Immigration quagmire

Humanist, Sept-Oct, 2007 by Ralph R. Reiland

THERE'S NO SHORTAGE of rancor in the debate on immigration.

A statement by the University of Oregon chapter of MEChA (an acronym that translates as the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan) declares that "Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas," and rejects the notion that Chicanos "should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot."

Aztlan, defined as spanning all of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, California, Colorado, Oregon, and parts of Washington State, was "brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny" explains the MEChA website at the university.

Defining in somewhat consecrated terms this alleged homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America, "The Spiritual Plan for Aztlan" declares: "Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans."

Equally rancorous on the other side of the debate, talk show host Neal Boortz, during the June 21, 2007, broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, approvingly read a recommendation regarding immigration from a listener's e-mail: "When we defeat this illegal alien amnesty bill, and when we yank out the welcome mat, and they all start going back to Mexico, as a going away gift let's give 'em all a little nuclear waste and let 'em take it down there to Mexico. Tell 'em it can ... it'll heat tortillas."

"I love it. I love it," Boortz responded, adding: "And you'll be able to find them at night too, because they'll glow."

Unfortunately, these aren't exactly fringe statements. MEChA is on about three hundred U.S. campuses, and Neal Boortz was named "Best Radio Program, Any Type" and "Best Radio On-Air Personality" this year by the Georgia Association of Broadcasters.

In the midst of all this, the White House on June 20, eight days before the defeat of the immigration bill in the U.S. Senate, issued "Immigrations Economic Impact" a report by the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA).

Established during the Truman administration in 1946, the CEA was designed to "provide the president with objective economic analysis and advice" on economic policy issues.

It was President Harry Truman, dismayed by economic advisers who would hedge their bets with "on the one hand" and "on the other hand," who came up with a unique solution for taking some of the uncertainty out of predicting the consequences of economic policy decisions. "Give me," he once demanded of his staff, "a one-armed economist."

The CEA's summary statement in "Immigrations Economic Impact" paints an upbeat picture: "Our review of economic research finds immigrants not only help fuel the nation's economic growth, but also have an overall positive effect on the income of native-born workers."

Explaining that "more total workers yield more total output," the report states that the idea "that immigration has fueled U.S. macroeconomic growth is both uncontroversial and unsurprising."

Pointing to the magnitude of immigration, the CEA reports that foreign-born workers accounted for about 50 percent of the growth in the U.S. labor force over the last decade.

Acknowledging that it's "not easy" to assess how immigration affects the wellbeing of native-born Americans--either in retrospect or in the future--and stating: "Nor is it easy to project costs and benefits far into the future" the CEA nevertheless presents several "key findings" (again demonstrating the "on the other hand" tendency among economists).

First, immigrants "complement (not substitute for) natives, raising natives' productivity and income," the report concludes. "Especially beneficial to natives" are skilled immigrants, delivering "significant positive fiscal impact" by way of "contributions to innovation," et cetera.

As the CEA reminds us, "Approximately 40 percent of Ph.D. scientists working in the United States were born abroad" and "the index of entrepreneurial activity is nearly 40 percent higher for immigrants than for natives."

Secondly, regarding "long-term fiscal effects" on government budgets, the CEA concludes that immigration is "likely to have a modest, positive influence."

In the end, this top-level economic analysis matters less to Americans who feel their country (which, let's face it, is hardly a model of homogeny) is being fragmented and threatened by outsiders cheating the system. And for others the report probably matters far less than memories of previous fine-sounding government plans and subsequent screw-ups--namely in New Orleans and Iraq.

After no nukes in the latter and Americans drowning in their attics in the former, who could trust the government to do anything right about immigration? And will such cynicism push us even further into the quagmire?

Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh,