I've had some interesting and thoughtful comments regarding my piece on the bad behavior of both the US and Mexican governments regarding immigration, as highlighted by the proposed wall. I would like to take a minute to re-post at least part of several comments and respond to them. I hope you find the discussion interesting if you are interested in the issue.

My original article is at:
http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/a/2005/12/22/us_mexico_wall_proposal_highlights_bad_g

From Mike: The President said (correctly) “creating a legal channel for those who enter America to do an honest day's labor,” will relieve pressure on the border. Though some conservatives see the measures proposed by the administration as an amnesty program, this seems myopic given the fact that an estimated 11 million illegal aliens already reside within our borders. Hopefully, Congress will support legislation that reduces the ghastly security risk of our porous borders and takes away the incentives to enter America illegally by creating a temporary work program. Then, the US may finally move towards an immigration policy that makes sense and no longer relies on a blind eye.

I agree with Mike and would suggest that the "temporary work program" already exists in the form of various visas, especially the H-2B for unskilled labor. The key is to increase the number of such visas available. (More on that later in this posting). Even if the number of visas is increased, however, we will still have to substantially increase border security as part of the enforcement process. When I say increase security, I mean more barriers and technology, not necessarily more Border Patrol agents, as spending more money that way has been demonstrably unproductive.

From Rafael: How can we have a better picture of the illegal immigration phenomenon, free of stereotypes, of empty expressions, of unproven statements? Media and polititians should be more responsible. Mexicans don't come here because of the social benefits, but because wages are 10 times higher than Mexico's. The incentives are not to be found in a catalogue of benefits; you could take them from those poor guys, they would still be eager to come. And besides, for each dollar they send back to Mexico, they spend 9 dollars in the U.S. Let's not demonize them!

Rafael's note is somewhat typical of reactions to this issue from both sides in that it generally ignores what I said and responds to what he may have heard (or think he heard) elsewhere. It demonstrates one reason why this issue is so difficult to deal with: People are emotional and intractable about it, not actually listening or reasoning. So here is my e-mail response to Rafael:

I hope you recognize that I went out of my way to say my problem waswith the governments of the two countries and not with the people whocome here to make a better life. To the extent that I have a problem with the behavior of the immigrants themselves it's basically about
their overt and excessive loyalty to Mexico, even after they have decided to live here permanently (if they can). This is unusual (although not entirely unique) in American history and goes against everything that made our country great.

I specifically said that we need much much larger numbers of permits for legal immigrants, both skilled and unskilled.

From Brad: You say "...but we need a simultaneous massive increase in the amount of legal immigration permitted, whether for skilled or unskilled labor."

Of course, we already permit a massive amount of legal immigration, to the tune of about one million per year....

So again, how much legal immigration should we permit? 1.5 million per year? 2 million? 3 million? Even more?

Simply making all immigration legal would not solve the problems associated with the issue. There would still be questions about wage suppression, and about the burden on public services and infrastructure. And politically speaking, it would still be a tremendous boon for the Left as it pushes the demography of the nation further towards the Democrats.

But I do respect that you'd come out and openly advocate for this position....

And here is my response:

Brad,

Let me begin at the end of your note.

First, I agree with you that many politicians don't have the cajones to argue for a reasonable position. They're either all one way or all the other, against almost all immigration or against most limits. As in most things, somewhere in between is the right but politically difficult answer.

Second, you make an interesting point about immigration being a boon for the Left. But, doesn't that presume allowing non-citizens to vote or make political contributions, both of which are illegal? If the Republicans can get away from being portrayed as simply hating immigrants, particularly Hispanics, it is not obvious that most immigrants should be left-leaning. They are hard-working, often-religious people. If the welfare state were kept under control so that seeking handouts were not the primary use of the voting booth, many immigrants would be naturally more inclined toward Republicans. That said, the welfare system is currently out of control and Republicans are portrayed as hating immigrants. Democrats want to increase handouts to everyone, whether here legally or not, whether citizens (or permanent residents) or not. Until these things are fixed, unskilled immigrants would likely prefer Democrats to Republicans. But so what? They don't vote. I understand there may be tertiary effects of their presence on the political system, but I think they're not particularly relevant compared to the strength of other forces.

Now, to your main point. Where are you getting your numbers? Saying that we have a million per year legal immigration vastly overstates both the numbers and their relevance to the situation.

The total current immigration quota is 652,000.

* Of that, 226,000 are based on family relationships to US Citizens or permanent residents.
* 140,000 are employment-based for highly skilled workers with college and graduate degrees, people of "extraordinary ability", religious workers, etc. In this category, about 20,000 visas might go to unskilled workers.
* 55,000 visas are granted through a lottery which, as I understand, was just canceled by recent legislation.
* 90,000 maximum for refugees of which half are Europeans, and they must have a financial sponsor
* 65,000 for H-1B visas for college-educated professionals with a firm job offer (other conditions apply as well)
* There are other categories of immigrants for which there are no quotas, such as students, intracompany transfers for business managers and executives, amnesty and asylum, etc..
* And finally, there are 66,000 H-2B visas allowed for temporary or seasonal workers, the type of worker we usually think of when discussing the illegal immigration problem.

[Data source: http://www.immigralaw.com/english/employgc.shtml]

So, not only do we not have anything particularly close to 1 million immigrant visas granted annually, but well under 100,000 visas are available for unskilled labor, the sector of immigrants causing most of the consternation (except for with Senator Feinstein who apparently likes unskilled workers but not skilled workers coming into California.)

On a side note, Congress recently passed a bill which temporarily increased the number of H-2B visas available because the entire number had already been used before the first half of the year. See this article at the Immigration Law Blog for more info.

To get to your question of "how much more immigration should we allow?" I don't have a precise answer, but I would think that doubling H-1B and other highly-skilled or talented worker visas and quintupling H-2B visas would be reasonable.

To be clear, I support much better enforcement of immigration laws at the same time. I am not arguing for "open borders", just for a smarter immigration policy.

And finally, from Bruno: Revealing Mexican hypocrisy is unfair. It's too easy. The society is based on it. Forget the fact that foreigners are routinely demanded to show immigration papers for driving licenses and bank accounts. Forget how Central Americans are mistreated as they cross into Mexico. The fact is that--as bad as they're treated in the US, as much racism as they're faced with--Mexicans' lives in the US is better than at home. In the US they have more freedom and are faced with less racism than they are in their own country. For the most part, their loyalty to Mexico is local: loyalty to their families and hometowns. As much as they may be an underclass in the US, their children won't be. If they had stayed in Mexico, they would remain "uneducated farmers" into the forseeable future. This is the hypocrisy that's at the root of the resentment they show in the current situation.

And here is my response:

Bruno,

You should do a little more research on the issue of loyalty. It seems clear that a large number of Mexicans living in America have a much stronger loyalty to Mexico than you believe. It is not a passive thing, and it is encouraged by the Mexican government who want to keep as many dollars flowing from the US to Mexico as possible. Do an internet search for "Aztlan".

Of course, Mexicans and other immigrants are loyal to their families, their hometowns, etc. Who isn't? But you don't find west African cab drivers emphasizing their desire to vote in African elections or effectively to colonize America, nor do you find them expressing anything but the desire to be American and to try to make the most of the opportunity the USA provides...most often by working hard.

In any case, I don't understand your point about revealing hypocrisy. What is unfair about it? I hope you noticed that the hypocrisy in question is the government's not the poor farmer's. Few people other than labor unions have any resentment toward those who simply want to improve their lives. However, just because I am sympathetic to the goals of immigrants does not mean we must allow the Mexican government to treat the USA the way a leech treats a leg.