A Voice in the Wilderness In Defense of "Mere Conservatism"

David Skarbek
April 21st, 2011 - 19:17

You get a lot wrong in this post, RJ.

I call BS on your opening quote from the Sac Bee. The total CDCR incarceration population in 2009 was 168,830. There’s no way that 102,795 of them are illegals. I didn’t read the study they cite, but somebody is playing games with the numbers. Only 63,098 of the inmates are Hispanic. What the hell is going on? Second, of all Male inmates incarcerated in CDCR facilities, roughly 56% are there for narcotics offenses. That means that illegals are incarcerated for narcotics offenses LESS not more than average. And, also, the fact that many of them are returning to prison is not shocking when the state’s total recidivism rate in only three years is 67.5%, and as high as 85% for certain offenses. It’s not because they’re illegal. Moreover, research hasn’t found any evidence of immigrants causing crime (e.g. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3325557). In general, there is something very stupid or sinister of judging illegals by looking at incarcerated illegals! Use that same approach and you’ll see that everyone in California is a criminal. That’s just nonsense and you shouldn’t quote it.

Immigration increases the living standards of US citizens. Labor is cheaper, goods are cheaper, people are richer. Even the most anti-immigration labor economists, like Borjas, agree that there is negligible or no downward effect on the absolute least skilled worker’s wages and there are positive effects for more productive workers. And this doesn’t even count the fact that immigrants are made much much better off! I find restrictions on immigration incredibly difficult to fit with my Christian beliefs that dictate helping the poor. I want illegals to be naturalized immediately too, and a whole lot of other people as well.

You confuse the difference between a “rule of law” and whatever law is currently ruling. Many current laws are inconsistent with the rule of law. All you do to justify your position is say that “it’s wrong and should be punished”. If you don’t understand and make the distinction, then you do not understand what the rule of law is or why its important. It’s a cop out and it implies that any and every law should be enforced. In fact, a true violation of the law would be to say that a group of people should have their rights restricted because they wouldn’t vote in a particular way, which is damn near close to what you wrote.

I agree with some of your last point, though. The right policy (the one that is most efficient, moral, and in line with a true rule of law) is to make it substantially easier for immigrants to come here legally. That certainly doesn’t mean that we should encourage abusing illegal immigrants or calling they’re a serious problem.

David Skarbek
April 22nd, 2011 - 13:33

Dear Germanhammer,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. However, I do disagree with most of it.

A key implication of the rule of law is that some laws should not be respected or enforced. I don’t believe there is anything immoral with breaking an immoral law. Hiding Jews from the Nazis would be one example. As I believe that immigration laws are immoral and economically detrimental, I do not feel a moral obligation to either criticize or stop illegal immigrants. So, yes, I don’t care that what illegal immigrants are doing is per se illegal; the illegality of it is only important in how it influences other policy issues.

Your economics is incorrect. I’ll address each point.
1. There is no shortage of jobs and there never will be. Historically, immigration (legal and otherwise) has not increased unemployment or affected at all. Your concern arises from the nonsensical idea that there is a fixed number of jobs available, and illegals “took our jobs” ala South Park. There has always been and will continue to be jobs. Your position directly applies that we should stop people from having children because they will cause unemployment. Do you believe that?

2. It is true that immigrant remittances are nonnegligible, though it’s not clear that they have a strong effect on devaluing the currency. However, even if it does, this does not reduce our jobs, slow our economy, or otherwise cause systematic harms. A cheaper dollar means that other countries demand more of our exports. Employment and output in the export industry increases (of course we see the opposite in import industries). If remittances have an effect, it is only to change the composition of our jobs and industries not to impoverish us. The nature of an innovative economy is dynamism and change. Nothing wrong with that; that’s where wealth comes from.

3. Every dollar that someone receives has to come from someone else. If American employees earn more, then consumers or employers are receiving less. So if they spend more, others spend less. On the other hand, if we have cheaper ways of producing something, then we can both earn more and spend more. I recommend that you read Russell Roberts short book A Fable of Free Trade and Protectionism, as I think he’ll clear up most of your confusion.

4. Most immigrants are young males, the groups that are least likely to be a drain on public social services. Illegals also create wealth by providing goods more cheaply, which makes Americans richer. They pay numerous taxes, sales tax, employment taxes, and support the failing social security schemes.

In general, I dislike your approach and Mr. Moeller’s because it doesn’t count the benefit that immigrants receive. They are moral beings worthy of respect and dignity, and if we are going to consider the consequences of policies, then we must include their welfare as well. To ignore their benefits is to dehumanize them.

David Skarbek
April 22nd, 2011 - 15:43

Hahahaha. Thank you for the prayers, Germanhammer (why so secret?)! I guess I’ve spent enough time in academia to forget how easy it is to surprise and shock people! Thank you.

Michael
April 23rd, 2011 - 10:24

David,

I would review your reasoning. You seem to be on a different page…