Sunday the New York Times Magazine published an interesting article on the immigration debate by Roger Lowenstein, “The Immigration Equation.” The article was built around a summary of the views of Harvard economist George Borjas, who thinks heavy immigration of unskilled workers from Mexico is not good for the U.S., and Berkeley economist David Card, who rejects Borjas’s arguments.
Lowenstein does a good job, I think, of fairly summarizing the views of both men, but he either makes no effort, or fails if he did make an effort, to disguise his own views. Consider, for example, these paragraphs from very early in the article:
The debate among economists is whether low-income workers are hurt a lot or just a little — and over what the answer implies for U.S. policy. If you believe Borjas, the answer is troubling. A policy designed with only Americans’ economic well-being in mind would admit far fewer Mexicans, who now account for about 3 in 10 immigrants. Borjas … has asserted that the issue, indeed, is “Whom should the United States let in?”
Such a bald approach carries an overtone of the ethnic selectivity that was a staple of the immigration debates a century ago. It makes many of Borjas’s colleagues uncomfortable, and it is one reason that the debate is so charged.
Is admitting new immigrants based in large part on the skills the country needs really “a bald approach”? If so, doesn’t that mean that ignoring the skills of those who want to immigrate is “a hairy approach”? If taking skills into account “carries an overtone of ethnic selectivity,” should we go out of our way (and against our interests) by giving immigration preferences to unskilled workers so long as they come from certain ethnic groups?
Later on in the article Lowenstein described the immigration policies of Canada and Australia:
Canada and Australia admit immigrants primarily on the basis of skills, and one thing the economists agree on is that high earners raise the national income by more than low earners. They are also less of a burden on the tax rolls.
Are the policies of Canada and Australia based on “a bald approach carries an overtone of the ethnic selectivity”? Are they not admitting their fair share of unskilled Mexicans? Lowenstein doesn’t say.
But wait. As I’ve argued here before, wouldn’t a concern for “diversity” lead us to admit fewer Mexicans and fewer unskilled workers, since they are already “overrepresented” in our society?
Prodiversity seems always to be an excuse for lowering of standards, and one which maximizes conflict between groups. If not so, it would indeed be used to say that there are too many native Spanish-speakers immigrating. The article does not mention that Card’s study of Marielitos into Miami in 1980 did find downward wage effects; just not very large ones.
Nor was there mentioned the disabling feature of the study; it assumed labor force participation to be at national norms. There is every indication, though, that those refugees had much lower employability and much higher charity reliance, being housed and taken care of by emigre’s at that time; while the study assumed that they worked regular jobs.