A Comprehensive Immigration Reform Plan (3 easy steps)

The state of the world at the close of 2012 has not helped prioritize immigration reform as a short-term goal of the US government.  The self-imposed fiscal crisis, gun violence, Syrian civil war, political chaos in Egypt and the continuing economic problems in Europe are all issues that crowd legislators’ agendas.  However, the wheels of reform may have been set in motion by the demographic political imperatives looming in the next election.  Put simply, the Republicans feel out of touch with growing Latino and Asian populations and there are murmurs that immigration reform could be a key issue.  The political impetus for this push is clearly to win the hearts and minds of these growing segments of voters.  However, the economic impetus for immigration reform may be far more compelling. 

A recent Economist article examining the oncoming “demographic squeeze” bears ill news for the US.  While US population growth is still faster than every developed country and trails only India and China in percent growth, decreases in fertility, immigration and population aging are all taking their toll on the US economy.  Consumers of US news can see this manifest in the ongoing Social Security and MediCare crises and the diminishing ability of today’s workers to supports today’s pensioners.  The US is not alone in facing the Malthusian risk associated with economic and social development. With fewer young people and larger elderly populations living longer than ever, the ability of the state and the economy to support the current structure is cast in serious doubt.  Dire demographic forecasts have been made about China. The European Union may turn to promoting immigration in order to escape the trap of an ageing population and ballooning public debt.  The US hardly needs to promote immigration.  What policy makers need to do is facilitate immigration.

The work of economist Giovanni Perri would be a great first stop for legislators worried either about Malthus or reelection. In his recent policy paper Dr. Perri proposes a market-based regime for employment visas.  This would replace the first-come, first-served and lottery systems now being used.  By allowing employers to bid on employment visas, market efficiencies would distribute these scarce resources to most interested employers.  This is only the first step in what Dr. Perri sets out as a three phase plan for comprehensive immigration reform.

Phase one includes an auction for temporary employment visas, like the H-1B and H-2.  This visa auction places employers at the center of the decision-making process while reducing transaction costs such as legal fees.  A minimum price could be set by the government to cover the costs of the auction and the tracking database, which Dr. Perri estimates could easily be set at $7,000 for the three-year H-1B.  Immigrants coming to the US on these visas would not be tied to any particular employer and could circulate freely in the labor market as employers barter for immigrants and their visas on a secondary market.  By treating these employees as normal members of the labor pool, employment visas would no longer need to be encumbered by the byzantine labor verification system.  This process requires employers to prove that a position filled by an immigrant employee cannot be filled by a native worker and is a long, drawn-out bureaucratic exercise.

Phase two calls for the simplification of visa categories.  The current system for employment visas involves a wide array of visas (H, I, L, Q, R and TN) that are valid for differing periods of time.  

The second phase of this comprehensive reform plan calls for collapsing all of these categories into three simple classes: C, NC and S.  These new groups would be aimed at college educated work, non-college educated work and seasonal work respectively.  The first two new visas would be valid for five years while the last would be valid for twelve months.  This visa revamp would also abolish the distinction between “temporary” and “permanent” visas.  All visas would be considered provisional with the option of applying for permanence at their expiration.  Dr. Perri argues that this incentivizes rational self-selection among immigrants to decide if they wish to save and return to their countries of origin or if they wish to remain in the US.  The ability to seamlessly incorporate immigrant workers with five years or more of experience into the labor market as legal permanent residents would be a boon for employers, workers and the economy as a whole.

The third phase proposes expanding the provisions of the first two phases to the wider immigration regime.  Thus a new balance should be struck between family- and employment-based visas.  Adult children and siblings of US citizens should be diverted into the employment visa system.  National quotas should be eliminated and provisional visas should be granted to graduates of four-year universities in the US.  Along with these expansions, the current undocumented population should be folded into the system through a regimented process towards residence.

Dr. Perri offers convincing arguments and sufficient detail for a well-balanced debate over the merits of his proposals.  As an economist, his affinity for hard numbers and modeling lends itself to a tone of reasonableness that has long been absent in the immigration reform debate.  The political pitfalls of pushing through this type of reform may still be daunting, but the demographic and economic impetus for the changes outlined in this plan will only drive the need for its serious consideration.  Anyone looking for some content to insert into their comprehensive immigration reform package should certainly consult with Dr. Perri.

Immigration Reform in the US after the 2012 Elections?

On the heels of a very interesting panel held at UC Davis discussing immigration reform in the United States after the 2012 elections, I thought I would share some musings.

Mitt Romney’s overwhelming loss among Hispanic and Asian voters may have been a critical juncture for the Republican Party.

Demographic change in the US is nothing new, but political adaptation to shifting realities occurs in fits and starts.  During the recent election the national Republican message appealed primarily to non-Hispanic whites.  However, according to the US census non-Hispanic whites fell from 69.1% of the national population to 63.7% between 2000 and 2010.  Meanwhile, Hispanic and Asian populations rose from 12.5 to 16.3% and 3.6 to 4.8% respectively.  Of course these gross demographic shifts don’t indicate who will come out to vote, let alone who is eligible to vote.  But the trend is clear.  In the key swing states for the 2012 election, minority populations are growing, especially in the south and west. 

Strong anti-immigrant rhetoric from Republicans has arguably driven Latinos away from the party.  While George W. Bush and John McCain appear to have garnered around 31% of the Latino votes in 2004 and 2008, Mitt Romney appears to have gained only 23% of the Latino vote.  Romney’s poor showing comes despite the fact that President Obama has overseen the largest deportation initiative in US history.    The fact remains that a rash of anti-immigrant laws in Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana and Mississippi has been laid at the Republican door step.  The rejection of the DREAM Act and various “English-only” initiatives has not helped Republicans with Latinos. 

A new republican Super PAC reflects hand-wringing in the party that this strident nativist pandering is costing Republicans on the national stage.  The organization hopes to offer a pro-immigrant position that Republicans can use and attempt to steer the party dialogue away from demographically untenable positions.  The jury is out as to whether this initiative will gain substantial momentum and actually reshape the political discourse surrounding immigration.  Democrats appear to have very little incentive to spend political capital on immigration reform as long as Republicans continue to drive away minority and Latino voters.  A fundamental change in the Republican Party could change all that.

Economic crisis and new immigration trends and fallout

As the European debt crisis grinds on, immigration continues to inch toward the center of political debate, especially in Southern Europe.  A startling rise in xenophobic Greek activists and the bully-pulpit commandeered by the extreme right-wing party Golden Dawn should give EU leaders pause.  While Golden Dawn holds only 6.9% of the unicameral Greek legislature, less than the Greek Communist Party, the impact on immigration politics cannot be understated.  The EU took an unprecedented step of sanctioning Austria in 1999 when the far right, anti-immigrant Freedom Party (FPO) took second in legislative elections.  The sanctions were quickly lifted, but the FPO has fallen only slightly in popularity.  The fear in Europe is the re-emergence of a radical, nationalist right which in the modern world pivots on the issues of immigration as a proxy for race, religion and class.  

As the economic outlook deteriorates further and further, pressure mounts from nativist segments of society to curtail immigration and limit immigrants’ rights.  Greece is currently the hotspot for European immigration as FRONTEX reports land crossings between Greece and Turkey spiking in 2010.  While this shift may be the result of increased spending on interdiction efforts at sea, it is also likely that the economic downturn has modified the cost-benefit structure of immigration to Europe.  That is to say, Europe is becoming less of a magnet for immigrants due to the prolonged economic and political turmoil.

As witnessed in the United States, the most effective means for stemming the tide of “unwanted” immigration is economic stagnation.  A well-publicized, but perhaps under-recognized Pew Research publication declared that Mexican immigration to the US has fallen to net zero.  This is a subtlety shocking development considering the recent history of Mexican immigration to the US and the resultant political overreactions and polarizations.  It does not appear that the political imagination of the nation has yet grasped this polarity shift in immigration to US.  Immigration remains synonymous with Mexican in the popular discourse.  However, this trend is not an anomaly.  

Various studies find parallels in Europe, this despite several intervening variables not present in the US-Mexico migration order. The first being a much wider gap in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) per capita between Europe and its direct southern neighbors than between the US and Mexico.  According to World Bank statistics, average Mexican PPP per capita is 30% of that of the US, while the PPP per capita differential between only Italy, Spain and Greece and northern African countries like Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt is only 22%.  This brief comparison does not take into account income disparities in more remote migrant origins such as the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa.    A second important factor has been the “Arab Spring” which launched many countries along Europe’s southern border into political and economic chaos.  The results have not been as dire as some predicted because while foreign investment and tourism receipts fell dramatically, rising commodity prices, especially oil, have offset some of the impact.  Regardless, this socio-political shift has spurred extraordinary immigration to Europe, in turn fueling anti-immigration rhetoric within Europe.  Witness the spat between France and Italy as France temporarily closed its border to prevent the entry of immigrants fleeing the violence in Libia, many of whom landed in Lampedusa, Italy.  Essentially, immigration to Europe is slowing despite persistent push-factor pressure.

The take-away from both of the European and American cases is by no means clear.  Economic downturn has coincided with heightened enforcement and border pushback, so it is nearly impossible to single out a key driving factor.  While immigration has not played any noticeable role in the US presidential elections, it has become an important political touchstone in European elections.  Perhaps the most interesting fallout from this glacial shift in the global migration order is the reversal of some migration flows to and from Europe.  While the trend is still only nascent, Spanish emigrants are increasingly heading to destinations in Latin America to escape the unchecked deterioration of the Spanish economy.  There are signs that Greeks are increasingly crossing the Bosphorus against the traditional tide of immigration to look for opportunities in Turkey. It is still too early to tell if these signs of movement will indeed ripen into migration trends, but the coming decade will certainly be marked by new global immigration trends.  

Immigration "reform" in the US

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals “DACA” is Presidents Obama’s initiative to offer some type of movement in the stagnated area of immigration reform in the US.  While it appears to be receiving an enthusiastic response by some, DACA raises more questions than it answers both in form and substance. 

First of all, while Obama’s administration is considering DACA to be an enforcement issue, it is questionable that the executive actually has the power to take these steps.  Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano considers DACA an “exercise in prosecutorial discretion.”  However, offering Social Security numbers to undocumented individuals seems to be much more comprehensive than merely deciding not to proceed with deportation prosecution.  It has not taken opponents long to seize on this fact, criticizing the administration for everything from a presidential power-grab to election-year pandering.  In my analysis, this initiative does appear to be more of a decree than anything else.  While presidential decrees are not considered a formal part of the US system of government as they are in other parts of the region, the exercise of presidential action like this fits in with a trend.  Over the past few administrations we have seen various means for presidents to increase their law-making power such as line item vetoes or signing statements that resemble this decree method of governing.  The fact that President Obama is using the same, especially in the face of near constant filibuster in Congress, should not surprise. The question here is what does this initiative do to advance real immigration reform?  Is DACA in fact setting precedent for future reform efforts?

In essence, DACA offers a narrowly defined group of undocumented individuals the opportunity to apply for a limited right to stay in the US.  For a processing fee of around $450 people who are under 30, have arrived in the US before they were 16, have lived here continuously for 5 years and have graduated from or are enrolled in a university or have served in the military will be offered a two-year temporary stay.   This temporary status may be renewed and includes the assignment of a Social Security number, which is essential to living and working legally in the US.  However, it does not offer a path to citizenship or even permanent residence.  This raises several very important issues.

First, DACA appears on its face to be creating a new category of immigrant in the US.  That is, a legal taxpayer with no opportunity to fully engage in the rights of US residents. (It is unclear how an individual with a valid Social Security number would be excluded from rights that other permanent residents enjoy).  Political scientists and human rights activists alike should shudder at the thought of administratively establishing a non-voting taxpayer.  It is wholly inconsistent with the foundations of a country created on the maxim of “no taxation without representation.”

Second, it creates yet another temporary immigrant category.  If anything should be learned from the immigration debacle in Spain, it is that temporary immigration categories create havoc, not only for the individuals, but also the granting and enforcing institutions.  Deadlines, processing times and costs all conspire to create instability and unnecessary bureaucracy.  If the policy decision is that these people deserve to live and work in the US in 2012, there should be no reason to think, ceteris paribus, they would be undeserving in 2014.  While the political imperatives to downplay this regularization with the term “temporary” are fairly evident, it is inconsistent and simply bad policy.   

Third are some slippery slope issues (even though such arguments are a rhetorical fallacy, allow me to indulge). Does DACA set a precedent for future efforts to reform immigration law? Does this new category of disenfranchised quasi-citizen stand a chance of becoming enshrined in US law?   What happens to these people once they are registered and down the line this program is closed down? It seems a fair concern to register with a government that may, at any time, decide to pursue you for deportation.

Ultimately, DACA sends very mixed signals, both to immigrants and the US population at large.  What does it mean to legally live and work in the US?  Do we as a society feel that innocent people (DACA candidates necessarily entered the country as minors and therefore have not broken any US laws by their own volition) should be free from the consequences of actions they did not choose to undertake?  What is the future for immigration policy? Will the US continue to have an open (if onerous) immigration policy?  And finally, what will be the real impact on the people who enroll in DACA? Will this program improve their lives in the long-run?  As I mentioned at the outset, DACA raises more questions than answers and only time will tell how many of these issues shake out.

US immigration policy through time

The United States has a longstanding identity as a country of immigrants; however, large-scale immigration to the US has been concentrated into four distinct periods.  1) the settling of the country including slaves, 2) the opening of the west, 3) industrialization between the civil war and, WWI and 4) the current period since the 1970s. All four of these periods coincide with economic transformation within the country.  Immigration policy, however, did not arrive until at least the second stage.

Of course, any examination of immigration policy needs to be undertaken in the demographic context of its time.  The size, composition and dynamic of certain demographic cohorts play pivotal roles in how people perceive migration and thus how policy makers decide to address the issue.  Consider for example the first US census carried out in 1790, that is, 14 years after independence.  At that time perhaps only 40% of the population would have technically been born in the United States (the data for women and slaves was not disaggregated), so any notion of a policy on immigration would have been absurd.  Due to limited immigration this was the case up until the 1830’s.  During that period immigration policy was left to the states with the federal government only entering the field in 1819 with the Steerage Act. 

The first reliable immigration statistics start in 1820 and identify 8,385 immigrants arriving to the US that year, nearly three-quarters of which were from the British Isles.  This second period of massive immigration to the US was dominated by Europeans, in particular Irish and Germans.  By 1850 the foreign-born population was estimated at 2,244,602.  The following chart illustrates the evolution of the foreign-born population between 1850 and 1930.  The red and green vertical lines indicate the passage of important immigration laws, with red identifying restrictive laws and green neutral or permissive laws.  (Of course this is an over-simplification, but does help to visualize the trend).  

It is interesting to note that several of the restrictive laws passed during this period focused on reducing Chinese immigration, while the percentage of Asian immigrants remained fractional.  Thus brute demography is only the tip of the ice berg of “context” with regard to immigration.  As Jerome Frank bitingly commented on the 1886 California zoning law case, In re Hang Kie, the decisions for law making do not always spring from the noblest human traits. (See Jerome Frank, Are Judges Human?)

A further look at this evolution shows that the origins of immigrants living in the US has changed dramatically, as Asia and Latin America have grown in importance.  Also, the frequency of federal lawmaking in the field has decreased (probably in part due to the delegation of administrative functions to immigration departments like the INS or the current USCIS).  Again, the red/green classification is a bit of an obtuse tool, but we can generally see that post-WWII immigration legislation has been relatively permissive. 

There are no clear conclusions that I would dare to posit regarding this information, and in fact, this brief examination raises more questions than it answers.  However, I think the key element here is that immigration policy analysis must launch from a contextual analysis, and the context for our world (and the focus of this blog) is globalization.  The world is no longer made up of island nations (if in fact it ever was), but an increasingly connected and fluid amalgam that challenges domestic laws and policies as never before.   Our understanding of immigration and immigration policy must use this understanding as our guiding star.

First post

This is my first foray into blogging so I thought I'd focus on two topics close to my heart and the connection between them. For the past six years I've been studying and working on immigration  issues (migration to be more accurate) in Costa Rica, Chile and Spain. Now I've just moved back to my native California to continue  working and studying in the field.
My background is in the study of globalization, that is, the idea of deeper or thicker flows of transactions involving goods, ideas, capital and people.  I felt that the most poignant element is and will be the flow of people. This blog will be dedicated to exploring some of these issues in a relatively free flowing style (something like musings, observations and rants) but with some simulacrum of narrative arc. As I mentioned, this is my first shot at blogging so bear with me  as I figure this out and this evolves into something that is hopefully interesting and useful in the ongoing dialog surrounding globalization and immigration.