Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Will Robert Rector Recalculate?”

« Please Fence Me In, Part Deux | Main | Hayden On the Hot Seat »

May 17, 2006

Will Robert Rector Recalculate?

Hatched by Dafydd

Yesterday, in The "Cost" of Illegal Immigration - and Rhetorical Dissimulation, I tore into the "backgrounder" by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation which attempted to make the case (unsuccessfully, in my opinion) that we could not afford a guest-worker program. (He also attacked normalization of illegals already here, but that's a different subject.)

Rector calculated that the guest-worker program could end up costing tens of billions of dollars per year in increased welfare payments:

Because nearly all of the guest workers and their families would within a few years become eligible for government welfare and other services, the fiscal costs from the program could rival those stemming from the direct amnesty provisions of the bill.

As Rector had previously estimated -- way overestimated, again in my opinion -- the cost of normalization at $46 billion per year or more, he must have been estimating a similar cost for the guest-worker program. (In addition, like most "security-only" activists, he uses his own private definition of the word "amnesty;" but however churlish, that doesn't affect his calculation.)

Rector arrived at his estimate by taking the beginning annual cap on guest workers (325,000) and increasing it according to the formula in the original bill: in any year that the number of people trying to enter as guest workers exceeded the current cap, the next year's cap would automatically rise 20%.

Finally, CIRA would issue 325,000 new visas per year to "guest workers." The number of visas available could increase by 20 percent annually, reaching two million per year within ten years. By 2017, the guest worker program would have admitted some eight million new workers. Illegal aliens who have been in the country for less than two years would be eligible to become guest workers and would probably be the primary recipients of these supposedly temporary (H2C) visas. Recipients of these visas could bring spouses and children into the country immediately, increasing the number of entrants over ten years well above eight million.

It is, of course manifestly absurd to assume that the availability of "guest workers" would rise limitlessly at the maximum allowable rate; does he expect the entire population of Mexico to pour into the United States, leaving 761,606 square miles of empty real estate south of the Rio Grande? At some point, probably far below "two million per year," we would reach labor saturation. The law of supply and demand has not been repealed.

But it makes little difference, because the action taken on the floor of the Senate yesterday moots Rector's argument, requiring a complete recalculation. Senators voted not only to lower the initial cap from 325,000 to 200,000, they voted to eliminate the automatic 20% rise when the cap was reached:

Today the Senate voted 69-28 to set aside an amendment by North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan to eliminate the guest-worker program from the measure. Dorgan said the program would cost Americans jobs and wages. "The guest-worker provision is about importing cheap labor,'' he said before the vote....

The Senate then backed, by a voice vote, [Jeff] Bingaman's [D-NM] amendment to reduce the number of yearly visas available to foreign workers by 40 percent and prohibit increases that may be sought by industry if the visa-cap is met in any year. [Jeff Bingaman gets a 100% rating from the ACLU -- and 12% from the American Conservative Union. -- the Mgt.]

Besides throwing Robert Rector's estimates into a cocked hat, this vote may actually cause a problem -- not in the politics; it makes it more likely to pass. Rather, it causes a problem in the policy: we may be building too small a "spillway."

The point of the guest-worker program is to take pressure off the fence and other border-security provisions. The idea is that the huge majority of people who cross illegally do so just to find work. These illegals do not cause all that much damage by their existence here (though they may cause damage sneaking in across private property); alas, real bad guys, especially terrorists, may hide among the vast number of illegals, making it virtually impossible to detect them.

So long as hundreds of thousand of people are being denied entry, they will "push" against the wall. As I've said many times, no wall, no matter how strong, can stand against a million people trying to knock it down.

The only way to stop the illegal entry is to build a gate in the wall, a "spillway in the dam": we need to separate out those illegals who just want to work and shunt them through a legal guest-worker program; that way, those humans still trying to enter illegally -- assuming the honest can enter legally -- must be presumed to be dishonest.

We can use far more draconian interdiction methods against presumed criminals and terrorists than we can against presumed decent, hardworking families that include women and children.

But all this depends upon one key point: that those coming here just to work are, in fact, able to get in and work. If not, then the spillway is too small, the water builds up behind the dam, and eventually, the dam bursts.

The whole point of the guest-worker program is not to give work to poor Mexicans; I really couldn't care less about them. (Go ahead, call me heartless. Believe me, I've been called much worse.) What does matter is that we need to relieve enough pressure on the fence or the fence will fail.

I worry that 200,000 a year with no increases, even if the cap is clearly shown to be too small, will not relieve enough pressure. After two years of backlog, there may be just as many trying to enter illegally as there are right now.

I hope this is revisited soon: it would be a terrible shame if an otherwise decent, comprehensive bill is crippled from the very beginning... by an ultra-liberal Democrat, of course.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 17, 2006, at the time of 5:14 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/763

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Will Robert Rector Recalculate?:

» What Samuelson Didn't Tell You About What the Senate Didn't Tell You - UPDATED from Big Lizards
How many immigrants over the next twenty years? UPDATE: See below. Captain Ed posted an intriguing mystery today about the projected increase in legal immigration under the just-passed Senate immigration bill, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act o... [Read More]

Tracked on June 1, 2006 2:27 AM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

Whenever people assume some never-changing policy, in a democracy, to make a long-term calculation, they've stepped off the cliff.

We could also change the income tax code to collect 99% of everybody's income for 2006--fix the deficit overnight. "And with this strong economy, just imagine all the increased tax revenues in the following year...." Makes about as much sense.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN at May 17, 2006 10:21 PM

The following hissed in response by: BigLeeH

The whole point of the guest-worker program is not to give work to poor Mexicans; I really couldn't care less about them.

Ha! Caught you in a fib there, Dafydd. But your secret is safe with me.

I agree with your premise that a guest worker program will act as a spillway to take pressure off the border and I tend to think that the overall economic effect of a guest worker program will be mildly good for the US. But I also have a degree of sympathy for the poor, hard-working Mexicans looking to earn a few Pesos for a day's work. They are caught between the reconquista idiots on the Chicano left and the xenophobic restrictionists on the right.

For me the question of guest workers is not whether we need to have them, either to do "jobs Americans aren't doing" or to take pressure off of the border, but whether there is any good reason to keep them out when they want to come here.

The above hissed in response by: BigLeeH at May 18, 2006 9:06 AM

The following hissed in response by: Pierre Legrand

Here is a response I posted to Mickey Kraus...do you disagree with my premise?

Mickey, the question is, are we suffering a labor shortage or are we suffering a shortage of people who will accept below minimum wage. Are we suffering a labor shortage or are we suffering a shortage of people who will work without Workman's comp and other workplace niceties that legal workers must by law be provided? Are businesses like Tyson foods and Mohawk Carpet employing illegals simply because no one will work for them or because no one can work for them on their terms aside from illegals? What will businesses like Tyson Foods and Mohawk Industries do after the current crop of illegals are brought forward into the system and those businesses are forced to treat them as legal employees with all the attendant costs?

Is it possible that these companies having developed this addiction for employees who cannot run to the E.O.C. and who cost so much less to employ through direct costs of wages and insurance and indirect costs in the form of workplace safety, will suddenly see the light and hire legal employees?

Additionally if those illegal employees see their advantage in the workplace over American workers vanishing should they become legal will they desire to price themselves out of the market just for the privilege of paying taxes?

Enforcement in the workplace and a border fence must come first. Real enforcement carried out over the course of years against multiple companies where executives find themselves in jail for violating all sorts of labor laws. That might go a long way to assuring the American public that this latest amnesty program isn't merely some smoke and mirrors dog and pony show by politicians looking out for the most important person in the world, themselves.

The above hissed in response by: Pierre Legrand at May 18, 2006 11:44 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Pierre Legrand:

Here is a response I posted to Mickey Kraus...do you disagree with my premise?

Yup. Both the stated premise and the subtextual one.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at May 18, 2006 1:04 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

When did we not have hispanics coming to this country to work in the agricultural sector? This is nothing new. If we did not need them and if there was no place for them, why does this persist?

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at May 18, 2006 1:59 PM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

Are you just deciding it is unlikely that the number will ever be maxed out, or are you going to propose something concrete to prevent it?

Because economic laws would seem to promote more employers each year paying lower wages in the hope of drawing migrant labor, not a fixed percentage of employers year after year.

The above hissed in response by: The Yell at May 18, 2006 4:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: Pierre Legrand

So then you disagree that companies like Tyson Foods and Mohawk carpet will simply find more illegals to work? Do you expect those companies who use illegals to decide after all these years to absorb all those extra costs associated with legal workers?

Do you expect that the current illegals are sophisticated enough to realize that if they become legal citizens they may not be able to compete with the next crop of illegals?

The above hissed in response by: Pierre Legrand at May 18, 2006 6:48 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

The Yell:

Because economic laws would seem to promote more employers each year paying lower wages in the hope of drawing migrant labor, not a fixed percentage of employers year after year.

Fixed number of stoop-labor slots. The market will saturate as soon as there are enough... and nobody else will be able to get those jobs because there is a finite number of them. Hence, no incentive for others to sneak in, so long as the number of either new immigrants or guest workers can rise to meet the demand.

Pierre Legrand:

So then you disagree that companies like Tyson Foods and Mohawk carpet will simply find more illegals to work? Do you expect those companies who use illegals to decide after all these years to absorb all those extra costs associated with legal workers?

Yup, for two reasons: first, everybody else will be doing it too, so they will be at no competitive disadvantage; and second, the penalties for scamping the law will be severe and include prison time.

Tyson will comply for the same reason they don't burn down the factories of their competitors.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at May 19, 2006 12:28 AM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

That sounded like you expected the federal government to cap the number of job opportunities in the economy.

A lot of the fourfold increase in illegal immigration in the last twenty years, is skilled labor in competition with union labor. You certainly could promise to track down and punish anybody hiring a $50/day black market electrician instead of a $500/room union worker--but I'd say that's law enforcement on a scale equal to deporting a few million people.

The above hissed in response by: The Yell at May 19, 2006 1:07 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

The Yell:

That sounded like you expected the federal government to cap the number of job opportunities in the economy.

Well that's certainly out of left field.

It's not that difficult (physically) to check all employment, within reason. (Obviously, you cannot check every Mom & Pop grocery store to make sure they're not paying some illegal in cash under the counter.)

Every time a new SSN is added to the IRS database by some business reporting a hire, the computer should check to see whether that SSN was actually issued to that name.

Whenever a person applies for a new SSN, he has to press his thumb against a glass plate that reads his thumbprint, and a digital camera takes his picture. This would be held in the SSN database. His SSN, instead of being a flimsy piece of cardboard, is a SmartCard.

Those with existing SSNs must, over a five-year period, replace them with new SmartCards. First, police, military, and other official databases are checked to see whether that name and SSN is already associated with a thumbprint (mine are, because I was in the Navy). If so, the card is simply mailed to the holder. (If it turns out to be an error, he can come in and have it corrected.)

If not, he must make an appointment within a certain window of time to come in to a dedicated SmartCard center, show some ID, and get the thumbprint and digital picture. His new SmartCard will be mailed to him.

My back of the thumbnail estimate is that you'd need about 60,000 persons a day coming in nationwide to get everybody SmartCarded. Assuming a given line can cycle six people per hour through, that's 48 people per day per line. This means you need 1,250 lines nationwide. Double that to 2,500 lines, and that still isn't that bad.

Each person would only have to do it once, so even if it were a pain to drive to a SmartCard center 30 miles away, people would still do it... especially if their SSN would be deactivated if they didn't upgrade!

(Once you've done this once, it's easy to keep up with the new applications.)

People entering the country also have to get a SmartCard. You must show the SmartCard to get a passport or visa.

Whenever a company hires anyone, where they now Xerox the SSN, they would instead swipe the SmartCard through a card-reader and have the hiree thumb a glass plate. It works just like a credit-card reader: a green light and an authorization number means the hiree is legal.

(You offer these readers for low cost and require any business with more than a certain number of employees to buy one.)

You have frequent USCIS spot checks of high-risk employers (fields, hotels, and so forth). When illegals are found (no SmartCard), the employer receives a warning fine -- enough to make it sting a bit, and his card-swipe records are checked. Repeated violations result in higher and higher fines, jail time, and eventually hard time in a federal pen.

Over a certain size, and the business must swipe the SmartCard of contractors, too.

Obviously, some truly determined illegals will fall through the cracks. But the vast majority will eventually find it a lot easier to normalize than to keep fighting the system... and the businesses will find it a lot cheaper just to accept the somewhat higher labor costs than to try to sneak around it.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at May 19, 2006 1:39 AM

The following hissed in response by: Pierre Legrand

Interesting so you expect that because everyone else is doing it that will be enough for Tyson to throw away the advantage it gained from being one of the first to take advantage of the illegals in the first place.

You place a lot of faith in enforcement. Something that has never been done. What makes you think that all of a sudden enforcement will start happening? Do you believe that the political will exists? Please show evidence.

The above hissed in response by: Pierre Legrand at May 19, 2006 7:54 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

A spill way isn't the only way to relieve pressure on a leaky dam. Most of the time they try and also drain the lake.

Why is it that no one ever questions the premise that there will always be millions of Mexican immigrants breaking down the wall? There are no reasons (other than crappy government and economic policies) why Mexico can't create enough jobs for its people.

The only real solution to the problem is Mexican development. We should look there for solutions.

Some ideas - cap imports from all nations (especially China)except for Mexico. Pay for infrastructure development for Mexican towns and villages, provide higher educational opportunities for Mexican students. That would be the carrot.

The stick? Force the Mexican government to adopt economic liberalization and political reform. We can force this by threatening to send back 11 million immigrants, or better yet blocking wire transfers to Mexico from those immigrants, and sealing the border. We hold all the cards in this game, and we should not be shy about playing them.

As the Mexican economy grows they will demand more goods from the U.S. - growing us as well. In addition there will be less pressure and cost for services inside the U.S.

win-win.

The above hissed in response by: Big D at May 19, 2006 10:41 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Pierre Legrand:

You place a lot of faith in enforcement. Something that has never been done. What makes you think that all of a sudden enforcement will start happening? Do you believe that the political will exists? Please show evidence.

Thanks, but I'm not taking a pop quiz in your classroom.

If you begin with the assumption that no law will be enforced, why bother supporting the fence? It won't be built.

Why bother supporting passage of any law? Let's all just lay down and die. That assumption is a debate killer.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at May 19, 2006 1:16 PM

The following hissed in response by: Pierre Legrand

hehe...Cute way of avoiding your problem. Course the answer is not to lay down and die. The answer is to face the fact that enforcement so far has been dismal, indeed President Bush's performance compared to Clinton in enforcing the law would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. Given that President Bush has so far absolutely been terrible at enforcing the law and given that the Guest Worker program will demand that the laws be enforced exactly how will that happen?

If the supporters of the Guest worker program do not have those answers then why should anyone support it?

The above hissed in response by: Pierre Legrand at May 19, 2006 2:18 PM