Conservatives may call me crazy, but this is an issue that, as a whole, we are wrong about. Amnesty is the right thing to do. Many conservatives like Jeb Bush--the ones who hate him because of his brother are just too crazy to even convince. He is a different person and is not just some weird illuminati prick (conspiracy theorists really do mess up the right-wing reputation, and they should be ashamed for their craziness), he is a genuine human being. There are two issues we disagree with him on: (1) Immigration and (2) common core. I have not really looked into common core, but his whole deal on amnesty is really what pisses off conservatives.
I always was skeptical about amnesty. Immigrants don't pay taxes, use welfare benefits, and harm the economy. Or so I thought. And I am over 50% hispanic. My mother is Puerto Rican 100% and my dad has enough Mexican to allow me to benefit from affirmative action. So, if anything, I should have been skeptical of the traditional amnesty is bad crowd. But I drank their koolaid and thought that illegal immigration was going to destroy America. It simply isn't true. We are a nation of immigrants and, as conservatives, we should embrace this. We support tradition. We support going back to the 1700s (not literally. We actually support more technological creation through capitalism... but you know what I mean... We're originalists!) But in the period we love to quote Jefferson, Washington, etc. we seem to forget that they were only here because of immigration.
Here is what conservatives counter: look, immigration was good back then, but not now. We have things they didn't have: welfare, social services, etc. and we have to pay for immigrants on these programs. So any new illegal immigration means more people who do not pay taxes and, subsequently, we have higher taxes because of immigrants which harms job growth. And it makes sense. The conservative Heritage Foundation, for example, contends that illegal immigration is terrible for the economy and for the taxpayer. Uneducated and low-income families receive about $31,000 of benefits each year, and people educated through college receive less (around $24,000). Since most illegal immigrants are poor, uneducated, etc. they are in the $31,000 category--and they pay no taxes. So illegal immigration harms the economy. Makes sense to me. They claim that illegal immigration costs $5.4 trillion dollars per year [1]. And they also argue that amnesty would increase the cost because they become eligible for more benefits. And I have to point out I am a fan of the Heritage Foundation. But on this issue, they are just wrong.
Anyone who opposes immigration will cite this Heritage report, or it's younger children. I do not think the authors meant to mislead anyone and they are genuine scientists who should not be chastised for the report. But the fact is, the report is flawed. The way they count people is through households, immigrant households. The issue with this is that many immigrants are married to US citizens or have US children and this overstates the costs. The costs are, in these cases, mostly from citizens--not immigrants. The report also generally focuses on the direct consequences of immigration but fails to take into account the benefits. They assume immigration is bad, when, in reality, most economists actually think immigration is good. Yes, immigration is good.
Take a separate report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER. These guys publish quality research on economic issues. They published a study in 2010 which found that, unlike Rector and other anti-immigration academics argue, immigration had little effect on poverty rates [2]. In the long term immigration leads to many benefits. Second generation immigrants actually tend to have higher education attainment--probably because the work hard ethic is instilled into them. They still feel as though living in this country is a privilege. So, in reality, there are long-term direct productivity gains when immigrant families come to the US: they end up more productive which helps everyone else [3].
Probably the biggest harm I hear from conservatives--and I bought this, too--is that immigration will decrease our wages. Wow, if that is true, native born people like me wills suffer, right? Not really. There is very scant proof that immigration actually does this. NBER published a report in 2005 actually arguing that immigration increases wages [4]. Wow, so they actually make us richer! Of course, it harms people who do not have a high school degree, but the effect is small and as long as you finish high school you will be fine. This pretty much refutes the notion that immigration is bad for the economy.
Conservatives also claim the direct costs of welfare will murder us. This is totally untrue. Immigrants actually use welfare at lower rates than white native born people, according to another right-wing think tank, the CATO Institute [5].
Most of the costs of amnesty fall upon the welfare state: giving 11 million people welfare will cost a lot. But that isn't an argument against amnesty, it is one against the welfare state. Reform welfare, reduce costs, reform food stamps, etc. That does not mean we should deprave people who risk their lives for their family a right to citizenship which will benefit them, which will benefit us, and which will benefit the United States. Conservatives should support amnesty.
References
Note, I am not going to cite these the "proper" way, but since if you click a link it leads you do the website that should be enough for an online blog.
1. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer
2. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17570
3. http://www.nber.org/papers/w11547
4. http://www.nber.org/papers/w12497
5. http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/poor-immigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor
I always was skeptical about amnesty. Immigrants don't pay taxes, use welfare benefits, and harm the economy. Or so I thought. And I am over 50% hispanic. My mother is Puerto Rican 100% and my dad has enough Mexican to allow me to benefit from affirmative action. So, if anything, I should have been skeptical of the traditional amnesty is bad crowd. But I drank their koolaid and thought that illegal immigration was going to destroy America. It simply isn't true. We are a nation of immigrants and, as conservatives, we should embrace this. We support tradition. We support going back to the 1700s (not literally. We actually support more technological creation through capitalism... but you know what I mean... We're originalists!) But in the period we love to quote Jefferson, Washington, etc. we seem to forget that they were only here because of immigration.
Here is what conservatives counter: look, immigration was good back then, but not now. We have things they didn't have: welfare, social services, etc. and we have to pay for immigrants on these programs. So any new illegal immigration means more people who do not pay taxes and, subsequently, we have higher taxes because of immigrants which harms job growth. And it makes sense. The conservative Heritage Foundation, for example, contends that illegal immigration is terrible for the economy and for the taxpayer. Uneducated and low-income families receive about $31,000 of benefits each year, and people educated through college receive less (around $24,000). Since most illegal immigrants are poor, uneducated, etc. they are in the $31,000 category--and they pay no taxes. So illegal immigration harms the economy. Makes sense to me. They claim that illegal immigration costs $5.4 trillion dollars per year [1]. And they also argue that amnesty would increase the cost because they become eligible for more benefits. And I have to point out I am a fan of the Heritage Foundation. But on this issue, they are just wrong.
Anyone who opposes immigration will cite this Heritage report, or it's younger children. I do not think the authors meant to mislead anyone and they are genuine scientists who should not be chastised for the report. But the fact is, the report is flawed. The way they count people is through households, immigrant households. The issue with this is that many immigrants are married to US citizens or have US children and this overstates the costs. The costs are, in these cases, mostly from citizens--not immigrants. The report also generally focuses on the direct consequences of immigration but fails to take into account the benefits. They assume immigration is bad, when, in reality, most economists actually think immigration is good. Yes, immigration is good.
Take a separate report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER. These guys publish quality research on economic issues. They published a study in 2010 which found that, unlike Rector and other anti-immigration academics argue, immigration had little effect on poverty rates [2]. In the long term immigration leads to many benefits. Second generation immigrants actually tend to have higher education attainment--probably because the work hard ethic is instilled into them. They still feel as though living in this country is a privilege. So, in reality, there are long-term direct productivity gains when immigrant families come to the US: they end up more productive which helps everyone else [3].
Probably the biggest harm I hear from conservatives--and I bought this, too--is that immigration will decrease our wages. Wow, if that is true, native born people like me wills suffer, right? Not really. There is very scant proof that immigration actually does this. NBER published a report in 2005 actually arguing that immigration increases wages [4]. Wow, so they actually make us richer! Of course, it harms people who do not have a high school degree, but the effect is small and as long as you finish high school you will be fine. This pretty much refutes the notion that immigration is bad for the economy.
Conservatives also claim the direct costs of welfare will murder us. This is totally untrue. Immigrants actually use welfare at lower rates than white native born people, according to another right-wing think tank, the CATO Institute [5].
Most of the costs of amnesty fall upon the welfare state: giving 11 million people welfare will cost a lot. But that isn't an argument against amnesty, it is one against the welfare state. Reform welfare, reduce costs, reform food stamps, etc. That does not mean we should deprave people who risk their lives for their family a right to citizenship which will benefit them, which will benefit us, and which will benefit the United States. Conservatives should support amnesty.
References
Note, I am not going to cite these the "proper" way, but since if you click a link it leads you do the website that should be enough for an online blog.
1. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer
2. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17570
3. http://www.nber.org/papers/w11547
4. http://www.nber.org/papers/w12497
5. http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/poor-immigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor
No comments:
Post a Comment