I’ve been wondering what Thomas Sowell would have to say about the current illegal immigration controversy that’s brewing.
It seemed to me that, as a free market advocate, Sowell might be, not favorable toward illegal immigration, but favorable toward broadening the American market whereby migrants would be able to do work here in America legally on a much larger scale than as been the case heretofore.
If the free exchange of goods and services is the best way to foster economic development then ceteris paribus expanding the U.S. labor market to include neighboring countries might make sense.
One could argue, though, that this is not the case. Having a free market, labor or otherwise, presupposes a kind of institutional openness and level playing field that may not exist between America and Mexico. I haven’t thought through the situation with sufficient thoroughness or researched the America-Mexico situation enough to know whether that relationship would make sense. (Which is why I’m interested in what Sowell has to say. He’s the expert; not me.)
I do know that I am opposed to folks entering America illegally. I especially don’t like long, porous borders in an age of global terrorism with us as the main target of the terrorists’ efforts.
If people want to come here to improve their economic condition and America can handle the influx, fine. But breaking laws is not a good thing. The law might need to be changed to better facilitate matters, but lawbreaking itself is a bad thing, especially when conducted on a massive scale. I understand that desperation can make breaking the law morally licit in extreme individual cases but if we’re talking the kind of humanitarian crisis that would justify mass disregard for the law then something needs to be done to address that desperation. (Massive disregard for the law being itself a huge societal "bad.")
What needs to be fixed in such a case should not be too hastily assumed to be American immigration law. If America has worked out a system that makes it attractive enough that folks want to come here because of the economic opportunities that it offers that their own homeland doesn’t then it seems to me that the logical thing to do is change the country of origin’s system so it it more closely approximates the American model and thus creates economic opportunities that don’t require immigration to a foreign land (which is itself a cost to the immigrants).
For example, if it’s easier to get a business license in America than Mexico, resulting in greater economic opportunity in the former than in the latter, then it seems that the logical first thing to do is not to demand that America change its immigration policy but to change Mexican law so that it’s easier to get a business license there, too.
Indeed, this would seem to be a justice issue. It would seem unjust to ask one country to bear the costs of accepting massive immigration when this immigration is being driven by disordered economic policies in the migrants’ country of origin.
Fixing the situation back home so people aren’t desperate to migrate to a foreign land is the real solution to the problem. Bettering economic conditions back home so that immigration to a foreign land is a matter of personal choice rather than of economic necessity is the real way to help people.
Now, some folks may pick up on one point I just mentioned–the cost of absorbing massive immigration–and say "Ah! But in reality there is no cost! After all, many of the immigrants are taking jobs native-born Americans won’t do! It thus helps them by having them be employed and helps us by getting these undesirable jobs done."
Enter Thomas Sowell.
EXCERPTS:
Virtually every job in the country is work that Americans will not do, if the pay is below a certain level. And the pay will not rise to that level so long as illegal immigrants — "undocumented workers" — are available to work for less.
Even those who write editorials about how we need Mexicans to do work that Americans will not do would not be willing to write editorials for a fraction of what they are being paid. If Mexican editorial writers were coming across the border illegally and taking their jobs, maybe the issue would become clearer.
You cannot discuss jobs without discussing pay, if you are serious. And, if you are really serious, you need to discuss all the welfare state benefits available to Americans who won’t work.
When you say that Americans have a "right" to have their "basic needs" met, you are saying that when some people refuse to supply themselves with food and shelter, other Americans should be forced to supply it for them.
If you subsidize workers when they won’t work and subsidize employers by making illegal aliens available to them, then under those particular conditions it may well be true that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans won’t do. But such statements conceal more than they reveal.
Hard-working immigrants may indeed be a godsend, not only to farmers and other employers, but also to families looking for someone to take care of children or an aged or ill member of the family. But Americans worked as farm laborers and as maids before there were "undocumented workers" to turn these chores over to.
If it has been done before, it can be done again. All that prevents it is the welfare state and the attitudes it spawns.
Jimmy,
I’m currently reading Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics” based on your recommendation of that book on your blog a while back. I have to agree with you that Sowell is brilliant. I think the world would be a better place if every politician and every voter would read his book.
And every bishop too.
Good point! 🙂
Obviously, people come from Mexico to the US for higher wages. The influx of Mexicans into the US depresses wage rates. Therefore, they will continue to come until the wage rates between the US and Mexico equalize. Needless to say, that will be millions of Mexicans from now, even if the Mexican economy improves drastically.
One interesting fact is that Hispanics have more upward mobility than Blacks in the US. The influx of immigrants (who generally wind up in Hispanic heavy areas), however, works to decrease the wages of Hispanics and therefore reduce their mobility.
The best thing for Hispanics in the US is for the US to end immigration (legal and illegal). Of course, there is a huge “immigration lobby” that feeds off new immigrants and has a vested interest in keeping the flow going.
Paul H. et al.,
Good points. I’ve also read Basic Economics and recently finished the follow-up, Applied Economics:
http://www.tsowell.com/Appliedecon.htm
I have to say that I wish every high school senior had to read was required to read Basic Economics, and read the columns of both Dr. Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams. They are both national treasures and great men. I think I remember reading that Dr. Sowell was a Marine and Dr. Williams a Soldier. Good Americans too.
Chris
http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com/
But, is there anything wrong with depressed wages if it aint’t so depressing for the worker who is willing to work for those wages? I mean, my family couldn’t afford ten dollars for a head of lettuce if the AFL-CIO started negotiating inflated salaries for farmhands. The price is low because the owners pay their immigrant workers low wages. The low price allows me to make purchases of needed food items. The low wage allows the immigrant worker to live, maybe too humbly here, but he has enough to send back to his home country where it’s worth more.
Whenever I hear the lame excuse that “illegals are doing jobs that Americans won’t do” I always counter back: So, let’s say we have Jose & Juan… both are farmers from Mexico… Jose comes to America legally, while Juan comes across illegally… both intend to continue farming, but for better wages in America than what they’re getting in Mexico. You mean to tell me that Jose suddenly doesn’t want to do farming anymore just because he’s now one foot over the border? Illegal immigration is hurting the most recent legal immigrants the hardest. Plain and simple.
Jesse,
The problem is that it depresses the wage rates of those who are in the US, most of whom are here legally.
Whether immigration is good or bad economically, is hard to say. It’s pretty clear, however, that a massive influx of poor Mexicans who vote democratic and are used to promote multiculturalism hasn’t done the US any good culturally.
With all due respect, it seems like several mistakes are being made here. First of all, as the Cato Institute studies show, basically open immigration does not depress domestic wage growth.
Second, working anecdotally from my time at St. Francis House in Boston, the vast majority of persons in the social safety-net system are not just lazy, but rather physically in bad shape, oft drug-addicted, and most commonly of all mentally ill. The standard of living at St. Francis House was not very good, and when I worked there the economy was good; employers were coming through all the time offering decent wages. The problem was not that the wages offered weren’t high enough, but rather than only about 10% of our clientele resembled what one might call a workforce. Certainly no Bostonian with any sense would hire there for domestic workers! I think the Church would do better at this social safety net than the government, but that’s far from the claim that the safety net itself is a bad thing, a disincentive to work. Everyone who came through our doors in an employable state was back out and employed in under two weeks. Charity has a long history in the Catholic conscience.
Third, I think you over-simplify the question of whose responsibility it is to remedy the living situation in foreign countries. First of all, most immigrants are fleeing nations which are not particularly well-governed, and where the populace has little ability to change things. Even Mexico, until recently, was mired very deeply in corruption by the PRI. Second, the U.S. is often directly culpable for the maintenance of this bad government through military intervention–pace Guatemala, El Salvador, Pakistan… Third, free-trade without open borders is what sets up the race-to-the-bottom situation, where employers can move for cheaper labor, but laborers can’t move for better employment. That lack of parity is in itself unjust.
All of this economic logic is agreed upon by the establishment (Greg Mankiw, Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman, Amartya Sen). If you’re interested in a more nuanced and Catholic-inspired treatment, you might try the excellent (albeit technical) work of Fr. Bernard J.F. Lonergan, S.J..
Jimmy,
Whenever the immigration topic comes up on this and other blogs, I wince. Yes, I know people who break the law should be punished, but I have a hard time faulting immigrants, legal and otherwise, for wanting to better their life.
And all too often, posters on this kind of thread have a tendency to discuss immigrants like they’re dark-skinned trash spoiling the pristine American environment.
Look, I know you haven’t said anything like that. But the clinical way you’re discussing these immigrants gives me the willies–like, at any moment, you’re going to introduce a “final solution” for these pesky immigrants.
I come from a family of Catholic, Mexican-American Democrats. It took a long-time for me to understand the horror of legalized abortion. But when I did, I was truly depressed. Because in order to opposed abortion, I would have to vote pro-life, and to vote pro-life meant I would have to vote Republican, and to vote Republican meant I would have to vote for people who had the reputation, deserved or not, of wanting to erase everyone with my skin color from American life.
That hasn’t happened. At least not yet. But everytime I come across a blog with this topic, I get nervous.
So, please, go easy on the talk about deporting immigrants.
Thomas Gonzales
…and to vote Republican meant I would have to vote for people who had the reputation, deserved or not, of wanting to erase everyone with my skin color from American life.
Oh brother.
…and to vote Republican meant I would have to vote for people who had the reputation, deserved or not, of wanting to erase everyone with my skin color from American life.
BillyHW,
Growing up, that’s what I though about Republicans. Does it correspond to reality? No. For instance, I found my first job after college through the help of a professor who was the wife of a Republican judge.
But I don’t want to minimize the bad reputation the Republican party and political conservatives have among various ethnic groups. I’ve run into just enough scary (usually white) conservatives to be distinctly uncomfortable with trusting them to solve the immigration crisis with Christian charity.
Also, many of the Catholics who are with the Church on abortion go into fits of outrage when the Church reminds the faithful of our obligation to help the poor and oppressed:
4. While we recognize the right and acknowledge the responsibility of the U.S. government to secure our national borders and do not condone or encourage undocumented migration into the United States, we nevertheless affirm the dignity of undocumented persons who live in our midst and make every effort to ensure that their human rights are respected and protected. Until such time as the global community effectively addresses the root causes of undocumented migration, individual nations must confront the presence of undocumented persons in a manner which upholds their basic dignity and human rights.
7. At the threshold of a new millennium, our nation must revisit its historic roots and reexamine attitudes, laws, and policies toward newcomers who come to our land in search of a better life. We call upon all Catholics and citizens of good will to heed our Lord’s call and challenge: “For I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” (Matthew 25:35)
Resolution on Immigration Reform by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 16, 2000
http://www.usccb.org/mrs/reform.shtml
Thomas, so first you assume Republicans are racist…and now you assume they don’t care for the poor?
BillyHW,
Assumed (past tense). I used to think that way. Re-read my posts. I thought I made that clear.
But my main point is that people discuss immigration as if they’re talking about widgets–and that makes me nervous. Because we’re really talking about fate of individual human beings.
To enforce the current immigration laws, you would probably have to return 8 to 10 million people back to their country of origin. Men, women, children. It’s not going to be pretty.
I’m not blind to the mess of our current situation. Uninsured drivers getting into accidents. Immigrants getting stiffed on their wages because their employers know they can’t go to the police. Criminals churning out fake government IDs.
But when I run across someone who favors deporting illegal immigrants as the solution, I don’t sense a whole lot of Christian charity for the immigrant’s plight. Even rarer is the consideration that maybe, maybe, our current immigration laws are bad laws.
Bottom line: I don’t trust conservatives to do the right thing on immigration, but I vote Republican because of the abortion issue. If you’re not allowed the right to life, all the other rights, including citizenship, are meaningless.
Thomas
Thomas,
“And all too often, posters on this kind of thread have a tendency to discuss immigrants like they’re dark-skinned trash spoiling the pristine American environment.”
Accusing people of racism isn’t necessary and it isn’t true. In case you didn’t know, the republicans tend to be huge supporters of immigration.
I’m glad you vote for pro-lifers, but lets understand that most Hispanics (except the protestant ones) vote democractic and therefore pro-abortion. Hispanics have higher rates of illegimacy than “Anglos” (40%). They have higher rates of abortion, divorce, AIDS, incarceration, etc.
I think any country has the right to protect its borders and its culture. I don’t see the Vatican State letting “undocumented” (illegal) immigrants vote in papal elections.
The statement of the Catholic bishops isn’t binding on Catholic and the reference to “undocumented” (lawbreaking) immigrants shows the same disrespect for laws as when the bishops were covering up the molestation of children.
Thomas,What a wonderful system we have!
I actually read what you wrote, and your ethnic group isn’t the first to face this. The Itallian and Irish immigrants faced this when they came to this country, and they became democrats likewise.
Regrettably racist bastions exist in both parties which allow these stereotypes to exist. As you stated, racism isn’t really a plank in the Republican party, which others seem to have missed.
Recently there was a woman locally who was deported for illegal immigration. She had been running her own successful business for about 10 years. A good taxpayer making a better life for her family.
It’s also worthwhile to point out that Mexican culture suffers, too, when the best and brightest leave for “greener pastures.” And don’t Mexican immigrants in the U.S. run the risk of being seduced by Protestant evangelism? Is it better to be a wealthy Protestant or an impoverished Catholic?
Illegal immigrants are breaking the law – so the punishment of the law should apply. MZ – if the local woman you had spoken of had come here legally, but then stolen the money to start up the business, would you be condemning her arrest?
I do think our laws need some tweaking (maybe a way of applying for amnesty if you’ve already come over illegally?), but we need to enforce the ones we have, and secure our borders.
The idea that Hispanics vote for democrats because they are afraid of Republicans is a myth. The republicans try endlessly to get minority votes, just witness placing affirmative action mediocraties such as Condoleeza Rice and Alberto Gonzales, not to mention the cheap stunt of running Alan Keyes for senator in Illinois.
I know several Hispanics and they are all liberal & democratic. Not one is afraid that if the republicans are elected they or their relatives will be deported. And, if Puerto Rico became a state, does anyone doubt they would give their vote to the democratic presidential candidate? PRs don’t have to worry about deportation because they are US citizens.
Giving amnsesty to illegals who are here wouldn’t be a bad idea if we simultaneously stopped future immigration. But that won’t happen.
The Hispanics-fear-Archconservative-Republicans might be a myth but the Spanish-media spreads the legend as fast as the rumors of the dangerous Chupacabras. A local news station in Espanol was doing a story on Governator Arnold’s “controversial” comments about stopping illegal immigration; my local leftwinger Congressman was shown equating Arnold with the “racist policies” of Pete Wilson. Just watch or read Spanish media and you would think the big bad GOP just wants to enslave by taking away health care and education those “Hispanics” here that aren’t ripped from their families’ arms and deported. Second, go to almost any college campus and you’ll figure out how lefty professors are molding the mushy minds of first-generation Hispanics in college with the idolatry of ethnicity.
I also forgot to blame the unions for demonizing the GOP. When I was a little kid, I never understood why my U.S.-born union-bred uncle chastized my Mexican-born naturalized U.S. citizen aunt for even thinking about voting for Papa Bush. The vast-left-wing establishment will continue to use the immigration issue as a wedge to drive certain Hipanic groups away from conservative parties.
Hispanics (except the protestant ones) vote democractic and therefore pro-abortion. Hispanics have higher rates of illegimacy than “Anglos” (40%). They have higher rates of abortion, divorce, AIDS, incarceration, etc.
Maybe because of Catholic culture being inferior to Anglo-Protestant culture
I think the usurers and masons sold Jimmy and others a bill of goods on this capitalism and imperialism of the republicans. republicans are not more pro-Catholic than anyone else in fact less so in many ways. This is not from a liberal perspective but a truly Catholic one.
Ted,
What are you getting at?
Protestants are “correct”for the sake of being able to say that they are.
Catholics, on the other hand are called for greater things. Now when something great falls, it falls harder then the lowly ones.
So Catholics are falling, worst than any other time in history. But in that weakness God shall recieve His glory.
With us miserables Our Lady will make a miracle to give glory to God.
What humiliates the Devil more, grand people who are assumed to be capable of doing so,
or the most miserable generations, which God through Our Lady shall make them the heel of her foot to crush the Serpent?
There is no human solution, but in God and Our Lady Queen and Mother there is.
Opus Tuum Fac
Catholics look to the past, their saints, their tradition and history.
Protestants look to the future, created the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, and are the ones who will fight Islamofacism.
The reason the Mexicans have high rates of problems noticed in this post is because they are Catholic. The Catholic Church has encouraged poverty, genocide and ignorance. A personal relationship with Jesus Christ and a Protestant work ethic for the community will help as is happening in Guatemala and other countries.
Until Mexicans become real Christians and not a psuedo christian paganism superstitious cult than they will have social problems which we cannot absorb and thus cannot accept.
Thank you for sharing your anti-Catholic bigotry with us, Ted.
Ted, are you getting your misinformation about the Catholic Church directly from Lorraine Boettner’s book “Roman Catholicism”, or do you get it filtered through Jimmy Swaggart, John Ankerberg, or some other professional anti-Catholic?
Maybe because of Catholic culture being inferior to Anglo-Protestant culture
The Know-Nothings said the same thing about the Irish, Italian, and German Catholic immigrants to this country.
“Protestants look to the future, created the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, and are the ones who will fight Islamofacism.”
Like in Europe, Ted? Behold the future of Protestantism.
Also, if Protestants get full credit for creating America, do they get credit for the moral decline of America over the last century? Is this what a Protestant country looks like?
Democracy (Magna Carta, Oliver Cromwell Parliament, John Locke)
Capitalism (Adam Smith, Industrialized no papist England)
the United States of America
Space Travel
the Catholic Church oppossed the Protestant Reformation, even the good aspects of the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution.
Remember Galileo? Progress came through real Christians what you call Protestants
I reitterate my question, Ted.
Ted, you’ve bought a straw man that anti-Catholic bigots created and called “The Catholic Church”. They then attacked the straw man. Perhaps you should try to learn what the Catholic Church says about itself.
Galileo was censured for teaching AS FACT that the sun is the center of the universe(not just the center of the solar system, but of the entire universe). He was permitted to teach Heliocentrism as a theory, but not as fact. And the Church was right to censure Galileo, since, as is now known, the sun is not the center of the universe.
Ted. Educate yourself.
Democracy
Capitalism
United States of America
Three false gods you apparently worship.
Greek Pagans invented Democracy, Enlightenment Deists founded the United States, Atheistic Communists launched the first manned space flight, and the only Catholic US president launched the mission to go to the moon. As for the dark satanic mills of early capitalism, Protestants are welcome to those.
The Magna Carta was written by Catholics and mandated that the king of England acknowledge the Pope.
Oliver Cromwell was a nasty guy, but do some reading on Thomas More.
Both European discoveries of America were by Catholics: Leif Erikson and Christopher Columbus.
The latter at least was no saint but Ted’s logic is so flawed. The Catholic Church looks both to the future and the past, as do Protestants to some extent.
True, JRS, but St. Brendan beat Erikson to North America by over 3 centuries.
Lauda Jerusalem–the best and brightest don’t leave Mexico–they have it very good, although their money leaves to Swiss Bank accounts, Rome Villas, New York stocks, and San Antonio Real Estate with Colorado ski vacations. The Mexican immigrants are primarily lower income physical labor migrants.
Steve Jackson–do you believe that Mexicans are inherently inferior or is this based on culture (Catholic?) as some more recent posts suggest.
Steve Jackson seems to borderline on racism, a term I do not throw around loosely.
I am from Chicago, and the Tribune says almost every restaurant is almost exclusively Mexican in the kitchen.
SDG, thanks for posting the link above. For anybody (not just Ted) who hasn’t read the book, I highly recommend How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.
It would be a great addition to any home library … and especially your local public library, if it doesn’t yet have a copy.
I’ve been meaning to read that book. Maybe now I can drop hints for making it a Christmas present!
Thanks for the link, SDG.
I don’t know if the state of Mexicans is as bad as Steve Jackson says (as he does not cite the source) but assuming it is and Mexicans have higher rates of illegitimacy, AIDs and other problems—I am not sure it is a reflection of Catholicism exactly or what conclusion you can draw from it (that you should not have more immigration legal or illegal?)
My experience with Mexicans is that they are very family oriented, certainly in low income urban areas there are gang problems, but the illegitimacy and other issues stems not so much from Catholicism or Mexican/Hispanic culture(s) but from an embrace of modern secularism, hip hop culture, economic pressures and hedonism–the dominant Anglo materialism and the rejection of actual Mexican and Catholic heritatges.
Even those out of wedlock seem to have strong cross generational family support (unlike African Americans) and a stronger extended family network. Now you see more Polish, but Mexicans (and Guatemalans) are usually the childcare/nannys of choice as they have larger families, aren’t afraid of changing diapers and have a warmth with families and children.
Mexicans seem to work very hard and from my personal experience have not only a work ethic in some very difficult fields but also strong piety and spirituality yes probably more women than men and older women and obviously a strong devotion to Nuestra Senora de Gaudalupe. The faith and suffering of the Mexican people is exemplary.
bill912,
True, JRS, but St. Brendan beat Erikson to North America by over 3 centuries.
If so then that would be a third Catholic. Lucky for Lief and the rest of us of Norwegian descent, that and the supposed Irish colonization of Iceland probably never happened. At least the Irish founded Dublin, oops that was the Northmen too. :-p
All in good fun. I’m part Irish too.
You have to realize I’m the guy they dubed “Knight of Leif Erikson” when I joined the Knights of Columbus.
The point for the rest of you is that Catholics are the ones who are good at discovering America, and therefore at everything else. As usual we made a tradition out of it.
Anthony Dragani addresses questions of rite-hopping to avoid celibacy, biritual faculties, and the possibility of a married Eastern rite priest getting them. To the lattermost, his answer is that he doubts it will ever happen.
Cheap Puerto Rico Travel
TripAdvisor lists cheap flights and discount airfares to San Juan, Puerto Rico including
Percocet.
Side effects of percocet. Percocet. Bioavailability of percocet.