Taxing Immigration

Nathan Smith, at TCS Daily, has some really interesting ideas about immigration and border enforcement, in a rather long, but quite readable article titled "Don't Restrict Immigration, Tax It". At the root of his examination of the open and closed border debate in the U.S. is the notion that whatever policy America establishes should have a net benefit to as many people as possible, immigrant and native resident alike. From Smith's perspective, this means open borders (not to include terrorists and other security threats, but the average person who wants to come here to improve their lot in life), with the proviso that people who come here to work, no doubt improving their situation, be subjected to additional taxes to compensate those who might be harmed financially by the competition from these guest workers. He calls his ideas the "rational middle ground", and while I would need to see this ground thoroughly covered by rational debate to be completely sure whether I agree with Smith's analysis, I see some merit in his propositions.

The article really is too full of content for me to summarize it for you, but I'll hit a few highlights. First, in advocating an open borders policy, Smith says that it "...must be resolute in denying welfare and taxpayer-funded social services to (most) immigrants, because any social safety net provided in the US will represent a higher standard of living than what prevails in many countries." This seems absolute common sense; we can't open our doors, and then pay to support everyone who would show up. Smith proposes that every guest worker be required to deposit with a government or authorised agency "...an amount equal to the cost of deporting them. Having made this deposit, the guest worker should be deported at his or her own pre-paid expense if he becomes unable to support him- or herself."

Second, Smith recommends a mandatory, automatically withdrawn from their paychecks, savings program for all guest workers, available for withdrawal only in the worker's country of origin, providing for incentive to eventually return home. As an alternative, when the account reaches a certain "citizenship threshold", the worker could forfeit the account and become a U.S. citizen. Smith's notion is that the money accumulated from such forfeiture would be distributed to all U.S. citizens, on an annual basis. As the final piece to this taxation-based border policy, "... a surtax will be charged to guest workers, the proceeds of which will be paid out either to all American workers, or targeted to the working poor, ensuring that American-born workers will have a higher standard of living than guest workers who earn the same market wage." This would probably alleviate resentment from the lower wage earners here, and since the guest workers would doubtless still be much better off than in their own countries, despite the extra taxation, could be agreeable to the visiting workers as well. If not, they could simply choose not to come. No harm, no foul. Something Smith didn't indicate, but that seems to me an additional point of merit from the perspective of the immigrant, is that once they became citizens, these guest workers would also be eligible to receive the annual sum. This would be some incentive to cooperate with the tax from the outset, offering eventual compensation for the initial sacrifice.

Smith looks at why he thinks our current border policies are both too restrictive, and basically unenforceable. He discusses how this new approach would make violations of the laws of the country more an issue of tax evasion than illegal entry, resulting not in deportation so much as confiscation of property, which he says would fit better into our general tenor of government. (He spends a lot of time discussing the source of authority of government, which I won't go into. He wrote an article on this topic that I read last year called "Hobbes, Locke and the Bush Doctrine", that I highly recommend. It's also long, and not an easy read, but worth the effort for understanding the philosophy of the roots of governmental power.) Smith goes into much more in his discussion of the reasons for, and the effects of a more open border policy, so as I said, I won't try to sum it all up here, or even try to decide at this point whether I agree with him. What I will say is that I hope I see more non-partisan, idea-oriented debate on this topic. Smith's ideas may, or may not, be viable and the solution to all our border woes, but at least they could move the highly divisive topic a little farther down the road toward a commonly acceptable resolution. I'll give Smith the next to last word:

In principle, since taxing rather than restricting immigration is in the interests of the median voter, a majoritarian democracy should be willing to pass it. Yet the idea of using immigration as a revenue source to offset perceived negative externalities has hardly been mentioned in the immigration debate. I don't think doubts about its feasibility are the reason. Rather, there's an ethical hang-up: people think it's discriminatory to make immigrants pay higher taxes, yet somehow it's not discriminatory to keep them out altogether, which hurts them much more.
Still, I think taxing immigration is an idea with a future, simply because it's the "rational middle ground" for which everyone is looking.

As for me, I'll reserve judgement, but keep an open mind.

Update: I think I should note that in his article Smith is critical of Duncan Currie from The Weekly Standard, relating to an article that he wrote, and I blogged in May, calling for a more substantial border fence. Smith approaches it from the perspective that our country allows very few people to immigrate legally, so fencing won't send immigrants through proper channels, but shut them out entirely. I, however, do not see the two notions as mutually exclusive. There is simply no rule that says if you guard your borders closely you can't also let in any number of immigrants you choose.

A Good Idea Out Of Washington, Shocking But True

Probably very few people in America aren't aware of the huge issue border control and illegal immigration have become in recent months. The ripples continue to spread from this giant stone that has been dropped in the waters of American politics. John Fund, writing at The Wall Street Journal editorial page, looks at how the questions involved will affect the upcoming election, how the illegal immigration issue is conflicting the GOP, as well as how Congress will resolve the impasse between the two pieces of legislation coming out of the House and Senate that take disparate approaches to facing the problems at hand.

All of this is important stuff, and the opinion piece from Fund kept me reading. However, what really got my notice was when Fund explained an idea coming from Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, that I think is quite brilliant. The House has passed an enforcement only bill, focused on securing the border. The Senate passed a bill that deals with securing the border to a degree, but also adds a guest worker proposal that is basically the equivalent of amnesty for the people who have come into the country illegally, but managed to get away with it for long enough to establish lives here. (I don't think a guest worker program is by nature an amnesty, but the way the Senate wrote it there's very little else you can call it.) The House has made it clear they are going to dig in their heels, as is the Senate, which could lead to a no-resolution situation, and both pieces of legislation dying on the vine. The result? No action on the issue of border control, or on what to do about the illegals already here.

Along comes Rep. Pence's idea:

His proposal (which can be found here) would have the U.S. government contract with gold-standard private employment agencies such as Kelly Services to establish offices called Ellis Island Centers in countries that supply the most illegal alien labor today. The centers would provide an incentive for illegals to leave the country and apply for guest-worker visas in the U.S. that would be granted within a week by matching workers with jobs employers can't fill with American workers. They would also make criminal and other background checks. Guest workers would be able to apply for citizenship, but they would have to follow current rules with no favoritism over those now waiting legally in line.

"It would encourage illegal aliens to self-deport and come back legally as guest workers," says Mr. Pence. "They would benefit from no longer living in fear or in the shadows of life and they could return home for visits. And since employers who hired anyone without such a visa would face stiff fines, it would make it increasingly difficult over time for those who weren't legal guest workers to get jobs."

I don't know where this will end up heading, but it's such a good idea, having at its core what is most necessary in this situation: incentive to cooperate for the people who are currently hiding in the shadows of our country. Mass deportations simply aren't practical, and yet there are so many reasonable arguments for not just handing legal status to people who have broken our laws, no matter how strong their incentive to do so, that we simply must have this kind of creative thinking coming out of Washington. Setting these centers up in the countries where most illegal immigrants originate provides an incentive to leave the country voluntarily, since without doing so they can't register for legal jobs, and eventually become eligible for citizenship. One of my favorite things about this idea is that it uses private sector companies to run these remote employment agencies, not a huge government bureaucracy.

I was so taken with this notion, that I actually wrote Rep. Pence's office to say thanks, and he's not even my Congressman. He's not even from my state!! There are politicians on both extremes of the illegal immigration/border debate who are voicing objection, for all of their various reasons, but I was encouraged to see some creative middle ground. Here's where you can contact him if you agree that this kind of thinking should be encouraged.

HT: Instapundit

Update: I got a request in the comments to save my readers some time and tell them how they can get in touch with their own Representatives. Your wish is my command. However, since I don't know where everyone who reads this site lives, I've linked to some general contact sites for the House and Senate, and you can select your Rep. from a list. Okay? Here's a link to the House of Representatives, where you can write your Congressperson. Here's a link to follow to contact your Senators.

If Half A Fence Is Good...

There's a really good article by Duncan Currie at The Weekly Standard today, saying that now that the Senate has voted for the Sessions amendment to the immigration bill, currently in progress, which authorizes 370 miles of triple layered fencing on our border with Mexico, the real debate over border security can begin. (Just as a side note, our border with Mexico is 1,951 miles long.) So, why does the real debate begin after the votes are cast?

Currie makes the point that up till now the conversation has been "...fraught with demagoguery and suspect analogies. Witness Rep. James Sensenbrenner's recent description of employers who exploit illegal immigrant labor as '21st-century slave masters.'" Currie also cites the frequent comparison of a wall on the Mexican border with the Berlin Wall--you know, the wall that separated a previously united country/city into two parts, the free side and the communist side. However, the people who pull out the Berlin Wall/Mexican border analogy generally fail to note the primary difference between the two; The Berlin Wall was put up to keep people in the country, and a U.S./Mexico wall, while not exactly designed to keep people out, would serve to force people to stop entering illegally and start using the front door. Hardly a legitimate comparison.

Despite the assertion that building a wall would put us on par with repressive communist regimes, 83 Senators voted last week for the partial fence to be built. All of the Republicans voted for it, but 83 affirmative votes means that Democrats voted for it as well-- a lot of them, including "Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Pat Leahy, Joe Biden, Carl Levin, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein." Currie points out some inconsistency here:

Last December House Republicans took heat for endorsing some 698 miles worth of Mexican border fencing. So now we know the crucial difference between sensible border enforcement and crude "immigrant bashing"--about 328 miles of fencing. Fences that cover 698 miles are a noxious emblem of right-wing nativism. Fences that cover 370 miles are a reasonable means to fortify American security.

The fencing debate reflects the general frivolity of the immigration row. If building 370 miles of border fencing is worth the trouble, then building 698 miles of fencing seems to be at least a reasonable option to consider. Either fencing will help discourage illegal border crossings, or it won't. Yet many senators who pronounce themselves "serious" about dealing with illegal immigration scorned the House bill but then turned around and voted for the Sessions legislation last week.

His observation is a good one. So, now that 28 Senate Democrats are on record as supporting enhanced border security, what does it mean? If a partial fence is good, wouldn't a whole fence be better? Currie says that there are three main issues within the fence debate: symbolism, cost, and effectiveness. What would a fence say to Mexicans? What will it's price be, and can we afford it? Finally, the most important question: will it work? The answers to these questions, and others ( like what to do about the people already here illegally), are still in limbo, but Currie declares that, now, we are ready for a real discussion.

...when 28 Senate Democrats jump on board with the concept of security fencing, you know it's an idea that merits serious bipartisan debate, rather that just casual dismissals and partisan bombast. Thanks above all to Sen. Sessions, we may now have that debate.

Maybe if they put aside Berlin Wall comparisons and talk of "21st-century slave masters", and recognize that this is something the American people really do want addressed seriously, the Senate can truly act as representatives of the people who elect them; by voting for even a part of a wall they've made a small step or two in that direction. The Pollyanna in me would love to believe it's just the beginning. The realist in me is thinking they'll do just enough to pacify the public, and then fall back into the routine, holding televised hearings on such weighty matters as steroid abuse in baseball. I hope the Pollyanna is right this time. The realist would like a few days off.

The President Speaks...

I had a guest this afternoon, so I missed President Bush's speech on illegal immigration and border enforcement. Instapundit to the rescue. He has the text of the speech for those of us who failed our civic duty test and were otherwise engaged. A few things the President said encouraged me.

1) He called illegal immigrants illegal immigrants, and acknowledged that we have a problem with our borders. (Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.)

2) He said the government is increasing the number of Border Patrol agents, and implementing increased use of modern technology. He says he intends to have the National Guard shore up the Border Patrol until more agents and new technologies can be employed.

At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We will employ motion sensors … infrared cameras … and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings. America has the best technology in the world – and we will ensure that the Border Patrol has the technology they need to do their job and secure our border.

My response to this part of the speech? It's about time.

3) He said they're working on ending the "catch and release" cycle. (An illegal immigrant is caught. For various reasons they can't be immediately sent back to their country of origin. There aren't enough facilities to hold them while the legalities gods are appeased . They are released on their own recognizance, and told to come back to court on a certain date. Shockingly, they don't report as ordered. They are now roofing your neighbor's house.) My response to "We're working on it"? Work faster and harder.

4) An identification card for workers who are here legally that uses current technology to advantage, for example digital fingerprints, is a step forward. It would help both employers and law enforcement make sure that employees are here legally, and leave employers with less excuse for putting their pocketbook above national security.

5) On the "what to do about the people who are already here" front, I find pros and cons in what he said, but can agree wholeheartedly with one point that he made in particular. We need to make learning English a requirement for citizenship.

...we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one Nation out of many peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language. English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of America. English allows newcomers to go from picking crops to opening a grocery … from cleaning offices to running offices … from a life of low-paying jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own. When immigrants assimilate and advance in our society, they realize their dreams ... they renew our spirit ... and they add to the unity of America.

6) He called on the Senate to address this issue quickly and not to make political gain their goal.

America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone. Feelings run deep on this issue – and as we work it out, all of us need to keep some things in mind. We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone’s fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain. We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say.

I have very little hope that anyone in office will actually heed this part of the speech. Just as water doesn't flow uphill, Congress doesn't ignore its own political interests, but I still think it needs to be said, and said often.

If you want more, go read the rest of the speech. For what it's worth, here's my two cents. I still struggle with the idea of letting people who came here illegally pay a fine and stay in the country, while others who have obeyed our laws before even coming here wait in third world limbo. There's a part of me that remembers playground arguments where everybody's goal was finding what was fair, at least from their perspective, and giving cuts was always on the "that's no fair" list. There's also the question of what we are saying to potential citizens if we wink at the fact that their first act in American society was to break the law. I recognize the difficulty of deporting millions of people, many of whom have children who are citizens. The issue is enormously complicated, and that's why we have people protesting from every conceivable angle. It will take a great deal of compromise, in the best sense of the word, to bring this situation to its much needed resolution. Maybe the President's speech, and his position on the issue will prove somewhat helpful to that end. I think the speech was generally adequate, and would like to see much of what the President said enacted. I think most of it should have been already, quite frankly, but I'm firmly in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp. With so much political decision-making being driven by polls and protests, and with the polls and protests being so contradictory, I'm not sure whether we're going to end up with a security fence on our border, or a shuttle bus.

Who Pulls The Strings At Border Patrol?

Michelle Malkin has a look at "the longstanding battle between DHS management and rank-and-file employees over strict, tough, and unapologetic immigration enforcement." Her extensive summary comes on the heels of accusations that the Mexican government is being tipped off by U.S. Border Patrol as to where the Minutemen (civilian border watchers, a.k.a. Undocumented Border Agents) have been patrolling and detaining illegal immigrants. DHS denies these allegations, but by Malkin's account, not very convincingly. She makes the case that the Mexican consulate has more pull with the Department of Homeland Security than do the field agents and citizens who patrol our borders. It does make me wonder why we have a border patrol at all, if their effectiveness is being hindered from the top down.