We cannot be
too sure where politicians will go next with legislation for immigration
reform. There are lots of angles here both political and economic. One
discussion in the press lately has to do with CBO forecasts of the impact of
immigration reform. The CBO found that when they forecast out 10 or 20 years
they get a net positive impact of immigration reform on the US economy. They
found that more legal immigration creates jobs and incomes and tax revenues.
While there will be social costs of more immigrants, the CBO found that the
extra revenues far outweighed the benefits.
We read
these forecasts and then choose our favorite spears and throw them at each
other. Imagine how many serious as well as drug-induced debates are going on
right now about the CBO study. That makes me think about guitar tabs and
forecasting. As I understand it a guitar tab is a sort of sheet music to help
you learn how to play the guitar. It is along story but I decided that foot
tapping to I Wanna Hold Your Hand was not enough for me, so I purchased a
guitar and starting taking lessons. Learning a guitar takes a lot of practice.
Part of it is exercise to teach you to put your fingers in the right places on
the guitar. Anyone who has ever watched a real guitar player knows that they
move their hands all over the guitar at high speed and with almost no effort.
Anyway, I am spending a lot of time doing mindless practice moving my hands
around the guitar strings as if I was caressing a hot steamy bottle of JD.
It is VERY
apparent when looking or listening to me “play” that I am about 10,000 hours
away from being the next Tiny Tim. But there ain’t no other way but to put in
the hours. I must admit that I often drink or watch Fox Business News while I
practice so it isn’t real torture or anything like that. So what does this have
to do with Immigration legislation and the CBO?
The answer
is that practicing with tabs on a guitar is NOT playing songs. And the CBO
estimates of the economic impact of immigration reform are NOT the impacts of immigration
reform. Just because practicing tabs is not playing real music, that does not
mean that practice is not valuable. The CBO estimates are dead wrong – but that
does not mean they are not valuable. It also means that one party can say the
estimates are just right while the other one says they are backwards.
Before any
televised sporting event, there is often a gaggle of experts who tell us who is
going to win that game. Analysts never agree but the process of listening to
the analysts gives you a pretty good idea of the kinds of things that will
determine the outcome. No analyst ever gets all the details and the main
outcome right – but some will have been “righter” than the others. That’s the
way we can think about the CBO report. It has value not because it will be
right, but because the report and the ensuing debate help us focus on the kinds
of things that will happen if the legislation is passed.
How can this
be helpful to us now as we debate the issue? First, it should make us a little
less confident in our own economic projection. If we really listen to those
with opposing views, we may learn something. Second, if we start looking
seriously at the assumptions made by the CBO about very specific impacts, we
realize that this is very much “educated” storytelling. Do those economists at
the CBO REALLY know how fast immigrant incomes will rise over the next decade
or two? Do they know how many babies
they will have? How many will lose their jobs? Please! Either side of the
debate can tweak an assumption about the future and come away with different
conclusions about net economic impact. Third, every decade has its surprises.
What if Mexico goes to war with Cuba? Or global warming makes Canada the new
Caribbean? Stuff happens right?
The upshot
is that while the CBO report is totally wrong about the economic impact of
Immigration Reform the report does facilitate a debate that will be
useful. But keeping in mind how fragile are the numerical conclusions, it is natural
to guess that the political debate will be overshadowed by the ethical and
ideological issues. One congressman said he would never vote for reform if it
meant that criminals – illegal aliens – would be allowed a path toward
citizenship. Another one countered that it is simply wrong to evacuate people
or families that had been living and paying taxes in the US for extended period
of time. While these two opinions might be extremes it is probable that many
congressional votes will be more determined by these kinds of issues than by a
very fragile set of economic impact numbers. A dysfunctional Congress has yet
another chance to resolve difficult issues. We can only guess what the outcome
will be.
CBO analyses are only as good as the data given them by the party requesting the analysis, in this case, the Dem-controlled Senate. Same sort of results "requested" from CBO's analysis of the Patient Affordable Care Act which in that case came from a Dem-controlled Congress. While these reports foment debate, nothing of value results except to reveal the true motives of both sides. Perhaps that alone makes it worthwhile.
ReplyDeleteImmigration reform is a win-win proposition for the Dems. It is a no-win situation for the Rs. That's my opinion for what it's worth.
You are entitled to you opinion Fuzz! Many people refer to the CBO as non-partisan. CBO typically gets good marks for trying to score legislation using the rules given them. But since they are usually not allowed to do dynamic scoring, this means much of what they do leaves out important considerations. Of course, when they do use dynamic scoring, that allows for a lot of funding as well. As you say, the forecasts are not as important as the underlying politics...
ReplyDeleteDear LSD. The immigration aspects/issues of immigration reform are too disparate to tackle in one bite . . . or to debate effectively/convincingly as a whole. The corrective themes involve compassion, legal/constitutional principles, practicable solutions, and economics. There is a simpler, less controversial and less expensive solution.
ReplyDeleteThe current Senate bill attempts a practicable one-bite solution purportedly encompassing compassion, legal/constitutional principles, practicable solutions, and economics. But its efficacy depends on the successful implementation of certain conditions, such as 95% border security, paying fines and back taxes, etc. and 10 years before citizenship can be attained. The track record of govomit in enforcing/implementing measures to support legislation is pitiful—therefore there is no credibility in the ability of govomit to effect those conditions. The Senate bill is a Trojan horse and will be DOA in the House—good riddance.
Pundits say the R’s need immigration reform to at least say viable in ’14 and ’16. Consider that even if the Latino vote in ’12 went for Romney instead of Obummer Romney still would not have had 270 electoral votes; the Latino vote for R’s is a myth and a non-electoral factor.
Better to do the right thing—better to let the Senate immigration bill die in the House than to dwell on the wrong fix for immigration policy. Simple and less expensive fix=enforce existing immigration laws—period and exclamation point, continue to beef up the southern border, and implement a steel-trap E-Verify system.
Dear Charles,
ReplyDeleteI think we all want to do the right thing -- but perhaps have different visions about what is right. This issue is not easy for Republicans. You espouse one view. In yesterday's Wall Street Journal they espouse another. The title of the editorial on page A14 is "A Pro-Growth Reform." As a consistent conservative voice, the WSJ spares no words when it concludes that support for the bill "is less about political advantage (for Republicans) than because it is good for the country." I doubt the WSJ trusts the Obama Adminstration any more than you do -- but when they look at labor issues in the USA, they believe the current system which already defacto offers amnesty hurts us by not allowing for enough labor for farmers and others. They see the reform as much better than the status quo and politically doable with Republican support.
Dear LSD. The illusion/mirage of defacto amnesty to which the WSJ believes it sees and to which it refers—in the prism of labor issues—is seemingly visible only because current immigration laws are not enforced. The simple enforcement of unenforced immigration laws would itself remove any allusion to the illusion of defacto amnesty. Just as rock defeats scissors, enforcement defeats defacto amnesty. Enforcing laws is the right thing to do: Passing massive legislation (which most Senators did not read, BTW, and full of oink . . . can you say Obumercare? . . . been there done that . . . . ) is not.
ReplyDeleteThat 11 million, 15 million, 20 million ??? illegals are here is the ugly fact that the Senate bill sweeps under the rug. Had enforcement occurred we wouldn’t be in this mess, Ollie. The whole bill is neatly woven around that fact, embraces it in a fine and welcoming but duplistic womb, and in all its beautifully-worded and subtly-spun rhetoric it justifies keeping illegals here by also sweeping under the rug the Constitution.
No matter how supporters paint it or how the WSJ spins it it is still lipstick on a very ugly pig that will never escape the gravitation pull of the House.
The U.S. is hurt less by not allowing farmers et al into the country than by setting aside our laws and Constitution.
Charles,
DeleteI brought up the WSJ article to point out how this issue is dividing Republicans and to underscore that while the sides might disagree they both think they are principled and doing what is right. This is a real challenge for the Republican Party.
As I read your answer it makes me want to repeat that without reform the status quo remains. That means we have de facto amnesty for the forseable future since , as you say, no one is going to enforce the existing laws.
Dear LSD. If defacto amenity endures because the House sees the fallacy in the Senate bill then good. If both sides believe they are principled and they are doing the right thing then good. Stalemate is good—that is what the Founders intended—hear them, listen to them, from their graves.
ReplyDeleteThat the enforcement of current laws will not occur—then only one and only one branch of the govomit is culpable—and that is the Executive—and you know the rest of the story. The Constitution puts the responsibility of enforcement of laws at the feet of the Executive—and you know the rest of the story. The current Senate bill and attending discourse about immigration results from the Executive failure to enforce existing laws—it cannot be more clear and simple as that. And you know the rest of the story. Equivocation and compromise does not cut it but does put lipstick on the porcine Senate bill.
I hope the R’s realize their challenge is to confront the Constitutional issues, stand fast on principle, trash the Senate bill, and not bend over to further receive the adverse long-lasting effects of compromise—ambivalence—or whatever. I think you agree that R’s comprises over the last 50 years have weakened the economic well-being and integrity of our country.
Dear Charles,
DeleteI am not comfortable with many choices of government over the years and agree that many have weakened the economy -- and that is precisely why I wrote what I did above about the WSJ. Protecting the Constitution is critical. Protecting the environment is critical. Protecting America is critical. Economic growth is critical. It seems to me that we get something close to amnesty one way or the other. So my preference would be to chose the proposed new form over the current one. I choose it mostly because the status quo is bad for the economy. Since I am a macro guy, I guess I lean in that direction. I think the Constitution can withstand this measure of immigration reform.
Dear LSD. Economic growth IS critical—with millions of U.S. citizens out of work. Legalization of illegals/defacto amnesty will not improve the economy but likely will lead to the potential employment of millions of illegals mostly at the lower-paying rung of the economic ladder—hardly what you as Macro Man would consider the salve the economy needs—and certainly likely not to nudge the middle class up the ladder. In that regard I don’t agree that status quo would be/is bad for the economy but rather good for illegals. The jobs that would benefit the economy are not within the scope of illegals’ skills, edukation, and experience. I cannot connect the dots between the likes of the Senate bill and consequential economic improvement.
ReplyDeleteIt’s not that the Constitution would/can withstand the immigration reform as per the Senate bill—it can—but at a cost. And that cost has been and will be gradual erosion of its principles and in increasing cultural/societal disregard for and enforcement of laws. The passage of a bill akin to the Senate bill will put an exclamation point on the amnesty Reagan allowed. Ground hog day all over again.
As to your last point, we are going around in circles. Not having the law continues amnesty and the very same disregard for following rules. At least with the new bill, it establishes what legal behavior will constitute going forward. You are skeptical that the government will enforce this new bill. But stranger things could happen...
DeleteAs for the economy, I wish you would read the WSJ article. It is pretty clear about the employment impacts and it supports them. Many of the so-called illegals are very high skilled people who ran beyond their visas. The bill would increase quotas that apparently are strangling companies that need high skilled workers. But Ag needs workers too. I am sure there will be some workers that get displaced by the bill -- but in all the WSJ sees it as pro-growth.
Dear LSD. “At least with the new bill, it establishes . . . legal behavior. . . . . ” . . . as if prior legislation did not specify remedies for breaking immigration laws and ensuing punishment and somehow have not been enforced (?) . . . and that with pixie dust and magic the “new and improved” immigration bill will somehow gain teeth that prior legislation did not have? Where, oh where is the reality check? And yes, emphatically, I am not only skeptical but certain that govomit will not—will NOT—enforce the new bill unless Rs control the Congress/WH. That, LSD, is the underpinning fallacy of this prospective legislation . . . that enforcement will somehow occur despite current laws that stipulate enforcement. Enforcement will never occur or it will be watered-down so much as to render it flaccid as was Reagan’s amnesty. So we go ‘round in circles? Fine. I prefer status quo than enact a massive “new” immigration law (that nobody read?) that effectively does not strengthen the essential under-pinning Constitutional and enforcement issues/policies unless a R occupies the WH and controls the Congress.
ReplyDeleteFurther, that “many high-skilled” illegals (H1-b) will be given a pass only underlines the potential for them to replace equally qualified U.S. citizens looking for work. My guess is that H1-b situations pale in comparison to the lower-skilled illegals here—further, if H1-b are so economically/strategically valuable that status should be given extraordinary attention aside from general amnesty as called for in the Senate oink bill.
Like rock defeats scissors: R in the WH defeats flaccid immigration reform. Macro cannot overcome political realities.
Hi Tuna,
DeleteLooks like we have taken this about as far as we can go. Too bad others don't jump in. Maybe they are enjoying their weekends! Hope yours is a good one.
The elephant in the room is the immigration reform Reagan was tricked into back in '86. All we got was a massive amnesty which the current proposal does again. I won't to argue the employment/economic proposition set forth by the WSJ. I understand it. It has merit. But we used to be a country of laws. What about the ones now on the books? Aren't they still valid? We don't need another massive bill to "reform" immigration. How about we start enforcing the immigration laws on the books. Problem is that just as in '86, nobody in DC today has the desire or fortitude to take that action. I agree that it would be impossible to round up 12 million....20 million....nobody really knows how many million illegals....and ship them back home. Is it even economically feasible from a sheer cost standpoint? Is it "fair" to round up kids who were brought here involuntarily, rip them out of the only home they've known, and ship them to, as far as they are concerned, a foreign country? There's more to the issue than economics, but that and "fairness"...what a joke because nobody on either side is really concerned about "fairness"...seem to be the only rationale behind "comprehensive legislation."
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with doing it piece by piece. Lets secure the borders, first. Then and only then can we hope to tackle the rest of the problem, piece by piece. This administration refuses to enforce anything and attacks the states which try on their own. I'm not too sure subsequent administrations will be much different, and previous ones certainly weren't.
As far as helping the Republicans, the Hispanic vote is a pipe dream for them. They've never won it nor will they ever. If you choose to believe it, as close as they've ever gotten was for W's first election...44%; however, there are several analyses which question that number and put it closer to 30%. As The Chuckster says, even that number wouldn't have won it for Romney.
So lets just forget about the economics and fairness schtick and look at things from the purely legal perspective. Ah, but we can't do that because somebody might be offended or mistreated for breaking the law to start with. The system is broken, but the people who can fix it don't want to fix it. Truth be known, they are satisfied with the status quo. The D's realize that either way, they're going to win. If the House passes the Senate's bill or any combination/permutation of a conferences bill, the R's merely become the Democrat Lite Party. True conservatives will become a third party which will guarantee the Democrats power until.....
Fuzz, Now that is really amazing. Two seconds after I replied to Charles and suggested that others jump in, your comment arrived. I must have real power!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I was secretly hoping that the next jumpee would take my side. Rats. Now I have you and Charles to deal with.
So here is a response to your comment. You explain that while you want laws to be enforced you recognize the problem created when you have tens of millions of illegals here. This is the crux of the issue. Administratively or philosophically there is no simple way to deal with this. I like that the current bill changes the law and tries to deal with that. I do not like the precedent it sets and like Charles I am not sure that future administrations will abide by the new law. But I do like the proposed form of amnesty over the existing one. If imposed it would set a fairly high bar to stay in the US. That would be better than the current system -- if imposed. Your other part about timing -- is a good one. But just as you see the comprehensive bill as a Trojan Horse, the other guys believe that your piecemeal process is just a trick to put off forever the other parts of the bill. Finally I do think the economics is very important. You and Charles want the US to be competitive. But I have been in higher Ed and I have seen too many instances of young and talented foreigners being sent to their homes when they wanted to stay in the US and get more benefit out of the very expensive educations they got here. In the proposal they cannot replace a suitably qualified US citizen. Our critical growth industries need these people and by retaining them for a while we get to benefit from them and the other guys don't! Companies must make a case that they cannot reasonable find a citizen to fill the position. This is much of the WSJ's case for the new law. They don't love it either -- but they do see it as a form of economic growth policy. Whew.
Hey, Fuzzmeister . . . . back at ya.
ReplyDeleteDear LSD. I read a WSJ article titled, “A Pro-Growth Reform,” and will continue on the assumption it is the article to which you refer. Just because the WSJ, the last bastion of journalistic integrity, recommends the oink Senate bill doesn’t mean—with all due respect—that I, as a person respecting such integrity—should agree.
The article begins by alluding to the ObummerCare pork-buster saying the 1,200 page immigration bill “is almost by definition flawed, and the immigration reform that passed the Senate late last week is no exception.” (I’m surprised it also did not acknowledge that most Senators who voted for it did not read it . . . I guess we’ll have to pass it learn what’s in it, eh, Charlie Brown?) Wow, now that disclaimer should have raised red flags all over its black and white! And it progresses with a glossy spin on why its passage would stimmilate econ growth—or at least be good for it. It concludes without ever ‘splaining how admitting 120,000 additional H-1B folks and additional 75,000 Ag workers annually will make that happen—notwithstanding the 11.8 million unemployed now. Its conclusion continues, “ . . . the reason to support immigration reform is less about political advantage than because it is good for the country. It is by far the most pro-growth policy of the Obama era, and especially in this Presidency a growth opportunity is a terrible thing to waste.” Seems to me the WSJ implies the bill should be passed to help a failing POTUS. How about a pro-growth policy—sort of like focusing like a laser (on Biden’s 4th? summer of recovery?)—on job creation for the 11.8 unemployed U.S. citizens?
BTW, I do not see how additional H-1B workers will move the needle much toward strengthening U.S. competitiveness. As a former occupant of higher ED I too have seen the faux mechanisms—both in ED and the private sector—for justifying keeping foreign talent here.
This Senate oink bill has a lot of lipschtick on it and I wuv the Oz-like pic presented by its supporters, but one must suspend reality to think that E-Verify, fines will be paid, strengthened visa enforcement/security, barring access to federal benefits, waiting 13 years for application to citizenship et al would ever, ever be implemented effectively. Better to unbundle the bill—strip its pork—and instead target legislation without pork to improve E-Verify, visa enforcement/security, and the border—e.g. enforce existing laws before passing more that will be ignored/watered down. Let’s see if the House can get it done. Sure, Obummer will not sign such a bill—oh, heck, I forgot . . . he’ll just issue an Ex Order.
Hi Charles,
ReplyDeleteI trust the WSJ to know a pro-growth policy when they see one. As a long-term reader of the WSJ I can tell you that they have never shied away from advocating and explaining many such policies -- and have equally dutifully pointed out when Obama's policies have been distinctly anti-growth. This history makes me trust them when they concluded that while imperfect, the latest proposal would be pro-growth.
Dear LSD. The WSJ did not ‘splain how legalizing H-1B and lower-skilled illegals would be pro-growth. There are IEDs/pork/other stuff in the bill (wink, wink, most Senators did not read . . . ) the WSJ failed to disclose/alert/conduct its own due diligence on those issues. . . that would/should give the long-term reader paws about the long-term benefits of the bill. What a disappointment for the last bastion of journalist integrity.
ReplyDeleteToday’s Atlanta Journal (trying to unwrap itself from bet-wetting liberalism) presented an article about the impact on Soc. Sec. that immigrants (illegal and legal) would have on it. The article was inconclusive saying, “ . . . well in the short term it might realize a net inflow but in the long-term we don’t know. . .” I think the WSJ did an injustice to its long-term readers not to disclose the big picture rather than wrap its conclusion around saving a failing POTUS . . . and glossily concluding the bill was pro-growth assuming its readers would accept that as fact and certain.
Dear Charles,
ReplyDeleteTo say that the WSJ is trying to save Obama or to say that they glossily did anything is your opinion but it is one that seems glossily gleaned. :-)
The editorial page of the WSJ is taken quite seriously by the Editorial Board. The WSJ is the voice of conservative ideology -- or at least one of the main voices -- and they publish nothing that isn't well-researched and heavily edited by the experts who control the message of the WSJ. The editors are content specialists meaning they are either doing research themselves or they are very familiar with the people who are doing the research. These people take nothing lightly.
As for any editorial it is meant to be a short and powerful position about a topic or policy. It is not a research paper. Often it is the accumulation of dozens of research papers. While an editorial needs facts to be persuasive, the writer has to decide which facts to choose for a very short piece of writing.
You can disagree with me or the WSJ -- but I would not accuse them of being casual or incomplete with their conclusions. As for supporting Obama, if you read that article and their many articles, you will know that they want nothing more than to replace Obama. But they are willing to admit that at times a particular policy might have some merit. That, I think, gives them general credence to admit that even the worst president of the century might have a good moment now and then.