It's for our your own good . . .

Will Wilkinson and The Economist offer some thoughts on immigration and poverty, made fresh by Robert Samuelson's current column:

It takes a special kind of brazenness to propose a reduction of the national poverty rate at the expense of ensuring that more people stay poor by denying them opportunity to set foot in the nation.

If Mr Rector cared about actual human poverty, as opposed to some statistic about the number of Americans beneath what he agrees is an arbitrary line, he’d favour an increase in legal immigration and some kind of guest-worker program. If these policies were to inflate American poverty rates, as they surely would, that would be something to be proud of. From a humanitarian perspective, if a wealthy nation’s poverty rate improves, then it isn’t letting enough poor people in.

At some point, it's plausible to argue that the change in the number of poor people, and the depth of their poverty, might change the character of America for the worse in a way that gives us the moral authority to restrict their entry. But I don't think it's plausible to say that we've reached that point yet.

Comments

I have a serious problem with the idea that we must let people into this country because they live somewhere awful or need the jobs or whatever. We (Americans) have the right to decide who to let into this country and who to keep out. I think that allowing immigration is a good thing and I would love for us to be generous in who we let in. BUT . . . we need to be the ones who decide who gets in and who doesn't and we should decided based on the welfare of this nation.

As an aside, I do support a policy of allowing for some immigration by those under dire threat of death or torture in their home but not for anyone who would be poor in their home.

In other words, I believe that we have the moral authority to decide who gets in and who doesn't. Similarly, I have the moral authority to decide who is allowed into my house and who isn't.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 5, 2007 1:27 PM

Sure, it might be a nice thing to let people into the country to help them -- but to the extent that you care about people in other countries who don't have reciprocal obligations to you, the solution to their poverty should be to improve the institutions of their own country, not to see emigration of the third world to the US as a principle of justice, rather than a compassionate band-aid in the most extreme circumstances.

Posted by Chris | September 5, 2007 1:35 PM

Samuelson makes two points: 1) that the persistence of poverty should be interpreted in the context of a constant influx of new poor and 2) that the public institutions of the US are stressed by having to accommodate it.

Neither is Wilkinson's straw man, which is that restricting immigration would reduce some abstract worldwide "poverty".

Posted by JSinger | September 5, 2007 1:46 PM

I thought Samuelson undercut himself when he made the point that:

It's usually held that we've made little, if any, progress against poverty. That's simply untrue. Among non-Hispanic whites, the poverty rate may be approaching some irreducible minimum: people whose personal habits, poor skills, family relations or bad luck condemn them to a marginal existence. Among blacks, the poverty rate remains abysmally high, but it has dropped sharply since the 1980s. Moreover, taking into account federal benefits (food stamps, the earned-income tax credit) that aren't counted as cash income would further reduce reported poverty.

In other words, immigration doesn't keep people in poverty, or prevent them from getting out of it. Rather, it simply replenishes the ranks of the poor. But why should this fact rankle anybody who's not poor? The great immigration boom fairly neatly coincides with a much stronger US economy, and a whole host of improving measures of social well-being (crime, drug use, etc). If you think the hispanicization of American culture is a negative, I guess I'm not going to convince you otherwise. But the economic arguments against contemporary "mass" (AKA a much lower net rate of immigration than circa 1900) immigration, as usual, are tired, deceptive, and just plain lame.

Posted by Jasper | September 5, 2007 2:15 PM

I prefer not to bet the farm like you do Megan in suggesting that because we have not reached "that point" yet its ok to continue with business as usual.

Who's to say what the tipping point is? And who's to say once we get there we'll be able to do anything to reverse it anyway?

It will be very easy once we have mass immigration riots instead of rallies to say that we've reached the point. But then I'd prefer not to go there.

How's this. If you want to come to America to work for temp or seasonal labor, fill out a form, get in line, and pass some kind of test and then be a documented worker.

Enforcing our border wouldn't be that much of an issue to me if it weren't for hundreds of thousands to millions of people crossing it every year. Enforce the border first, then review our immigration criteria to let those temp workers come in, if that's what we want to do as a nation.

Posted by sam | September 5, 2007 2:16 PM

There was a very good article on the front page of the New York Times today about farmers shifting vegetable production to Mexico. I suggest you read it and reconsider your simplistic view that the only way to raise Mexican living standards is for Mexican labor to immigrate to the United States.

For countries like Mexico or the Philippines exporting labor is much like having large oil or copper deposits. Yes, the remittances or foreign sales of oil show up in the national accounts as greater output that is generally interpreted as an increase in living standards. But it does not consider the possibility that this process is actually preventing other developments that would make them better off.

So the question is does exporting labor to the US to harvest vegetables make the Mexicans better off
than raising the vegetables in Mexico and exporting them to the US would make them?

You never bring that possibility into your considerations.

Posted by spencer | September 5, 2007 2:50 PM

At some point, it's plausible to argue that the change in the number of poor people, and the depth of their poverty, might change the character of America for the worse in a way that gives us the moral authority to restrict their entry. But I don't think it's plausible to say that we've reached that point yet.

Sez who?

It is entirely plausible to argue that each national government bears the responsibility for creating policies which allow its citizens to improve their lot and rise out of poverty if the citizens are so motivated, and that it is not the responsibility of any other country to provide those policies and those opportunities. If Mexicans are poor, and cannot become non-poor in Mexico, it is not the responsibility of the United States government to fix that, it's the responsibility of the government of Mexico. Thus, we have no responsibility whatsoever to improve the lot of the citizens of Mexico by letting them into the United States.

Following from the premise that it is the responsibility of the United States government to at least not hinder the economic progress of its citizens, it is plausible to claim that mass immigration is causing harmful economic effects. Those harmful effects primarily affect people who don't blog or write letters to the editor, and who largely don't work in offices, so they're not as visible, but they are there.

It's entirely possible that the "correct" amount of labor to import is greater than that which we already do legally, but not greater than the amount we import legally + illegally; it's also quite likely that we have poor priorities in the amount of labor we import legally, and could stand to rejigger those rules. ("Correct" meaning that amount which produces the greatest surplus of benefit to harm to the existing population.)

Posted by Anthony | September 5, 2007 3:00 PM

Megan,

I am sure that your current experience is that we have not reached a tipping point where the ranks of America’s poor have changed the character of America. I am in the same boat personally. I live in a neighborhood full of college students, young professionals, hipsters and gays. About as American as apple pie as you can get.

But occasionally, occasionally, I actually need to leave my little section of the city I live in, and happen to drive through neighborhoods where the ranks of poor do not have the ability to price out the influx of additional poor from other countries. It is tough enough being poor in the United States without having a bunch of middle-class, white-collar, college educated people tell you that we have not reached the tipping point yet.

Ask the blue-collar workers living throughout the South, losing their manufacturing jobs and wondering how they will maintain even a lower-middle class existence if we should bring in more poor people. Why not ask the African-American communities in places such as Los Angeles what they think about the huge influx of workers to compete with them for their jobs.

Megan – libertarians biggest weakness is one or a combination of the following:

(a) a complete lack of patriotism or sense of community. They are so focused on markets, that even when the market forces may benefit from a policy, America’s market may not. Since the rest of the world does not fund our military, social services or infrastructure, at some point, you need to tend to your house before worrying about tending to the neighborhood down the street.
(b) Contradictory view-points/arguments on wages. On the one hand, libertarians want to let the market set wages, yet, will argue a second later that we should allow open labor markets. From a poor person’s perspective, it seems unfair for them to be told that we need to let the market work its course, and at the same time, use policy to ensure that the labor market for the bottom rung of society never tightens to the point where they can see real and significant wage growth.

Either you need to use policy to ensure a certain standard of living, or you should not undercut the bargaining power of those hurt most by a market based standard of living policy.

Posted by Brad | September 5, 2007 3:24 PM

As an add-on the above post:

It seems to me that the stagnant wages for those in the middle and the bottom are proof of this very policy. The very wealthy and even upper middle-class typically are either:

- Lucky (born into a family with money)
- Highly Educated
- Have been blessed with talents or skills that cannot be replaced.

Megan, you yourself fall into this crowd (even if you are not technically wealthy). You and people such as lawyers, doctors, or athletes/muscians have the lucky fortune of having either a license or skill that is immune to the competition of the poor.

Lets take yourself Megan. Atlantic is not going to replace you or Andrew or Matt with cheaper Indian bloggers, because your productivity cannot be replaced. Sure - you have to deal with compeition from within the United States, but this is very different from the main concerns of the middle and lower classes, whose offerings to society and the economy can be exported or imported (with cheaper 3rd world labor).

I really wish that you would put yourself into the shoes of someone faced with these conditions before you decide that we should let the market take its course regardless of the consequences, especially the consequences to America and Americans.

Posted by Brad | September 5, 2007 3:31 PM

Wow. Can it be that none of the readers have yet fathomed the core argument of The Economist's analysis that:

"It's for our, eh, your own good..."

Somebody here explain to me why white men benefited economically from the liberation of poor black women!!!!!

Somebody explain to me why the historically most open nation for immigrants is most prosperous..

And on a purely cultural level: Somebody explain to me why a mud is statistically by far more healthy and intelligent than any inbred purebred?

Some people here sound as if they wanted to protect Americans from something bad happening? What is an American though? Do your papers make you an American, or your birthplace or is America "an attitude"? Is Arnie an American and why? Was Kissinger? Were your grandfathers American? What is wrong with you...?

How come that some of the people who equate Bush with Hitler want to close the borders? How come that those who agree with Bush regarding the need of spreading democracy at all costs for international stability want to close the borders? How come that those who believe in economic growth want to close the borders? After all - when is this strategic tipping point reached - that everybody wants to freeze living standards for everybody (having grown up under Communism this can scare the blood out of me?)

And finally - how come that those who care about poverty - as The Economist rightly argues - want to close the borders?

That is like Al Gore claiming to want to save the environment while munching on some chicken wings?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 5, 2007 3:45 PM

It always baffles me when anti-immigrant types point out that more immigration brings down our median income or increases our poverty rate. As anyone with any grasp of statistics should know, if you bring x amount of poor people from Mexico, and they become less poor in America, while the people already in America stay where they are, the "poverty rate" in America goes up, even though all of the people are individually better off. Same as how the median home price can go up, even if everybody's value is declining, if more sales are happening at the high end than the low end.

Posted by too many steves | September 5, 2007 4:33 PM

not enough steves

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 5, 2007 4:44 PM

Personally, I don't want to CLOSE the border, I want to CONTROL the border. I want to know who is coming in and going out and I want to be able to, as a country, decide who gets to come in and stay and who doesn't. I believe that we should be letting immigrants in and that immigration is good for this country. I don't like uncontrolled, unconstrained, unknown immigration.

Also, IMHO, an American is defined by an attitude and loyalty as by residence. And no, I don't mean loyalty to Bush or to the Government.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 5, 2007 5:08 PM

Jasper asks:

"...Rather, it simply replenishes the ranks of the poor. But why should this fact rankle anybody who's not poor? ..."

Because poor people are undesirable neighbors.

Posted by James B. Shearer | September 5, 2007 5:20 PM

EI: if all you want to do is control the border and let immigrants in, then I assume you'll agree with my proposal: there should be no limits on how many immigrants are let in from any particular country or in any particular field of employment; the only restrictions should be a criminal background check and a screening for communicable diseases.

Illegal immigration is a problem, but the solution is the same as the solution to the illegal drug problem: legalize it.

Posted by too many steves | September 5, 2007 5:31 PM

Because poor people are undesirable neighbors.

I specified "not poor". Do you (assuming you're not in poverty) voluntarily live in a poor neighborhood?

Posted by Jasper | September 5, 2007 5:37 PM

steves - I don't necessarily believe that immigration should be unrestricted as I don't know enough about how that would effect the country. I definitely believe that criminals and other potential threats should be kept out. Other than that, I would be willing to be persuaded that letting anyone else in is viable. I could also be persuaded that there were good reasons to limit immigration.

Either way, except in extreme cases, I see no moral obligation to let anyone in because THEY would be better off here. I see it as a decision that should be made by US citizens as a country.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 5, 2007 5:43 PM

Jasper, the farther away the poor are the better.

Posted by James B. Shearer | September 5, 2007 6:27 PM

The Washington post link doesn't work.

It starts with ttp:// rather than http://

Its not hard to manually add the h but you probably should fix it if you happen to notice this comment.

Posted by Tim Fowler | September 6, 2007 12:46 PM

Jasper,

In response to your question

"But why should this fact rankle anybody who's not poor?"

First, what James Shearer said. Everyone can't afford to insulate themselves completely from the poor, particularly when there are government programs which make that difficult (e.g., section 8 housing).

Second, if you're not poor, your taxes will have to go up to pay for the increased government services required by poor immigrants, who pay less in taxes than they receive in government services and benefits. As an example, my property taxes just went up about 30% this year (my city cleverly re-assessed every home during the peak of the real estate boom early last year). It so happens that there is a large population of illegal immigrants in my city.

BTW, if you are wondering how I know they are illegal, the simple answer is by their bikes. Here in NJ, we've had Real ID driver's licenses for a couple of years now, so illegals can't get driver's licenses. So they ride bikes, even in the winter. Every restaurant, for example, has a clutch of bikes in the back that the busboys uses to commute. Also, we have the typical stores catering to illegals on our main street, offering "passport photos", immigration legal assistance, cash transfers and package shipping to Mexico and Colombia, etc.

Posted by Fred | September 9, 2007 3:36 AM

The sole point to take away from Samuelson's article isn't about the immigration debate, it's about the debate over poverty, incomes and income gaps.

We ARE importing our poverty - immigration does not make people poorer (actually it makes people richer - the poor immigrants come here to escape poverty, and over time most of them in fact do). But importing, legally and illegally combined, 1 million poor, uneducated, unskilled people per year, does increase the number of poor people within our borders. Importing 350,000 poor households per year also, though to a lower extent, drags down the median income, because the statistical middle household is 175,000 households lower than it otherwise would be. We import rich people too - but only at about the same rate at which we export them.

The only retort to Samuelson's statistical analysis that I've read is that the poverty rate among US Latinos has declined over time. But that's not a retort - it just means that the poor Latinos who come here also move up over time - - right, that's why they come. It would have to be the case that the poor people who come here move up eventually, given that the rate at which poor people come here is over 4 times the rate at which the total number of poor people increases.

There are valid points to be made on all sides of the immigration issue - but that's beside the point. The point is with respect to the naysayers about the economy, the folks who say it's great for Wall Street but lousy for Main Street, the folks who decry the growing "income gap" and the persistence of poverty.

An analogy would be a school district in which there previously wasn't a kindergarten and then one was added. The median height would decline - even though nobody shrank. The gap between the tallest and shortest would increase - even though nobody shrank and everyone grew at the same rate they had previously. There would be more short kids - because there was a new class of kindergarteners.

We have the Paul Krugmans and Robert Reichs of the world telling us that people are actually getting shorter and we have the New York Times and Boston Globe printing that garbage.

Posted by Patrick Trombly | November 13, 2007 12:22 PM