Race to the Top – Education and Immigration Policy

As 2,000 anti-immigrant protesters marched in Washington DC to oppose the Senate-proposed immigration reform bill, they wore red T-shirts proclaiming “Protect American Jobs, No Amnesty!”  Former Congressman Allan West spoke at the event saying, “Take care of Americans first.  Get Americans back to work. Get our children back in colleges and universities.”  Modern anti-immigrant activists commonly paint immigrants as a threat to the local working population.  Republican Congressman Mo Brooks recently repeated the mantra, asserting “These are American jobs for American citizens.”  This type of jobs-based xenophobia is not unique to the United States.

Recently, the conservative candidate contesting the presidential election in November in Chile, Pablo Longuiera, went on national television asserting that illegal immigrants in Chile take jobs away from Chileans.  More extreme groups such as the Northern League in Italy and UKIP in the United Kingdom have also made similar assertions when attacking immigration.  The fact that empirical research ^{(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)} overwhelmingly contravenes this assertion has had little impact on the public debate.  In fact, research now indicates that job displacement resulting from immigration actually increases the upward mobility of native workers.  By filling jobs at the “low” end of the occupational structure, immigrants create opportunities and incentives for native workers in higher occupational tiers.  In a perceptive analysis, Hiroshi Motomura, notes that any job displacement caused by immigration among native workers is a reflection more on the failure of educational policy than a failure of immigration policy.  This insight bears repeating.

What Professor Motomura points out is that potential labor displacement of native workers is the result of a lack of upward mobility opportunities.  In the United States, the effect of fully grasping this reality would be drastic.  Instead of clamoring to shut the borders and expel immigrants, threatened communities would be demanding the opportunity to advance in their own society.  When speaking at the anti-immigrant rally former Congressman Allen West inadvertently hit the nail on the head; “Get our children back in colleges and universities.”  If immigrants are displacing US workers, the fault lies in our own failure to educate and prepare our children and workforce in general to compete.  For example, if a laborer from El Salvador is really taking a job from a person born in Arizona; that implies the educational system in Arizona is no better than that in El Salvador. 

The global mobility of capital, off-shoring and outsourcing, all show no signs of abating.  This means that US workers will have to compete globally regardless of the government’s ability to drive out internal competition from immigrants.  Due to high costs of living and expected living standards in developed countries, competitive advantage in countries like the US lies in having a highly skilled workforce.  This is achieved through education. 

Therefore, instead of spending an additional $6.5 billion on border enforcement, as the Senate reform bill proposes, that money should be funneled into education.  Some organizations assert that the failure of the US educational system has reached crisis levels.  US students are less prepared for higher education.  US employers are finding it more difficult to find US employees with the skills needed.  School drop outs are a tax burden and at higher risk of being involved in crime.  Even the Armed Services are suffering, as one-third of high school graduates who are eligible to apply score too low on Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery to apply.  The result is a stark irony.  While politicians rail against immigrants as a burden on public finance, a source of crime and a general detriment to US society, the reality is just the opposite.    

Reforming the US educational system could spark a race to the top in US society.  By better educating the young people born in the US, they would not be forced to compete with immigrants from less fortunate countries where the educational system is weak.  A strong educational system would not only allow the native workforce to be more dynamic and upwardly mobile, but could serve to integrate future generations of immigrant children.  Instead of racing to the bottom by cutting costs and squeezing budgets or building bureaucratic barriers and physical fences to ward off global competition, the United States should do everything is its power to prepare its society by providing the best education available.  

Chile to Become Only Latin American Country on the US Visa Waiver Program

In 2014, Chile will likely become the only Latin American country to be part of the United States (US) Visa Waiver Program (VWP).  The VWP is one of the few exceptions to the Immigration and Nationality Act that requires all visitors to the US to have a visa.  This will mean that citizens of Chile who wish to visit the US for 90 days or less for tourism or business will not need to apply for a visa from a US consulate before their travel.   In 2011, over 18.3 million people visited the US as part of this program, representing over 40% of all overseas visitors.  Chile is not the first Latin American country to be included in the program.  Both Argentina and Uruguay were once listed, however, they were dropped from the program in 2002 and 2003 respectively because of US concerns over the fallout of the 2001 financial crisis in Argentina and the prospect of a surge in economic immigration to the US by visa overstays.  For Chileans, inclusion in the program will facilitate travel and tourism and help to strengthen bilateral relations.

Under the normal visa procedure, most tourists and short-term business visitors are required to apply for a B visa with the US consulate in Santiago.  This typically requires filling out an online visa application, paying a $160 processing fee and completing an interview at the consulate.  Part of the application requires applicants to demonstrate financial and family links to Chile, such as owning a house or car, having a job or family members living in Chile.  The interview process requires physically appearing at the US consulate and generally waiting in line.  The new procedure will be both shorter and cheaper.  Instead of filing for a visa, now travelers from Chile will file with the online Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).   There will no longer be a background check or a high degree of financial and personal details required of travelers as under the traditional B visa program.  As of 2010, a filing fee of $14 dollars attaches to the application, thus significantly reducing the fee for Chileans to seek authorization to travel to the US.  (An interesting side note will be how this affects the reciprocal visa fee that Chile imposes on US citizens, that is set to equal the fee levied on Chileans by the US government.)

While the ESTA system is less burdensome for individuals, it does entail greater obligations for the Chilean government and is not without restrictions.  ESTA does not allow an individual to adjust status while in the US (similar to the B visa it effectively replaces) and cannot be extended beyond 90 days without the showing of an emergency, and even then it can only be extended for 30 days.  ESTA status can be revoked at any time and at most is valid for two years before it must be updated and re-filed.  Like all other visas to the US, ESTA status does not guarantee admission into the country because the final determination of admissibility is made by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at the port of entry.

Procuring inclusion in in the VWP is generally seen as a sign of close bilateral relations and mutual trust between countries.  A quick review of the current list of countries reflects the closest allies of the US (a full list is included below).  However, this list diverges from the largest US trading partners, notably excluding China and Mexico as well as Brazil.  Despite these important omissions, the VWP is seen as both a tool for public diplomacy and enhanced border security.  A 2007 study found that 74% of people who had visited the US were more likely to have a favorable view of the US, and 61% were more likely to support the US and its policies.  In 2009, the US government passed the Travel Promotion Act (as part of a police funding measure) which launched the BrandUSA program designed to stimulate tourist travel to the US.  Thanks in part to this tourism campaign and relaxed visa requirements, the US attracted 10% more tourists in 2012 than in the 2011.  According to the UN World Tourism Organization, world tourist arrivals reached 1.035 billion in 2012 and brought in total exports of US$ 1.3 trillion worldwide.  In the US, the VWP facilitated travel for 17 million visitors in 2010, who, according to the US Travel Association, spent over US$ 61 billion while in the US, accounting for US$9 billion in tax revenue and some 450,000 jobs. 

Beyond the economic incentives to promote access to the US, the VWP is also part of enhancing border security.  One of the primary functions of the VWP, and the ESTA program in particular, is the promotion of information sharing and the creation of common global security standards.  In order to qualify for the VWP program, countries must agree to share information about nationals traveling to the US who may be a threat to the security or welfare of the US.  Countries are required to issue tamper-proof machine-readable passports with biometric identifiers.  They must also agree to share information about lost or stolen passports with INTERPOL.  In effect, VWP promotes a common standard of documentation and control in exchange for easier access to the US.  The Department of State (DoS) favors the VWP because it streamlines the visa process for high-volume, low-risk countries allowing DoS to cut costs and focus limited resources on areas deemed to be high-risk.  However, the savings in time and work-hours at the consulate where visas were once issued has been shifted to the CBP and officers working at US ports of entry.  Additionally, there is a fear that due to the transnational nature of terrorism, classifying visa applicants by their country of origin is not an effective means of screening visitors to the US. 

The VWP is an important diplomatic tool which can both strengthen and undermine bilateral US relations.  Currently, 23 of the 27 European Union (EU) countries participate in the program, but this unequal treatment violates the solidarity clause of the EU charter which requires that all members be treated equally.  Additionally, these four excluded countries require a visa for their citizens to travel to the US, whereas US citizens traveling to their country, by virtue of being part of the EU, do not require a visa.  This imbalance violates the visa reciprocity clause of the EU charter and could be grounds for a formal complaint.  Political pressure within the EU has tamped down any such inclinations with Greece noticeably never filing a complaint despite the fact that it was only just added to the VWP in 2010 after 18 years as a member of the Schengen agreement for free mobility in the EU.  However, newer members of the EU have been more outspoken about their exclusion from the program.  In March 2013, two former secretaries of Homeland Security (Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff) wrote to Congress urging them to expand the VWP and highlighted the negative impact the exclusion of Poland has had on this vital NATO ally.

To be included in the VPW, Chile must meet the statutory prerequisites set down in 8 U.S.C. § 1187, including a visa refusal rate under 3% of total visas for the past two fiscal years. The current DoS figures show that in fiscal year 2010 the refusal rate was 5%, in 2011 the rate was 3.4% and in 2012 the rate was 2.8%.  Therefore, if 2013’s figures keep in line with this trend, Chile will be eligible to participate in the waiver program.  After the DoS submits a formal nomination of Chile to the program, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will conduct a comprehensive review including an in-country inspection.  The DHS report will then be submitted to Congress for approval.  The timeline for these steps is not mandated, but Chile’s expected acceptance was mentioned in a recent meeting between President Piñera and President Obama.  Once accepted, Chile’s continued participation may be terminated at the discretion of the Secretary of DHS based on the occurrence of an “emergency” in the country.  An emergency is defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act section 217(c)(5)(B) as: (1) the overthrow of a democratically elected government; (2) war; (3) a severe breakdown in law and order in the country; (4) a severe economic collapse; and (5) any other extraordinary event in the program country where that country’s participation could threaten the law enforcement or security interests of the United States.

Additionally, countries are required to maintain a low visa rejection rate and may be placed in a probationary period if the data reflects an increase in visa rejections.  These figures reflect only visa applications submitted at U.S. embassies and consulates.  People travelling under the VWP are not taken into account.  Thus, VWP country refusal rates tend to be higher than they would without the VWP.  This is clearly reflected in the high number of adjusted visa refusals of such countries as Great Britain (20.6%), France (13.4%), Germany (16.4%) and Italy (13.3%).  Despite these high rejection rates, these countries continue to participate in the VWP. 

Section 711 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L.110-53)18 allows the Secretary of DHS to waive the refusal rate requirement based on other factors including: the totality of the security risk from the country, country’s cooperation with the US in counter-terrorism activities, passport and airport security and the overstay of its nationals once they are admitted into the US.  Given Chile’s close cooperation and trade agreements with the US, it stands to reason that once Chile enters the program it will not be terminated barring any extraordinary occurrences.  This means that Chilean nationals will enjoy much easier access to the United States.  This will further promote trade and travel between the two countries and marks yet another step for Chile in its social and economic growth.

_________________________

Current VWP Countries

Andorra, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brunei, Czech Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Republic Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom 

Terrorism and Immigration Reform

The city of Boston is still reeling from the bombing of its marathon on Sunday.  Today it is practically shut down as police search for a suspect named Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev.   Dzhokhar and his older brother, now dead after a shoot-out with police, are allegedly the perpetrators of the double bombing that has killed three so far and maimed hundreds.  Video surveillance puts both men at the site of the bombing carrying back packs.  The fact that Dzhokhar’s older brother appears to have died in part from a bomb strapped to his body has closed the jury deliberations in the court of public opinion.  These men are guilty and they are terrorists.

For a few days following the blast and before the video surveillance break, the popular media in the US was conscientiously quiet about speculating on the perpetrators.  There were some hints that the date, April 15, was an ignominious date for right-wing extremists in the US.  They noted that the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 occurred on April 19.  As fragments of the bombs were recovered, they were determined to be made from pressure cookers.  This was a low-tech, low-cost design seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The official media mostly held its tongue.

Officials enlisted the help of the public in plowing through videos and photos of the area looking for possible leads.  However, the crowd sourcing turned up many red herrings.  17-year old Salah Eddin Barhoum and his friend Yassine Zaime appeared on the front page of the New York Post as suspects of interest after the paper picked up their photo from some of these websites.  Eddin was identified because he carried a back pack and had brown skin.  When images of the actual suspects emerged a few days later, they were not brown, but they were foreign.

The suspects were identified as Chechens and Muslims.  Their family had migrated to the US from Kyrgyzstan in 2003.  As the media digs deeper into their foreign travels and their backgrounds xenophobia will be stoked.  This is a natural, though not excusable, reaction to terrorism.  The “otherness” of people behind atrocities like the shooting at Newton or the summer camp in Norway or 9-11 is always highlighted.  They are crazy or fanatics or outcasts or everything together.  The worry is when these emotional responses bleed into policy.

The impact of 9-11 on US domestic and foreign policy is a subject for several books.  One of the major impacts was felt in immigration policy.  Since 2001, immigration policy has been tightly linked with border security and enforcement, as if the attackers had entered illegally.  A segment of the political elite is already wary of immigrants and their impact on today’s economy and society.  Adding foreign-born terrorism to these worries is a death-knell of rational compromise.

Today’s story is shaping up to be: “Chechen terrorists bomb the Boston Marathon.”  No doubt more nuances will be added as details unfold.  However, this is a delicate moment with regard to immigration reform in the US.  There appears to be the political will to at least begin a dialogue to confront the failings of the current system.  Terrorist hyperbole cannot be allowed to derail progress.   To paraphrase Nasser Waddady: The US has suffered a wound, but can choose to avoid a worse kind of wound: the self-inflicted.

Migration Policies in Latin America

While the US wrestles with immigration reform, the topic of migration policies is also making headlines in the rest of America.  As regional immigration increases in volume, countries that are not accustomed to the social, political and economic impacts of immigration have to grapple with this difficult issue.  In Latin America this phenomenon is clearly defined both in terms of countries that are emerging as new destinations for regional migrants, as well as countries that serve as transition points for migrants moving through on their way to somewhere else.  In South America, for example, the emergence of Chile as a new destination for regional migration has heralded new political and social consequences for the once-isolated country.  In Central America, the flow of migrants toward Mexico and the US has forced governments there to respond with stronger administrative agencies and the dedication of more resources to deal with the impact of migratory flows through the region.

Recent developments include:

The Bolivian parliament has passed a large migration law that hopes to regulate the entry, passage and settlement of migrants in that country.  The law appears to be a technical response for coordinating administrative efforts at regulation by creating a National Council on Migration.  The law also includes measures that seek to protect the rights of immigrants.  For example, the law proposes to assure the ability of foreigners to attend universities for free in Bolivia, on par with Bolivian nationals.

Meanwhile, Brazil has sent a delegation of lower house members to Bolivia to discuss issues related to migration concerning both countries.  Human trafficking and slavery in and around Sao Paolo are among the issues discussed by the delegation.  There are an estimated 100,000 Bolivians living in conditions of slavery due to their undocumented status in Brazil.  A commission in the lower house also discussed the need for Brazil to finance “work centers” in Bolivia to stem the tide of migrants into Brazil.

In Columbia, the migration regulation agency has been attempting to issue new identification cards to immigrants, but has delayed release of the new cards.  The delay has caused doubts among immigrants who are unsure if their old cards are still valid, as well as frustration because new cards have been announced repeatedly but have not yet been released.  The Colombian government also has special migratory relationships through the Comunidad Andina and MERCOSUR regional integration schemes.   

Similarly in Ecuador, the government is under fire for slow and insufficient immigration inspection at its principle airport in Guayaquil.  While the airport has recently been rated as one of the best in the world for its size, serving between 2 – 5 million passengers annually, complaints abound because of the long lines and wait period for passengers to pass through immigration checkpoints.    

The Mexican lower house unanimously passed legislation that seeks to protect children and adolescent migrants travelling alone.  The bill instructs the National Migration Institute to direct detained youth to family development-oriented agencies where these youth can obtain housing and other attention.  The intent of the bill is to increase the protection of the rights of young unaccompanied migrants.

Guatemalan Nobel Peace Prize Winner Rigoberta Menchú is calling on government to make immigration an integral part of their work.  She noted that embassies in the region are not responsive to the needs of migrants and governments should not leave all of the work to under-financed NGOs.

In Honduras, President Lobo has given a presidential commission 60 days to reorganize the National Department of Foreigners and Migration quoting the need to bolster the agency to confront the threat of terrorism and organized crime.  Among the goals of the commission is the strengthening of documents to prevent fraud, especially in the face of heightened demand for passports by the Honduran populace.

Costa Rica´s immigration agency has recently been called to task after a newspaper report revealed the illicit trafficking of Nicaraguan migrants to work on the orange harvest in the border area.  The director of the agency said an investigation of the situation would be undertaken and at least 115 people have been identified in the exploitive trafficking of laborers.    

The government of the Dominican Republic is taking measures to provide documentation to Haitians living along the border between the two countries in a push to enforce an “ordered, restrictive and legal” migration policy.  The regularization seeks to introduce governmental regulation into a largely irregular and uncontrolled border area.

A Risk of Temporary Labor Programs

As US policymakers slog towards a possible reform to the US immigration system, talk of a temporary work program hangs in the air.  Temporary labor programs have a long history in modern immigration regimes in both the developed and developing world.  However, at least in the US and Europe these programs have often resulted in less-than-desirable outcomes.   Some of the more well-known are the Bracero Program in the US during the 1940s and 50s as well as the wave of temporary worker programs that swept Europe during the 1970s.  These programs can be seen as less-than-desirable because they led to wide spread abuse of immigrants as well as a spike in undocumented populations and social polarization around the issue of immigration.  However, the interest in temporary labor programs has not disappeared.

From a policy standpoint these temporary programs are ideal for spurring economic growth and filling gaps in the domestic labor markets.  At the same time allowing working people only temporary access generally curbs the potential impact on social welfare programs geared to the very young and very old.  Thus, policymakers in democratic countries are logically drawn to such programs because they appear to offer a politically safe compromise between business interests and domestic social groups.  Since the early days of these programs, governments have become more effective at tracking people and thus limiting the increase of undocumented immigration as temporary workers overstay.  It seems that hope springs eternal for these types of programs, especially in the developed world.  Whether or not temporary labor programs actually achieve any of these goals is a topic for scholarly debate.  In fact, some have indicated that temporary labor programs have much more insidious effects on society (but that debate is for another day).

Setting aside the macro economic and social policy debate, one of the major flaws in temporary labor programs is that they generally fail the immigrants themselves.  This failure is a structural consequence inevitable from the beginning of any such program.  By conceiving of immigrants as a source of labor, policy makers begin conceptualizing immigrants not as people, but as inputs into an economic equation.  There is little in the way of a democratic backstops to check this type of objectification thinking.  While elected officials have strong political incentives to ensure that temporary programs do not spur illegal overstay, there is no incentive to ensure that temporary programs are treating immigrants (read: non-voters) well.  Thus the stage is set for abuse.

Another structural element that necessarily leads to abuse of temporary immigrants is the economic drive for instituting the programs in the first place.  A temporary immigrant labor program is designed to save costs on labor.  Simply put, domestic labor is too expensive to entice into taking the jobs offered at the salaries they are offered at.  By starting out with cost savings as the motor of these labor programs it is not a stretch to see abuses stemming from this same logic.  Poor working and housing conditions, long hours and underpayment are among the most common problems.  Because temporary workers lack any political voice, there are few incentives to stop this type of abuse.

The extent of the problem recently came to light involving a scandal at an Amazon.com warehouse in Bad Hersfeld in Germany.  A documentary film exposed harassment and poor conditions for temporary workers brought in from Poland and Spain to work during the Christmas rush.  This is a surprising story for two reasons:  First it involves a business and industry with a high profile.  Often temporary immigrant workers are in agriculture or domestic service where they are largely hidden from the mainstream consciousness of society.  Second, this scandal involved workers from countries with special rights in Germany.  Both Poland and Spain are members of the Schengen agreement and Spain is a member of the European Union.  These agreements entitle citizens of these countries political rights in Germany, far and above the situation of most temporary workers.  Despite better access to the system, these workers found themselves in an abusive and exploitative situation.

The take-away from this recent scandal is that even in highly developed countries with pro-active immigrant protection and integration programs (such as Germany), temporary immigrant labor lends itself to abuse.  When policy-makers are considering implementing such programs political and human rights protections must be built in specifically, because temporary immigrant workers lack the ability to protect themselves.  The Amazon case grabbed news headlines because it involved a popular, 21-century firm and took place in Europe and between Europeans.  The simple fact is that most of the abuses of temporary immigrant labor occur without media attention and involve even more politically vulnerable groups.  Thus, while temporary immigration policies appear attractive to elected leaders, they must be carefully crafted and thoroughly scrutinized.  

Costa Rica's Immigration

With all of the attention in the US focused on a possible attempt at comprehensive immigration reform on the horizon, it can be easy for writers on the topic of immigration in this country (such as myself) to forget that immigration is a global phenomenon.   Given the name of this blog it seems that I have given disproportionate attention to the US migration order and today’s entry is the first step toward ameliorating this major oversight. 

One of the most interesting sub-notes in the US immigration debate is that a recent report by the Pew Hispanic Research Center has found that net migration from Mexico to the US has reversed or at least reached zero.  Among other findings the report mentions that increased opportunities within Mexico are diverting migrants who may have considered migrating to the US in the past.  Mexico has been and continues to be an important transit route for Central Americans seeking entry into the US.  While the US may be the primary destination for Central American migrants, it is not the only one. 

Costa Rica has long had a profile as a net receptor of migrants.  Because the small Central American country has an extensive tradition of political and social stability as well as a history of promoting human rights, Costa Rica has been a magnet for regional migrants.  Statistical data offers a rough sketch of the growing migrant population in Costa Rica. According to census figures the immigrant population accounted for only 1.3% of the total population in the early 1970s.  This proportion grew rapidly during the 1980s and 1990s to reach 7.5% of the total population in 2000.  Since the turn of the millennium the growth of immigrant stocks in Costa Rica has tapered off and now represents roughly 8.1% of the total population.  In a country of just over 4.5 million people, this equates to 370,000 or so immigrants.

According to a recent study Nicaraguans represent the vast majority of immigrants in Costa Rica at nearly 75% of the total immigrant population. According to the IOM around 12% of the population of Nicaragua has emigrated, driven by poverty, poor working conditions and youth unemployment.  Political unrest, as well as natural disasters, were the motor behind the massive arrival of Nicaraguans into the country.  This trend was principally due to the ease of entry and the ability of people to cross in and out of the country will minimal cost or risk.  However, since 2000 these push and pull factors have largely subsided.  Several immigration laws passed during the 2000s introduced harsh measures to combat undocumented immigration.  In particular, these reforms introduced criminal penalties for unauthorized presence in the country.  Some of these harsh measures were eased in later reforms that introduced humanitarian considerations to the immigration law. 

With respect to insertion in the society, Nicaraguan men tend to outnumber Costa Rican men in the agriculture and construction sectors, while Nicaraguan women tend to be overrepresented in domestic labor.  This trend parallels immigrant insertion patterns in many developed countries including the US and Spain. 

Another trend that is reflected in the modern migration order in Costa Rica that is present throughout the region is the increasing presence of Colombian migrants.  Between 2000 and 2010, the number of immigrants from Colombia has doubled in Costa Rica.  A similar, if somewhat less striking trend can be seen in Chile.  The exodus of Colombians has been occurring over the past two decades in response to political violence and economic insecurity.  However, as traditional destinations such as Spain and the US tighten restrictions on entry, the flow of emigrants from Colombia has also spread out in Latin America.  Regional migration such as this offers many benefits over traditional destinations.  In particular, immigrating to Costa Rica is less expensive and dangerous than longer trajectories for Colombian migrants.  While the potential income disparities are less between Costa Rica and Colombia, being close to home allows for more return travel and a closer connection with family and friends left behind.  This is an important consideration in light of the fact that many immigrants consider their travels abroad to be temporary movements.  Thus, the high barriers to entry and the sometimes prohibitive costs of emigrating to Europe or the US make local destinations such as Costa Rica attractive.

The impact on Costa Rican society by the arrival of immigrants into their society has been nuanced.  Costa Rica is far from a socially homogenous society.  The four principle cities of the Central Valley make up the bulk of Costa Rica’s population, but the country is far from homogenous.  Along the Caribbean coast in the province of Limon a large Caribbean population resides, accounting for nearly all of Costa Rica’s West Indian population.  Along the northern Pacific coast in the province of Guanacaste, los guanacastecos represent a mestizo mix unique from the populations in the Central Valley.  Increasing numbers of foreigners challenge the society in many of the same ways witnessed in other countries with large percentages of foreign-born people.  However, Costa Rica’s long tradition of receiving immigrant communities from Europe and other areas has made the social fabric at least marginally more receptive to outsiders.

What remains to be seen in countries such as Costa Rica is the ability of a government with limited resources to deal with immigration in a controlled and beneficial manner.  The challenges to countries with emerging, but fragile economies are great and the potential for backlash against immigrant populations cannot be discounted.  Costa Rica is a unique example in the Americas, particularly Central America, because of its long tradition of human rights defense and the promotion of democracy.  How these values grow and flourish in a society that is increasingly multicultural is a key component of developing peaceful and prosperous societies in an increasingly diverse world.

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.