanish-language national anthem - if you live in a Spanish-language country. But if you live in an English-language country, the obvious seeds of ethnic and cultural conflict have been planted. "Diversity" might be nice in theory, but, in practice, differences are the gateway to conflict. "

Frist & Dobbs on Immigration

2006-05-02T00:27:00.000-07:00

Frist seems to have caved in to the amnesty lobby. (Transcript)

Frist repeated the following key words and phrases throughout his appearance: Comprehensive. Compassion. "Out of the shadows." Fairness. Not amnesty (yeah right). Strong temporary (ha!) worker program.

Then there's the doublespeak. Frist says we must "first and foremost tighten up border security." First? Really? Well, why does Frist support a comprehensive plan? That doesn't sound like first to me. It sounds like the same sort amnesty doublecross we got in 1986.

Lou Dobbs was also on the program and had quite an exchange with King:

KING: Lou, everyone talks against amnesty, and I know we are a Judeo-Christian nation, so I don't mean this as a cheap shot, but doesn't both those faiths -- both those faiths preach forgiveness? Why don't we forgive?

DOBBS: You know, this is complicated enough, Larry, without taking it to theological...

KING: I'm just trying to hang you up a little.

DOBBS: Well, you're doing fine, but I am going to retreat from the -- I believe in the separation of church and state mightily.

KING: OK. No forgiveness.

DOBBS: No, you know, I -- in terms of forgiveness, whom do we forgive? Do we forgive the Republican and the Democratic Party who basically told the middle class in this country and working men and women and their families to go to hell? Do we forgive four administrations who permitted this problem to exist? Who do we forgive? Do we forgive Ted Kennedy, Senator Kennedy, because he failed to stand up in 1986 and instead gutted the enforcement provisions of the 1986 amnesty? Do we forgive the national news media for today reporting immigrant rights, immigrant demonstration, immigrant boycotts when what they're talking about is illegal immigration?

Dems & Immigration

2006-05-01T22:37:00.000-07:00

Former Democratic Governor of Oklahoma Brad Carson is urging his fellow Democrats to face reality on immigration.

On the elite or "overclass":

"From their cloistered positions, the solution to nearly all perceived problems - from globalization to crime -- is education, which was their own personal visa into the merit-obsessed overclass. For this group of people, immigration is not about inequality in America, but instead all about a cheap nanny, inexpensive lawn care, or proof of multicultural bona fides. Even to bring up the subject of immigration is to seem impolite, if not crass."

On the increasing underclass:

"In sum, a greater proportion of American young people are low-skilled dropouts than thirty years ago. Close to 50% of these dropouts are immigrants. Now there's a problem for the overclass to consider."

On the implications of immigration on progressive politics:

"Besides, the growing number of low-skilled workers, swelled by illegal immigration, makes these progressive interventions that much more expensive and, hence, unlikely."

Carson's recommendation:

"By recognizing the harmful effects of illegal immigration on low-skilled citizens and by supporting legislation to prohibit untrammeled immigration, Democrats would boost the economic prospects of their core constituencies while driving a wedge into the Republican base. Democrats could even oppose illegal immigration while welcoming legal immigration, especially of the high-skilled variety. Immigration presents Democrats with an unusual opportunity to shake up the coalitions that have guided the political parties for a generation, while proving to the struggling middle and working classes that the Democratic Party is serious about reclaiming its historic role as their champion. The overclass might frown, but I would bet that millions and millions of American workers would reward the Democratic Party with their electoral gratitude."

I would add that Democrats can come out tough-as-nails on immigration and probably emerge without losing much of the Latino vote--the media wouldn't claim it's racism or xenophobia if Dems cracked down on immigration, and they're coming from a stonger position (at least as far as perception) on race issues and civil liberties.

Will this happen? Probably not. Multiculturalism and ethnic-identity politics has become the heart of the Democratic Party and I doubt curtailing immigration is compatible with these visions. I am a very strong and lifelong Republican but I would consider voting for a moderate Democrat who I had confidence in on this issue.

Alito's First Opinion

2006-05-01T22:31:00.000-07:00

Orin Kerr has a post examining Alito's first opinion (representing a unanimous court). He likes what he sees.

Spanish Anthem

2006-05-01T21:27:00.000-07:00

It's been stangely satisfying watching Bush and Ted Kennedy squirm a bit about the Spanish version of the national anthem. Both exclaim that the anthem should be sung in English! Well, well, I'm glad they're with us on that, but what did they honestly think bilingual education and multiculturalism would lead to? The President campaigned in Spanish, conducts his weekly radio speech in Spanish as well as English, and has a Spanish version of the White House website. That's all OK, I guess. Yet Bush draws the line at the anthem! Well, that's some place to start. If people "ought to learn English" if they want to be American, why has the President made it easier for immigrants not to?

On a related note, Steven Sailer exposes the man behind the rewrite.

Well, it turns out Adam Kidron is not Hispanic at all. Indeed, he's from a very interesting family. He was born in England, where his father, Michael Kidron, was a famous Marxist theoretician and his uncle, the late "Tony Cliff," was the leader of the largest Trotskyite party in Britain, the Socialist Workers Party or SWP.

Conventional Wisdom Bogus

2006-04-28T14:32:00.000-07:00

The conventional wisdom is that cracking down on illegal immigration is bad politics (short and long term). However, it appears to be one of the few things likely to help the Republican Party.

Rasmussen reports a +12 advantage to Democrats for the 2008 Presidential race. Not good. But the poll also asked the respondents to choose between a Republican, Democrat, and a third party candidate who "promised to build a barrier along the Mexican border and make enforcement of immigration law his top priority." In this three way race, the Dems came up with 31%, the third party candidate with 30%, and the Republican with 21%. I think a tough-but-sensible approach to immigration from a Republican candidate would stand a very good chance at getting elected. McCain would be a prime candidate, but of course he's on the other side of the issue. Frist blew it big time with his "compromise."

Director Urges President Rethink Immigration

2006-04-27T13:47:00.000-07:00

An interesting column in the Washtington Times urging the President to re-evaluate his open borders policy. I don't agree with the column on the probability of an actual "Reconquista," but it doesn't have to get that far to damage the country.

Is Sexuality Chosen?

2006-04-26T21:33:00.000-07:00

And does it matter?

The conventional wisdom says no sexuality isn't a choice and yes it does matter. The most extreme argument goes something like this: Being gay isn't a choice, it's genetic, just like race. We don't accept racial discrimination and we shouldn't accept discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I accept that sexual preference isn't a "choice." I further accept that sexual preference is at least strongly influenced by genetic factors (twin studies point to this conclusion, at least for males). But I'm not convinced that it should affect one's moral judgment of the behavior. After all, I don't think the people making this argument would only accept those gays found to be genetically gay and reject those who were not. Nor would people abandon objections to rape if scientists found a rape gene.

But maybe there is something to this being one of many points in favor of the morality (or amorality) of homosexuality. But, at the minimum, I think the power of this argument is overstated. In a thread over at The Volokh Conspiracy the comments drifted toward this question. I was less equivocal there, but mostly to get people thinking. Check it out if the debate interests you (link).

Deep Thoughts: Part Two

2006-04-26T15:48:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have been surprised at the number of logical fallacies and blantant misinformation circulating in the pro-immigration camp.

I laughed to myself when I heard William Kristol of the Weekly Standard defend the Administration's policy on FoxNews:

I'm a liberal on immigration.... What damage have they done that's so great in 20 years [since the 1986 amnesty]?... What's happened that's so terrible in the last 20 years? Is the crime rate up in the United States in the last 20 years? Is unemployment up in the United States in the last 20 years?

And they've been contributing to the U.S. economy and not damaging U.S. society. There have been marches with Mexican flags, which conservative talk radio is up in arms about. I mean, are these people serious? Are these people—what, are they going to be traitors to the U.S.?

... I am pro-immigration, and I am even soft on illegal immigration.

For one, crime has increased because of immigration, ceteris paribus. Kristol knows this. He doesn't care. Kristol also knows that immigration has suppressed real wage growth among the unskilled and uneducated. Unless he thinks there is some sort of exception to the laws of supply and demand for immigration.

As well as depressing wages, there is considerable evidence that the recent influx of illegals is driving low-skilled immigrants from the labor force. In 2000, unemployment was 10% for native high school drop-outs. More recently, in 2005, the unemployment rate for this group was 15%. During this same period labor force participation among this group shrunk from 59.1% to 56.3%. while the percent working (out of total population) declined to 48.2% from 53%. Further, immigration has contributed to the rising cost of housing, healthcare, and auto-insurance.

The proper question is not whether America is better off today, but whether America is better off because of illegal immigration. The fact that America is doing reasonably well at the moment (at least if we ignore the population most adversely affected) does not necessarily mean we are doing reasonably well because of illegal immigration. In fact, the truth may be to the contrary--that America has prospered despite massive increases in illegal immigration.

Some links: For a thorough discussion of the effect on native unskilled workers see the excellent CIS backgrounder "Dropping Out." Blogginhead heads discusses immigration and Kristol's comments here.

Lawrence Auster of amnation in a post I don't completely agree with gets one thing very right about Kristol's comments:

He comes right out and says on national television that he couldn’t care less about the mass invasion of this country by illegal aliens. He looks at 500,000 illegals and their co-ethnics demonstrating in Los Angeles,—illegal aliens demanding favors from the government of this country while carrying Mexican flags and signs saying that this continent belongs to them, not to us—and it has no effect on him. He’s pleased to inform us that personally he’s not bothered by it. Even Brit Hume was put off by Kristol’s smiling demeanor.

A Fine Court

2006-04-26T01:40:00.000-07:00

I can't help but read this article on a capital case in the Supreme Court by Dahlia Lithwick and think that we have a far better Court than we did 20 or 30 years ago.

Interesting case, I hope it gives us some useful insight into Roberts and Alito.

Gotta love Scalia (warning: punchline is better if you read the entire article first):

She offers (Doppler radar warns of horrible metaphor storms) a curious example of a wealthy woman hoping to "donate a million dollars to Yale Law School." Scalia cracks up the room by asking, "Is that an aggravating circumstance?"

Bad News, Bush

2006-04-26T00:48:00.000-07:00

Looks like your strawman of an argument, "massive deportation is unrealistic" isn't going to resonate with the American public.

A Pew Poll finds that Americans are already wise to the appropriate tool--fines against employers. 49% think penalizing employers is the best way to go, followed by 33% who think border patrol is the way to go, and 9% for building more fences.

Deep Thoughts

2006-04-25T23:44:00.000-07:00

As I become more immersed in the immigration debate, I have noticed something. So many pro-immigration proponents just don't know what they're talking about. Many of these individuals are highly intelligent and usually well informed. But they just haven't educated themselves on the debate. Here's a "deep thought" from Jane Galt:

The question then becomes: should we want to help these low-skilled workers at the expense of immigrants? Especially when the immigrants are hard-working people born into a rotten economic environment, while the American low-skilled workers get that way by virtue of personal decisions like dropping out of high school?

Say what? Around 50% of illegal immigrants have no high school diploma! Though one could argue many of these individuals dropped out because of economic necessity, while Americans dropped out because of laziness, it fails yet another empirical test--Hispanic graduation rates in America. In Los Angeles, only 38% of Latinos are graduating in four years. The overall drop out rate is around 24% for Hispanics (some data puts it closer to 30%); which is 2 times the black rate and more than 3 times the white rate.

Thus, apparently, we must continually replenish the stock of people we want to help because the people we help end up birthing people we don't want to help. Err, or something like that.

Negative Charity?

2006-04-25T20:59:00.000-07:00

Tyler Cowen links to a report on a case of "negative charity." That is, the charitable action ends up hurting more than helping. On a parachuting charity in Britain:

They found that the injury rate was 11% and the serious injury rate 7%. Minor injuries cost the National Health Service £3751 on average and serious injuries £5781. As the average parachutist raised all of £30 (this is just a day out after all) each pound raised for charity cost the NHS £13.75. Every one of the charitable types who feels terribly virtuous raising money for charity in this way is actually preventing the health service treating the sick.

Must Read On Roe

2006-04-25T03:19:00.000-07:00

A must read by Ramesh Ponnuru on Roe. I have long held to my Republican friends that overturning Roe would not be the political disaster so many believe. Ramesh is right on in his analysis. The points I usually make (and he makes a lot of these too) are:

-Americans falsely believe overturning Roe means criminalizing abortion (which makes sense intuitively; if a liberal court legalized it, wouldn't a conservative court criminalize it?).

-Americans do not understand the extent of abortion protection under Roe. It is, essentially, abortion on demand throughout pregnancy (the primary limitation being availability of willing doctors in late pregnancy). Americans do not comprehend the extent of Roe's protection. Many people operate under the false assumption that abortion can only be obtained in the first trimester.

-A state-by-state solution is bound to appease many people on both sides of the issue. I believe the issue would recede from importance over time. The democratic process is cathartic. People just want to have a say in what they view to be an important moral issue.

Minimum Wage

2006-04-24T23:00:00.000-07:00

Gregory Mankiw with a good post on the effect of minimum wage laws.

Strawman

2006-04-24T13:03:00.000-07:00

President Bush breaks out the "massive deportations won't work" mantra. The problem with this argument is that it's a strawman. Nobody is suggesting massive deportations as the answer, though increased non-criminal deportations is part of the solution. To my mind, the key attribute of reducing our illegal population and discouraging future would-be illegals is to actually enforce the law at the borders and within the interior. Specifically, we should enforce the law against those who employ illegals. Turn off the job magnet and illegals will return home on their own or be discouraged from entering in the first place.

Bush also uses the "we need these workers" meme. No, we don't. The overall unemployment rate may be 4.5% but the unemployment among the unskilled is quite high (15% among high school drop outs). Further, many unskilled workers have left the work force entirely and aren't even counted in unemployment figures. There are millions and millions of workers ready to fill these positions at American--rather than illegal alien--wages.

Another Harvard Plagiarist

2006-04-23T01:24:00.000-07:00

At least this one is still a student.

"Shortage" in Agricultural Workers, An Alternative Explanation

2006-04-23T00:16:00.000-07:00

Inspired by Dean Baker's taking to task of the media on the misunderstanding of a "shortage," I set out to see what I could find. I found a couple of articles that report on a "shortage" of labor in the agricultural sector around December of 2005.

Well, let's start with what we know. We know that illegal immigration has increased dramatically over the last decade and continues to rise (much of this is fueled by anticipation of an amnesty and increasingly lax enforcement within the interior). Why, then, the claimed shortage of labor in the agricultural sector?

It's probably because it's becoming easier and easier for illegal immigrants to get permanent jobs that are preferrable to poorly paid, seasonal agricultural work. It's not that there is a lack of unskilled illegal immigrants (quite the contrary), it's just that there is a shortage of illegals willing to do that work for the same wage as years past. Well under 10% of illegals work in agriculture. It looks as though that 1o% may have figured out what a good deal the other 90% have.

Maybe I am wrong, but it seems farmers may have something to gain on a crackdown on illegal immigration. It's my understanding that agriculture is one of the areas where the US government has traditionally turned a blind eye even when it enforced laws elsewhere, so pushing workers out of construction, maintenance, and care-giving may in fact push them back into the shadows of the underground agricultural economy. The ease of which illegals can now take up residence and find employment has, perhaps, hurt farmers because it has given so many a preferrable alternative.

I say we could take it a step further if ag is such a concern. Why not crack down on illegal immigration but state that the agricultural sector is not a priority for the moment? That gives what is supposedly the most vulnerable sector of the economy some breathing room while the illegal population is attrited.

Great New Economics Blog

2006-04-22T14:59:00.000-07:00

I stumbled upon an outstanding new economics blog, Beat the Press, by Dean Baker. The blog is only a month or so old, but seems to me very promising on a number of fronts.

His several posts on immigration are very sensible and explain several common fallacies associated with media coverage and the public debate generally (here and here).

Dean Baker explains why it's wrong to claim America "needs" low-skilled labor:

One of the great absurdities in the debate over immigration policy is the frequently repeated claim that the U.S. economy is generating more “low wage” jobs than can be filled by the domestic workforce. This line has been endlessly repeated in news stories on the issue.

Quick trip back to econ 101: recall the concepts “supply” and “demand.” What makes a job a “low wage” job? In econ 101 world, a job will be a “low wage” job if the supply is high relative to the demand. When there is insufficient supply, then the wage rises. My students didn’t pass the course if they couldn’t get this one right. Econ 101 tells us that there is not a shortage of workers for low wage jobs; it tells us that there are employers who want to keep the wages for these jobs from rising.

Immigration has been one of the tools that have been used to depress wages for less-skilled workers over the last quarter century. Many of the “low-wage” jobs that cannot be filled today, such as jobs in construction and meat-packing, were not “low-wage” jobs thirty years ago. Thirty years ago, these were often high-paying union jobs that plenty of native born workers would have been happy to fill. These jobs have become hard to fill because the wages in these jobs have drifted down towards a minimum wage that is 30 percent lower than its 1970s level.

He also has another related post on why illegal immigration is low-skilled (hint: it's not because we "need" these jobs):

My point is that we don’t have open borders; instead we have very serious limitations on immigration. Immigration is restricted both by the danger of the border crossing and the prospect of deportation due to a random encounter with law enforcement (e.g. a traffic ticket). These threats ensure that most immigrants will not be well-educated, since well-educated people in the developing world will not take these risks to work in the United States.

This means that less-skilled workers in the United States have to worry about competition from undocumented workers, while the people who design and debate immigration policy (economists, lawyers, reporters) don’t have to worry about professionals from developing countries slipping over the borders and undercutting their wages. The implication of the current immigration policy is that the people who design and debate it are largely its beneficiaries, since they can get low cost home repairs, bargain restaurant prices, and cheap nannies.
We can debate whether this is good immigration policy, but we first have to acknowledge the policy in place. The reason that most immigrants are less educated is not because of any shortage of more educated workers willing to immigrate to the United States, it’s because our policy acts to exclude them.

Judicial Mischief

2006-04-22T00:50:00.000-07:00

Eugene Volokh is rightly outraged at another Ninth Circuit fiasco.

This is a very bad ruling, I think. It's a dangerous retreat from our tradition that the First Amendment is viewpoint-neutral. It's an opening to a First Amendment limited by rights to be free from offensive viewpoints. It's a tool for suppression of one side of public debates (about same-sex marriage, about Islam, quite likely about illegal immigration, and more) while the other side remains constitutionally protected and even encouraged by the government.

Eugene is right that this is a disturbing case, but I think the meddling in the adminstration of education was a mistake in the first place. But, if the Court is to enforce the First Amendment within the schoolhouse gate, it should do so from a viewpoint neutral paradigm. Lots of lively discussion in the comments.

Update: Dale Carpenter has a thoughtful post on the case as well.

Britain's Immigration Problem

2006-04-21T23:32:00.000-07:00

Mean Mr. Mustard links to an excellent post on immigration in Britain by Peter Hitchens. It seems that the inability to discuss or deal with the problem constructively by the nation's primary parties is finally bubbling over:

And people are so sick of them and their lies, and so sick of being called ‘racists’ when they are not, that when they see the BNP called the same rude names that they have been called, they think the BNP must be on their side. Sadly for them, the BNP is on nobody's side but its own. It seeks power on their votes but heaven forbid it should ever get any power. It is not fit to run a toy train set, let alone a town hall or a country.

Why has this happened? How did we get into this fix? Mass immigration has suited governments of left and right for many years, not just in Britain but in North America and continental Europe as well. Why? It creates a semi-legal underclass of people who will work for low wages and avoid the strict minimum wage, health and safety and other regulations which have been imposed on employers by governments paying debts to trade union supporters or obeying EU regulations.

I'm aware of no American analog to the BNP that would pose a problem of radicalization, which is good news; elements of the Republican and Democratic parties have begun to deal with the issue openly and honestly, and I find myself having a least measured optimism because of it. Hitchens goes on to describe the British immigration problem, and it could just as well describe the Ameican problem:

Yet it does not stop or pause. It just seems to go on and on, and the expansion of the European Union to the East means that it is likely to become still more intense. Who can blame young people in search of a better future for coming here if they can? The real question is, is this policy wise for Britain? It may suit business. It may suit governments whose economic policies need endless growth. It may suit the rich who like the wider range of cuisine. It may suit those who have no long-term concern for this as a functioning, unselfish community. There is such a thing as society, but the thoughtless supporters of mass migration do not seem to think so.

Read the whole thing.

Enforcement Farce

2006-04-21T23:07:00.000-07:00

I was more than skeptical about the recent immigration raid representing an actual change in government policy. In fact, the overtly political move made me even angrier when I saw the actual numbers, which have been in serious decline under Bush. Immigration enforcement seems to have gone from lax under Clinton to non-existent under Bush. One would think that an exaggeration, but, sadly, it is not. In 2004 there was the grand total of 159 worksite arrests and a whopping 3 intents to fine issued (link). Contrast that with 1997 (17,000+ arrests, 865 notices of intent to fine). What are all the ICE and INS employees doing? Seriously. As the border patrol was marginally boosted for PR reasons, the administration gutted any attempt to meaningfully enforce the law within the interior.

Upon hearing of this raid, I thought the raid was a pitiful and transparent attempt to put up a front of get-tough enforcement. But I hadn't realized the raid also (and probably more importantly) has the effect of mobilizing the business lobby in support of illegal immigration. Mickey Kaus quotes a lawyer interviewed on NPR to support this angle, "I think it's a clear message to employers that you better pick up the phone and start calling your Congressional and Senate representatives because we need immigration reform badly."

Immigration & Wages

2006-04-19T17:09:00.000-07:00

Drezner approvingly links to a sloppy NYT's piece on immigration. The article contends that "there is scant evidence that illegal immigrants have caused any significant damage to the wages of American workers." Citing as evidence for this proposition, which flies in the face of basic economic principles, Eduardo Porter compares changes in Ohio and California wages over the last 25 years, noting that the fall of Ohio's average wage for high school dropouts was 14 percent higher in Ohio than in California(decline of 31% versus 17%).

As Steve Sailer points out, the selection of Ohio is a cherry-picked data point (Ohio was largely unionized in the past whereas California was not; thus, with the decline of unions, Ohio's unskilled workers were hurt more than California's). The misuse of this data is even more apparent once Sailer notes that while the nominal wage is about the same for high school dropouts in each state, the real wage (adjusted for inflation) is 150% higher in Ohio. Which means that high school dropouts are a lot worse off in California than Ohio. But that wouldn't be any indication that illegals lower wages for the unskilled, would it?

An Amnesty By Any Other Name

2006-04-18T13:03:00.000-07:00

An amnesty is defined by dictionary.com as "a general pardon granted by a government." A pardon is defined as "To release (a person) from punishment; exempt from penalty."

There is at least, then, a plausible defense to the "it's not an amnesty" argument if some of the conditions are actual punishments. The proposed legislation required immigrants receiving the pardon/amnesty to pay a $2,000 fine, remain employed for six years, undergo a background check, and refrain from criminal activity. These criteria are not materially different than the criteria which legal imigrants face on the path to citizenship, save for the $2,000 fine; therefore it's difficult to define the proposal as anything other than amnesty. In other words, illegals get to jump in front of the law-abiding and gain American citizenship for the price of a plasma TV. American citizenship for $2,000! Who wouldn't jump at that opportunity?

Russel Wardlow brilliantly summed up the deterrent effect of the meager $2,000 fine:

So here's a good rule of thumb: if a particular "penalty" (presumably meant to dissuade people from enagaging in the undesired conduct) is viewed by every member of its intended audience as the best bargain of their lives, it's probably not useful to consider it a penalty.

Beyond the relative political advantages and disadvantages of the word amnesty (the American people are supposedly viscerally opposed to any amnesty), the proposal's label doesn't matter, its likely effects do. If it looks, sounds, and smells like amnesty, it's amensty. How isn't the proposal a reward for breaking our immigration laws? And in my mind more importantly, how isn't this proposal a slap in the face to those stupid enough to obey our immigration laws? Doesn't the proposal encourage future illegal immigration? Mickey Kaus powerfully explained the unfairness of the proposal:

Right, but, again, those in foreign countries "hoping to come to the United State through legal channels" wouldn't have the advantage of working in the U.S. while they waited! Illegals would have that advantage. They wouldn't need to "jump ahead" because they're already getting most of what those waiting in line are waiting for! So they'd still receive a huge reward for having broken the law, compared with those who played by the rules--enough to encourage others, now living abroad, to make the same trip across the border. ... It's like the difference between a) waiting for a restaurant table in the restaurant, eating, and b) waiting outside in the cold. ... How long before the MSM catches on to this?

Call it what you want, but the proposal is subject to the same underlying problems as an outright amensty. The punishment of a $2,000 fine is a sick joke, an insult to every potential immigrant that has been stupid enough to play by the rules. The proposal will, like the last amnesty, encourage immigrants to illegally enter our country rather than follow the legal path.

Self Interest & Immigration

2006-04-16T19:37:00.000-07:00

There is a double standard operating in the immigration debate, one set of rules exists for those who support porous borders and a different set exists for those who are against them.

On the one hand, we have illegal immigrants themselves, corporations, and politicians vying for the future Latino vote. Each of these parties is obviously and unapologetically pursuing their self interest. Illegal immigrants want to live and work in the US and make a better life for themselves and their families. Corporations want cheap labor and a higher profit margin. And politicians want to ingratiate themselves to the growing Latino vote.

On the other hand, we have those concerned about the costs of illegal immigration (and there are many: potential balkanization of American society, crowded and lower quality schools, rising medical costs, uninsured drivers, increased crime, lower wages, high unemployment among the unskilled) who cannot advocate their self interest without being labeled a racist, xenophobe, nativist, bigot, or a 21st century "know-nothing yahoo." This is the sort of debate most often practiced by the left, but that last epithet was hurled by no other than William Kristol of the Weekly Standard. Argument by ad hominem is the preferred method of the open borders lobby for good reason--massive illegal immigration is not in the national interest. It's high time that the Kristols in this debate recognize that those hurt by illegal immigration also have a right to be heard and considered, without being maligned as irrational xenophobes.

A low-skilled worker who wants to restrict illegal immigration because he believes it lowers his wage and ability to support his family is a xenophobe and racist. But an illegal immigrant breaking our laws and demanding amnesty is merely pursuing the American dream. A mother who opposes illegal immigration because the local schools are flooded with students who need additional help at the expense of native children is a racist yahoo, whereas an illegal promoting the interests of her children is, again, just pursuing the American dream. A corporation that seeks to maximize its profit and ensure a steady supply of cheap, compliant workers is business-as-usual, but anybody concerned about illegals driving up the price and availability of healthcare is an insentive nativist. Monetary interest is sufficient for corporations, but how dare taxpayers resent the burden illegals place on local, state, and federal government. How dare they pursue their economic interest as vigorously as Big Business!

My advice to those opposed to amnesty and lax enforcement is to pursue your perceived self-interest as vigorously and unapologetically as those promoting open borders do. The American dream is for Americans, too, right?