Common sense on immigration

Recently an international conference was held in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on the subjects of immigration and migration. (For a discussion of this conference, click here) The booming economies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) require a large number of immigrant workers in order to sustain their rapidly growing construction, tourism and service sectors. Although it is not completely clear to me that there isn’t a bit of an economic bubble here (How many $7mm houses and 180 story office buildings can the world sustain?), government planners expect that the pace of growth will continue for the foreseeable future. In Dubai alone, immigrants outnumber natives by 3 to 1. These countries have made a decision that they do not want to become multicultural, multiethnic countries and, therefore, all of these immigrant workers are temporary workers. They have no path to citizenship. A number of NGO’s and international groups have been critical of the GCC countries for the treatment of the immigrant population and for the conditions under which they live. Because many of the GCC countries are tourism dependent and, therefore, very sensitive to their image, when the sending countries who supply most of the workers requested an opportunity to discuss the problems the GCC countries readily agreed. Most of the sending countries are South Asian countries such as the Philippines and India. They are concerned that the labor migration be a win, win, and win for the sending countries, in terms of repatriated funds, for the receiving countries, in terms of access to cheap labor and for the migrant workers themselves, in terms of providing a better income for their families. The conference, facilitated by the International Labor Organization (ILO) and International Organization on Migration (IOM), was a very civil dialogue among the interested parties. There was little arguing or posturing. In general the parties agreed that most important factors were enforceable standards in both the sending and receiving countries and status for the migrants in order that they would have access to the enforcement agencies in the receiving countries. Of all the issues discussed, there was vast agreement that status was the most important. No status is a recipe for abuse. While talk is easy and it remains to be seen how much of what was agreed to will actually be implemented, it seems to me that the US could learn a lot from this effort at establishing a win, win and win situation. So much of what passes for debate on the immigration issue in the US quickly devolves into partisan wrangling and name calling. Not everything discussed in Abu Dhabi applies to the US as these are small countries with small dense populations and the US is a large empty country with a large multiethnic population. We certainly, however, could learn the lesson that rational dialogue among the interested parties has a greater chance of success that yelling at each other.

Border security and unintended consequences

With Congress seemingly unable to reach a compromise on how to deal with immigration reform, we are headed toward more of the same in terms of an extension of current policy. Over the past few years legislation has focused on increasing border security in the name of protecting our borders from immigrants who might perform dastardly deeds such as terrorist attacks or getting a job. This increased border security resulting from manpower, technology and walls has had an effect on cross border migration, but not all of the consequences are intended. The construction of walls in urban areas like San Diego has had the effect of changing the migration routes from the urban routes where undocumented immigrants are more easily apprehended to the desert areas of Arizona and New Mexico which are harder to police and more dangerous for the immigrant to traverse. Because border crossing is now more dangerous and expensive, undocumented immigrants have chosen to stay in the U.S. rather than return to their home countries. In-migration to the U.S. has stayed relatively constant since the early nineties. What has changed is a dramatic drop in out-migration. This discrepancy has resulted in a big increase in the undocumented immigrant population. As Congress addresses this increase by such policies as forcing all 12mm undocumented immigrants to return to their home countries and preventing future immigrants from entering the country, it seems to be neglecting a number of very real considerations and responding to hysterical statements by the anti immigrant crowd. There are moral, practical and economic issues to be considered. Recent surveys show that there are 14mm people living in households headed by undocumented immigrants. Of these, 4mm are American citizens, primarily minor children who are citizens by birth right. If we deport the heads of these households, are we prepared for media pictures of crying children and parents as they are separated, perhaps never to be reunited? (For a real story, click here) From a practical point of view: How will we fill these jobs while they are gone? In the 21st century global economy goods, services and all of the inputs (capital, information, technology, etc.) except labor flow relatively freely across national boundaries. Does a policy of further restricting the flow of labor make sense? The US economy creates 400-500,000 more jobs each year than the native born population can fill. It seems to me that there are several possible solutions to this mismatch of demand and supply.
1. Slower growth to reduce the number of jobs created
2. Export the unfilled jobs overseas
3. Import workers to fill the job demand
Slowing the natural growth rate of the economy and making everybody poorer does not seem like a wise policy either economically or politically. A policy decision to export jobs overseas would result in the high skill and high paid jobs being done by foreigners leaving the low paid jobs for “Americans”. Indians, Chinese and Poles can do the high paid technology jobs; only “Americans” can mow my lawn. If we choose to import workers to fill the job demand the questions are: Will they be documented or undocumented? Will we know who they are and where they are? From a security point of view we would be better served if they were documented. Current proposals would allow high skilled workers to enter legally for 2 years. Isn’t there a disconnect between bringing in highly skilled workers, training them and then sending them home to do the job there. Maybe we should recognize that in a global economy migration “just is” and focus on mitigating the problems resulting from it.