Politicians and pundits such as Luis Gutierrez have framed the immigration debate as a dualistic clash between "pro-immigrants" and "anti-immigrants." "Pro-immigrants" are defined as anyone who supports high immigration numbers and is opposed to the mast basic enforcement of existing laws. Whereas "anti-immigrants" are defined as anyone who supports a more moderate, controlled flow of immigrants that inevitably involves some form of enforcement.
I am confident that after viewing the data in this post you will agree with me that the real choice is between policies that create a more economically and socially welcoming environment for immigrants via a more moderate, controlled immigration flow and unsustainable policies that create an economically and socially unwelcoming environment via a large, uncontrolled flow of low-skill immigrants.
For our discussion we will focus on California, because it highlights the best example of a state that has pursued "pro-immigrant" policies, largely to the detriment of its immigrant population. And, it is said that (for good or for bad) California is 10 years ahead of the rest of the United States. So, we can hope that with intellectual honesty and open debate, the rest of the country will be able to learn from California's disastrous policies
One of the great lessons of economics is that policies and programs should be judged on the real outcomes that they produce, not on their intended effects. While the intentions of California's "pro-immigrants" have been to offer the best possible economic and social environment for immigrants, the actual outcome of their policies have been overwhelmingly negative.
By eliminating negative incentives via non-enforcement of basic immigration laws and by offering a vast array of social services regardless of status, California transformed itself into a low skill immigration magnet, which has greatly increased the supply of low skill workers. Predictably this has depressed the wages and working conditions of immigrant workers, while simultaneously straining basic social services that so many immigrant families rely upon. Initially this induced an exodus of California's non-immigrant working class. But, soon the total saturation of California's low skill labor market prompted an exodus of immigrant workers to other states, such as North Carolina and Arkansas that respectively witnessed a 394% and a 337% growth in its Hispanic population. Clearly, immigrant workers were voting with their feet against the economic changes that were transpiring in California.
The collapse of California's social service system is seen in the continuous closure of hospitals, which has been felt most heavily by Latinos. Between 1990 - 2006, 70 hospitals have closed in California, with 50 of the closures occurring in Southern California and at least 27 of them occurring in Los Angeles County.
Virtually every analyst attributes this to the skyrocketing costs of providing health-care for the growing number of uninsured Californians. By 2007 this number had surged to 6.6 million or 20% of California's population (or 37.1% of individuals under 65), placing it 46 out of 50 in the ranking of states with uninsured residents. Among Hispanics under 65 the number of uninsured residents is 55.7%. In 2004 alone, the cost of providing health care to the uninsured was $5 billion with at least $1.5 billion going to the undocumented immigrants. I must emphasize that the point is NOT to lay the blame on poor immigrants; a massive influx of low wage workers would have had the same effect regardless if they were from Pittsburgh, Paris or Puebla. The point is to highlight the insanity of calling any policy that encourages the entry of millions of low wage workers into an already strained social welfare system "pro-immigrant."
"Progressives" will declare that this crisis is evidence of the necessity of a universal health care system, but given California's deep fiscal deficit, a costly expansion of coverage is simply impossible. The only financially feasible answer is to minimize the growth of residents who are dependent on state services. Had California honestly and intelligently weighed the painful trade off between open borders and generous social services, it would have sought to provide the best possible health care for a smaller immigrant population. But by ignoring painful choices and difficult compromises and by pursuing so called "pro-immigration" policies, California has set the stage for a decline in the coverage and quality of health care for its most vulnerable immigrant populations.
In addition, the ranking of California's previously respected public education system has declined to 49 out of 50. And by most indications, the majority of Latinos are enrolled in the worst schools within this already sub-par system, which is surely a factor in the 50% dropout rate among Latino students within the LA County school system.With 60% of Mexican immigrants lacking a high school education, California has now become the number 1 state in adults who have not completed high school. And the cost of educating California's 3.3 million undocumented students has risen to $7.7 billion. Again, the point is NOT to blame immigrants, rather it's to question the wisdom of imposing the massive fiscal and social burden of adding millions of children from totally uneducated families to an already strained school system. In the end those who suffer the most will be Hispanics who are trapped in California's wretched inner-city schools. A smaller, less concentrated Latino population could have allowed for more profound and rapid cultural assimilation, which would have produced educational and economic outcomes that were far closer to mainstream American norms. But, a critical demographic mass has been reached in California that greatly limits opportunities for assimilation.
California's Hispanic gang epidemic is the product of two interrelated factors: lax borders and limited cultural assimilation. In regards to the first factor, the same porous border that allows millions of good, hard working immigrants to enter the United States also allows for the entry of criminals and gangs, such as the notoriously violent MS 13. And as previously stated the demographic concentration discourages the cultural assimilation that would produce social and economic outcomes comparable to mainstream Americans. And needless to say, the majority of the victims of the violence and lawlessness of these gangs are hard working, law abiding Hispanic immigrants.
Last but certainly not least, one of the major unintended consequences of high volume immigration is to increase the already huge backlog in America's already overburdended and inefficient immigration bureacracies. This backlog has increased the time and expenses that immigrants and their families incurr during the naturalization process. And because of enedmic fraud, efforts to sponsor family members, as well as employees has become costlier and more complicated. And as the number of undocumented immigrants have surged, the capacity of America's immigration bureacracies to undertake and the willingness of the public to support amnesty has plummeted. Critics of the amnesty passionately resisted it on the grounds that prior amnesties led to even higher levels of undocumented immigration, because promises to increase post-amnesty enforcement were never met. So, paradoxically, the record volume of legal and illegal immigration have most burdened immigrants. Clearly, a more manageable volume would have allowed for a quicker, lest costly and complex naturalization process and may have even allowed for a general amnesty.
One point that we must touch upon is the growth of grassroots hostility towards immigration in the United States. Polls show that paradoxically many Americans look favorably upon hard working immigrants, but are deeply troubled by the economic and social impact of our currently immigration policies. Even those who are inclined to look favorably upon immigration are troubled by the volume and extent of illegality of the current immigration wave. Common concerns include: the security risks posed by a porous border, an erosion of the rule of law, a violation of sovereignty, growing fiscal burdens and faltering assimilation. And interestingly, even the harshest critics, like Lou Dobbs focus their ire not on immigrants, but on politicians who have ignored the interests and desires of the American people.
This hostility has prompted grassroots actions like the push for Proposition 187 that would have denied welfare and education to undocumented immigrants. This measure won the support of the majority of Californians, including 47% of Hispanic voters, but was shot down by the courts. And the popular uproar against amnesty represented a successful grass roots revolt against a deeply unpopular policy.We can debate the merit or lack of merit of these measures, but we cannot deny that they represent an American public that is increasingly unwelcoming towards immigration. And we cannot deny that this is one of the unintended consequences of policies that have been imposed against the will of the majority of the American public. So, rather than pursue a more moderate, rational immigration flow that respects the popular will of Americans and encouraged the hospitality, generosity, tolerance and openness of the American public, these so called "pro-immigrant" politicians have engendered hostility and xenophobia not seen for generations. By so unabashedly propagating ethno-identity politics and group rights, rather than assimilation and individual rights, they are inevitably encouraged similar nationalist impulses in European-American communities. For someone who is very proud of America's history as a nation that granted unparalleled opportunities to millions of immigrants, including my own family, I find this deeply troubling. If we continue to pursue the divisive path of uncontrolled immigration and ethno-identity politics, we will become an increasingly unwelcoming nation that offers diminishing economic and social opportunities for immigrants and native born Americans alike. But if we pursue moderate, reasonable policies based on popular sovereignty, rule of law, respect for human rights and a manageable flow of immigrants, we will reawaken the very best in our great nation of immigrants.
http://www.c3.ucla.edu/newsstand/community/hospital-closures-affect-california2019s-latino-communities/
http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/one-in-three-state-factsheets/One-in-Three-California.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187_(1994)
http://www.wavenewspapers.com/news/regional/37673589.html
No comments:
Post a Comment