Michael Magoon for President! These policy ideas are better than anything promoted by any political party this century.
The US is in the enviable position of having many of the most desirable people on earth wanting to move here for a better opportunity. This could be an amazing opportunity for these people, for Americans, and for humanity (as those best capable of promoting progress would be in the country where they are best able to).
On the other side of the coin…. We need to repeal the policy on asylum, enforce the borders, make it impossible (a felony?) to get welfare benefits if here illegally.
We could use legal aliens to shore up Social Security and Medicare, through the addition of millions of high earners and entrepreneurs, as well as by possibly increasing the FICA employer contribution for legal immigrants. This would create a positive argument.
The fact that this article could be characterized as controversial in the current mainstream discourse is both crazy and sad.All of these opinions are almost self-evident,if immigration wasn't so heavily politicized we would do a lot better,and unlike where trans ppl should pee or what sports should they play,getting better immigration policy is an important issue
So far Western countries have been unable to implement skills based systems.
Countries that had success for this for awhile, like Canada, it broke down. Chain migration has a pull from current immigrants, who can both lobby for different immigration policy and act as kind of inside fifth columnists that help friends and relatives to exploit what loopholes there are. For instance, if you have a degree requirement they can just set up a diploma mill. A job requirement they can set up a company and hire their own.
If your a city state dictatorship like Singapore or the UAE maybe you can make it work, but that isn't really an exportable model.
In addition, the USA and most of Europe lacks the kind of physical choke points that have typically helped countries trying to use skills based immigration (being an island, long distances from developing world).
While I'm in favor of recruiting top world talent, I would set that bar pretty high. Like maybe 130+ IQ. I feel like the Canada model of letting in the slightly above average from below average countries eventually results in the chain migration of low skills.
Technocratically I would just auction off Visas with a target cost of $1 million. I would tell Effective Altruists that funding these Visas would be worth more then all the mosquito nets in the world. This feels too wonky to pass congress though, people seem more comfortable with a degree or other requirement then literally selling citizenship, despite the fact that money is way more accurate and less gameable.
I'm not sure about your plan for the USA to take all the global talent. If it really started to succeed on that front, I could see a mixture of carrots and sticks being implemented by the rest of the world to stop their top talent from emigrating. China in particular, where most of the non OECD talent resides, would never allow large scale poaching of its top people.
While I am certainly not predicting that something like my proposal will be implemented in the near future, I do not see any of your concerns make it impossible to do so.
I do not see the current Democratic party being willing to support my proposal, but I think that it could be very popular with Republicans and Independent voters. Trump has talked about skills-based immigration in the past. Not sure if he is still in favor of it.
Yes, the family of immigrants will lobby for an expansion, but that does not mean that their desires have to be accepted by Congress. And diploma mills and fake companies can identified, and their graduates will likely be unable to pass very specific tests in their supposed domain.
I also do not think that it is impossible to enforce immigration rules at the border and internally. At the very least, a major diminishment of illegal immigration is quite possible.
As for IQ tests, I would argue that specific skills are more important to the economy, and those skills are likely already closely correlated with IQ anyway. I would not object to IQ test in addition to skills criterion, but not instead of.
IQ tests alone would encourage many very smart academics who willing add little of value to economy.
I don't see the point of auctioning off visas. This would likely be won by very wealthy older men who got their money via political connections. They are highly unlikely to be the very high IQ that you want. Highly-skilled young persons would add far more value to the nation.
Yes, many foreign nations will not like losing their most skilled, but it will be really hard for them to enforce this. It might even force them to reform their systems to stop punishing the successful.
If a young person has a lot of talent and would add a lot of value, they ought to be able to get someone to sponsor them and pay the $1M. This could be done for altruistic or profit motive reasons.
If you have $1M but moving to the USA won't add much value, it seems unlikely many would pay the money, but to the extent they did we would at least be getting $1M dollars.
While it's POSSIBLE to have systems that can't be gamed, it's very common for systems to be gamed. The incentive structures point to gaming. I don't consider the large OECD democracies very "nimble" on this front. You can't game "pay me $1M".
Note, this sentiment isn't just a related to immigration. I've spent more than enough time near the government watching people game systems.
"Yes, many foreign nations will not like losing their most skilled, but it will be really hard for them to enforce this. It might even force them to reform their systems to stop punishing the successful."
The Soviets were able to shut off emigration pretty well once they got serious, and their system was a lot less compelling than the modern Chinese. Note it doesn't have to be all stick, they could just as easily afford to bribe their smartest to stay. It makes sense they would be willing to bid up to the expected value of the persons value add.
My main point is that I don't see zero sum recruitment via immigration as a substitute for higher birthrates.
Anyway, I would say I'm broadly in favor of your plan, I'd just set a high bar for entry.
Glad to hear that you are broadly in favor of my plan. It might be better to start off your first comment with that.
Regarding "I don't see zero sum recruitment via immigration as a substitute for higher birthrates:"
My proposal has nothing to do with birthrates. I would be in favor of it regardless of the birth rate. If increasing population is the main goal, then open borders should be the tool (which I oppose).
I don't see auctioning off visas enabling the highest skilled to come to US. I don't see why those with $1 million would pick the best person for the US unless there was some contract where the immigrant had to pay them a steep tax to the sponsor. More likely, they would choose a family member, so it would just be nepotism.
It is also strange because in a previous comment to a different article you said that US government $1 million to each high IQ immigrant. Now you are advocating for the government to be paid that amount. That is inconsistent.
You are simply outsourcing the decision-making to an individual or organization with different interests.
As someone who went through the high skilled immigration pathway in Australia, I found the process ridiculous and over complicated. What do you think of the proposal above? Obviously it's by a guy who is largely anti immigration but his policy is a lot less convoluted than the typical skill based migration pathway.
Confused by the logic here, of course the “immigration system favors family of recent immigrant.” As opposed to what? Why would it favor American citizens who have no/few ties abroad?
“Chain migration” is “family reunification.” The former is a term adopted to prevent the public from sympathizing with it. It’s an agenda-laden term used by pundits to turn the public against immigrants.
It’s important to understand that it takes many years for this process to happen, as you acknowledge. One cannot immigrate to the US and invite their whole extended family. The right-wing purposely casts this process as near instantaneous, ignoring the high expense, the medical exams, the background checks, the endless application processes. I’ve been through this process and still going through it…for 10 years.
I do not find it persuasive that the government can effectively pick and choose “high skilled” immigrants. Who is to say the demand for a dishwasher is less “valuable” than a PhD in French art history?
Nor am I convinced the government should. If it were true that low-skilled immigration was a net negative…how can we explain the United States at all? What is the history of the US but masses of poor, often unskilled, non-English-speaking peoples coming from abroad? Those people build the most powerful civilization on Earth in the span of two centuries. Why turn our backs on this now?
Also, remember that many “high-skilled” immigrants do not want to forever be separated from their families. Favoring one over the other, you may end up with fewer of both. A master’s student in mechanical engineering might have uneducated or “unskilled” parents. Why immigrate to the US if their parents had to remain in China? The human element matters.
Further, I don’t find any evidential support for an immigration “pause” in times of elevated unemployment. First, we know that such a measure will be abused by politicians. Second, the solution to a weak economy isn’t to close off the economy to…. more consumers and more taxpayers. This is the Lump of Labor fallacy. This idea might be popular but it is your typical run-of-the-mill zero-sum error.
Thanks for the comment. Obviously, we have strong differences on this topic.
To keep my reply organized, I will number the points based on the order that you gave in your comment.
1) I don't understand your question. I am pointing out the obvious fact that the vast majority of Americans have no family overseas, so current policy privileges the interests of the minority that do. Many of them originated as illegal immigrants.
2) The term "chain migration" has been in the academic literature for generations, exactly because it accurately describes an important phenomenon of immigration. The key is not the speed but its volume and duration. One initial immigrant (legal or illegal) can lead to dozens of family members after a few generations. The term also works well because it describes the fact that it goes well beyond the nuclear family that the term "family reunification" implies.
3) Actually, it would be very easy for the government to pick high-skilled immigrants. I gave you a list of occupations that qualify under my proposed criteria. That is actually easier than determining which family members or which refugees are more deserving. Yes, cheaters need to be ferreted out, but an exam or interview by experts can deal with this. That is not too different from a difficult job interview.
Under my proposed system, neither the dishwasher or the PhD in French Art History will get in, so I am not sure why you ask the question.
4) Low-skilled immigration in the 19th and early 20th Century was viable because there was huge demand for factory workers and farmers. That is no longer the case. To suggest that we need to maintain the exact same system that we had in the 19th Century despite the dramatic changes in the skills necessary is not credible. Policy needs to evolve with changing conditions.
5) I regard immigrants being split up from their families as a good thing, not a bad thing. It is a great way to ensure the immigrant is highly motivated and increases the chances that they will marry an American citizen and more rapidly integrate.
Given that hundreds of millions of immigrants want to move to the USA, I am not worried that there will be no supply of new immigrants because of this.
6) The evidential support for an immigration pause is that in a recession, a large percentage of employers simply stop hiring or dramatically cut hiring. This makes it far harder for new immigrants to quickly get a job. If adopted as written, it is no more likely to be abused than any other law. In fact, family reunification has a huge incentive for politicians to intervene in the decision currently. So do refugees and asylees.
New immigrants during a recession are very unlikely to pay taxes and will have to spend less just to survive.
None of my proposed policy is zeros-sum thinking, except to acknowledge the obvious fact that we cannot choose everyone so some potential immigrants will be turned back. In a democratic system, the American people have the right to determine rules for entry via their elected representatives.
I think that your own personal situation may be clouding your judgment on this issue.
You and I generally agree on most things and we take a non-zero-sum view of the world. For that reason, your views on immigration seem to stick out. I do want to quickly counter a few of your points here:
1) I don't understand your question. I am pointing out the obvious fact that the vast majority of Americans have no family overseas, so current policy privileges the interests of the minority that do. Many of them originated as illegal immigrants.
--I genuinely don't understand why you believe this is a privilege or that its relevant. Sorry.
2) The term "chain migration" has been in the academic literature for generations...The term also works well because it describes the fact that it goes well beyond the nuclear family that the term "family reunification" implies.
--"Nuclear family" includes parents and siblings, by definition. If a brother of a US citizen can (eventually) immigrate and sponsor his spouse and children (his nuclear family), is that not also "chain migration?" Can you effectively distinguish between "family reunification" and "chain migration?" I do not see any reasonable means of doing so. Hence why I prefer the latter term.
3) Actually, it would be very easy for the government to pick high-skilled immigrants
--You generally take the position that government is an impediment to progress and growth in your writings, that govt is poor at picking winners/losers in the market, or in accurately foreseeing/funding new technology. If the government has a poor record of picking winners and losers in the market, can we really expect it to be "very easy" to pick immigrants who are likely to succeed? I am not convinced. On the contrary, American history seems to suggest that many of the greatest tycoons and inventors would have been blocked by immigration authorities because either they or their parents lacked the requisite "skills."
4) Low-skilled immigration in the 19th and early 20th Century was viable because there was huge demand for factory workers and farmers.
---See number 3.
5) I regard immigrants being split up from their families as a good thing, not a bad thing.
---Wouldn't it be better to allow people to decide this for themselves?
6) The evidential support for an immigration pause is that in a recession, a large percentage of employers simply stop hiring...This makes it far harder for new immigrants to quickly get a job.
---This, as you know, would never be justified on the basis of protecting "immigrant's" jobs, it will always be used to protect "native" Americans' jobs. Hence why it will inevitably be abused, the "pause" will become permanent, no matter how it is structured.
Further, the basis for this goes right back to the Lump of Labor Fallacy, a zero-sum view that there is a limited demand for labor. We know from studies of Israel in the 1990s and the Mariel Boatlift, that, even during recessions, increased immigration (skilled or unskilled), increases demand for jobs. The net effect of immigration is small when it comes to jobs and wages.
"I think that your own personal situation may be clouding your judgment on this issue."
--I think it gives me insight into the "on the ground" realities of immigrants and immigration. If implemented as above, many skilled immigrants I know will have to return abroad to reunite with family if they cannot also eventually bring them to the US. That's doesn't seem to be the effect you're hoping for.
I am glad that we agree on most points, and I am perfectly fine with other people having different opinions.
I do, however, have a really hard time understanding how a person who claims to want to change public policy to increase material progress can possibly be against an immigration policy that is primarily based on skills.
Can you make the argument that "family reunification" contributes more to material progress than high skills? And, yes, it is zero-sum. There are only so many slots to come in each year (as it should be) so more of one kind of immigrant is less of other kinds.
You must know that some people with certain skills contribute much more to economic growth than others. Otherwise, why would employers pay for those people? Your arguments imply that the market does not work and all people are inherently equal.
You must also know that higher-income people pay more in taxes and receive fewer government benefits and are much less likely to engage in violence and other criminal activity.
You must know that some of the characteristics that enable people to have more skills are heritable, so they are then passed on to their ancestors.
In answer to your questions:
1) I do not understand why you cannot understand this basic point. I think you actually do understand it, but do not like the implications of it.
2) You can use any term you prefer, but it is absolutely not true that "chain migration" is a fake concept invented by nativists. The key factor is that it goes on many generations. Mexican immigrants from the 1970s (legal and illegal) are still enabling distant cousins that they may have never met to come via family reunification. Brothers and sisters have children, so once the brothers and sisters get in (legally or illegally), they can sponsor their own nuclear family, and so on. And parents have brothers and sisters. And spouses have their own parents, brothers and sisters. In large families "family reunification" grows exponentially. This goes way beyond the nuclear family of the original immigrant.
This has been known in the academic literature for generations. This is not a nativist conspiracy theory.
3) I explained to you how it can be done. It is not complicated at all. If you think that it would not have the desired effect of increasing material progress, then explain why. But insisting that governments cannot pick from the list that I gave is not simply credible. Employers do it all the time. And regardless of the immigration policy, it is those same employees who make the decision anyway (including your preferred system).
What if employers who were looking for new hires from that list made the decision instead? Would you then support my proposal?
Your point neglects the far higher number of potential tycoons and inventors who are currently being blocked by an immigration policy that favors family reunification for unskilled workers.
Do you honestly believe that future tycoons and inventors are more likely to come from unskilled parents? You cannot possibly believe that.
5) No, it would not be better. The American people have the right to determine who gets to live in this nation. They have clearly spoken via opinion polls as to what they want, but the government is refusing to give them that.
If I added a 10-year exemption for family reunification for recent highly-skilled immigrants, then would you support my proposal?
6) I really do not see how you can disagree with the clear fact that a large percentage of employers simply stop hiring or dramatically cut hiring during a recession. This makes it far harder for new immigrants to quickly get a job.
But anyway, the pause part of my proposal is really just an add-on. If I dropped it, would you support the rest of the plan?
Regarding "many skilled immigrants that I know will have to return abroad"
Yes, that is probably true, but the number of skilled immigrants throughout the world who want to come to the USA is so high that there will be plenty more to replace them. The higher the percentage of immigrants that come for family reunification, the lower the percentage of high skilled workers so that does less to promote material progress.
Your preferred immigration policy is clearly less pro-material progress than mine. I really do not understand why you cannot see that.
I am glad that we agree on the main point of my proposal.
The pause is not really essential for my overall proposal. It is really to make it more politically palatable for American voters and fairer for immigrants who accidentally come to the USA at a time when it is very difficult for them to get a job.
I would be willing to change the metric for a pause to focus on the unemployment rates for the occupations that I listed or perhaps a drop in wages.
I am skeptical of the H1B visas for exactly the reasons that you outline above. We do not want an immigration system where employers choose immigrants because they can pay them less.
I do not like the idea of auctioning visas because then you let employers decide who gets into the USA instead of the American people. Even if none of the skilled immigrants get jobs in their field, I believe that it will still be a big win for the American people. They and their children are still far more likely to benefit the nation than typical low-skilled workers.
And I do not buy the gaming argument. I never said that Congress or the President should have the power to just declare a pause. If Congressional legislation is explicitly tied to an official unemployment metric, I really do not see how it is anymore vulnerable to gaming than any other legislation. I seriously doubt the Department of Labor will change the unemployment data just to implement a pause in immigration. The President, who is in charge of the executive branch, has the incentive to make unemployment stats look better, not worse.
Our current system based on family reunification is far more vulnerable to politically-influential people lobbying for which of the family members gets to enter USA. Indeed, it seems to be very common.
I guess that I was a little off in my phrasing. The American people would not choose the individual immigrant.
The American people elect representatives to write legislation. Hopefully, those legislatures would see the light and pass my proposed legislation. Each year Congress sets a cap on the total number of legal immigration. I do not have a strong opinion on what is the right amount, so I stick with what it is now. Then it is up to the USCIS to determine which foreigners are allowed to immigrate.
I open on the nitty gritty details of how exactly that choice is made as long as it complies with the principles that I outlined in the article.
I think that it would be a very good thing if industry experts are part of the interview process to verify that the person actually has the skills that they claim. I am agnostic as to whether those industry experts would be the actual employers who will immediately hire them.
I definitely do not want an immigration system that is effectively replacing American citizens with cheaper foreign labor. There needs to be safeguards against it. I am not sure exactly what those should be.
I do not actually know much about auctioning proposals and the trade-offs involved. If an auction system can be implemented within the principles that I listed in the article and this comment, I would support it. If not, then I would prefer a better system.
Either way, I do not believe that the implementation details make my proposed reform impossible to implement.
Michael Magoon for President! These policy ideas are better than anything promoted by any political party this century.
The US is in the enviable position of having many of the most desirable people on earth wanting to move here for a better opportunity. This could be an amazing opportunity for these people, for Americans, and for humanity (as those best capable of promoting progress would be in the country where they are best able to).
On the other side of the coin…. We need to repeal the policy on asylum, enforce the borders, make it impossible (a felony?) to get welfare benefits if here illegally.
We could use legal aliens to shore up Social Security and Medicare, through the addition of millions of high earners and entrepreneurs, as well as by possibly increasing the FICA employer contribution for legal immigrants. This would create a positive argument.
LOL
Well at least I got one vote for my write-in campaign. I am still trying to convince my wife and mother to vote for me… so far unsuccessfully.
The fact that this article could be characterized as controversial in the current mainstream discourse is both crazy and sad.All of these opinions are almost self-evident,if immigration wasn't so heavily politicized we would do a lot better,and unlike where trans ppl should pee or what sports should they play,getting better immigration policy is an important issue
Thanks for the comment. Yes, it is pretty sad that this type of immigration reform is not being seriously discussed.
So far Western countries have been unable to implement skills based systems.
Countries that had success for this for awhile, like Canada, it broke down. Chain migration has a pull from current immigrants, who can both lobby for different immigration policy and act as kind of inside fifth columnists that help friends and relatives to exploit what loopholes there are. For instance, if you have a degree requirement they can just set up a diploma mill. A job requirement they can set up a company and hire their own.
If your a city state dictatorship like Singapore or the UAE maybe you can make it work, but that isn't really an exportable model.
In addition, the USA and most of Europe lacks the kind of physical choke points that have typically helped countries trying to use skills based immigration (being an island, long distances from developing world).
While I'm in favor of recruiting top world talent, I would set that bar pretty high. Like maybe 130+ IQ. I feel like the Canada model of letting in the slightly above average from below average countries eventually results in the chain migration of low skills.
Technocratically I would just auction off Visas with a target cost of $1 million. I would tell Effective Altruists that funding these Visas would be worth more then all the mosquito nets in the world. This feels too wonky to pass congress though, people seem more comfortable with a degree or other requirement then literally selling citizenship, despite the fact that money is way more accurate and less gameable.
I'm not sure about your plan for the USA to take all the global talent. If it really started to succeed on that front, I could see a mixture of carrots and sticks being implemented by the rest of the world to stop their top talent from emigrating. China in particular, where most of the non OECD talent resides, would never allow large scale poaching of its top people.
Thanks for your comment.
While I am certainly not predicting that something like my proposal will be implemented in the near future, I do not see any of your concerns make it impossible to do so.
I do not see the current Democratic party being willing to support my proposal, but I think that it could be very popular with Republicans and Independent voters. Trump has talked about skills-based immigration in the past. Not sure if he is still in favor of it.
Yes, the family of immigrants will lobby for an expansion, but that does not mean that their desires have to be accepted by Congress. And diploma mills and fake companies can identified, and their graduates will likely be unable to pass very specific tests in their supposed domain.
I also do not think that it is impossible to enforce immigration rules at the border and internally. At the very least, a major diminishment of illegal immigration is quite possible.
As for IQ tests, I would argue that specific skills are more important to the economy, and those skills are likely already closely correlated with IQ anyway. I would not object to IQ test in addition to skills criterion, but not instead of.
IQ tests alone would encourage many very smart academics who willing add little of value to economy.
I don't see the point of auctioning off visas. This would likely be won by very wealthy older men who got their money via political connections. They are highly unlikely to be the very high IQ that you want. Highly-skilled young persons would add far more value to the nation.
Yes, many foreign nations will not like losing their most skilled, but it will be really hard for them to enforce this. It might even force them to reform their systems to stop punishing the successful.
Thanks for the response.
If a young person has a lot of talent and would add a lot of value, they ought to be able to get someone to sponsor them and pay the $1M. This could be done for altruistic or profit motive reasons.
If you have $1M but moving to the USA won't add much value, it seems unlikely many would pay the money, but to the extent they did we would at least be getting $1M dollars.
While it's POSSIBLE to have systems that can't be gamed, it's very common for systems to be gamed. The incentive structures point to gaming. I don't consider the large OECD democracies very "nimble" on this front. You can't game "pay me $1M".
Note, this sentiment isn't just a related to immigration. I've spent more than enough time near the government watching people game systems.
"Yes, many foreign nations will not like losing their most skilled, but it will be really hard for them to enforce this. It might even force them to reform their systems to stop punishing the successful."
The Soviets were able to shut off emigration pretty well once they got serious, and their system was a lot less compelling than the modern Chinese. Note it doesn't have to be all stick, they could just as easily afford to bribe their smartest to stay. It makes sense they would be willing to bid up to the expected value of the persons value add.
My main point is that I don't see zero sum recruitment via immigration as a substitute for higher birthrates.
Anyway, I would say I'm broadly in favor of your plan, I'd just set a high bar for entry.
Glad to hear that you are broadly in favor of my plan. It might be better to start off your first comment with that.
Regarding "I don't see zero sum recruitment via immigration as a substitute for higher birthrates:"
My proposal has nothing to do with birthrates. I would be in favor of it regardless of the birth rate. If increasing population is the main goal, then open borders should be the tool (which I oppose).
I don't see auctioning off visas enabling the highest skilled to come to US. I don't see why those with $1 million would pick the best person for the US unless there was some contract where the immigrant had to pay them a steep tax to the sponsor. More likely, they would choose a family member, so it would just be nepotism.
It is also strange because in a previous comment to a different article you said that US government $1 million to each high IQ immigrant. Now you are advocating for the government to be paid that amount. That is inconsistent.
You are simply outsourcing the decision-making to an individual or organization with different interests.
Any way, thanks for the comments.
https://open.substack.com/pub/pimlicojournal/p/net-zero-migration-a-how-to-guide?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=o2bbq
As someone who went through the high skilled immigration pathway in Australia, I found the process ridiculous and over complicated. What do you think of the proposal above? Obviously it's by a guy who is largely anti immigration but his policy is a lot less convoluted than the typical skill based migration pathway.
I am not in favor of the Australian system for the same reason that you stated. It is too complicated. Sorry, but the linked article is too long.
Confused by the logic here, of course the “immigration system favors family of recent immigrant.” As opposed to what? Why would it favor American citizens who have no/few ties abroad?
“Chain migration” is “family reunification.” The former is a term adopted to prevent the public from sympathizing with it. It’s an agenda-laden term used by pundits to turn the public against immigrants.
It’s important to understand that it takes many years for this process to happen, as you acknowledge. One cannot immigrate to the US and invite their whole extended family. The right-wing purposely casts this process as near instantaneous, ignoring the high expense, the medical exams, the background checks, the endless application processes. I’ve been through this process and still going through it…for 10 years.
I do not find it persuasive that the government can effectively pick and choose “high skilled” immigrants. Who is to say the demand for a dishwasher is less “valuable” than a PhD in French art history?
Nor am I convinced the government should. If it were true that low-skilled immigration was a net negative…how can we explain the United States at all? What is the history of the US but masses of poor, often unskilled, non-English-speaking peoples coming from abroad? Those people build the most powerful civilization on Earth in the span of two centuries. Why turn our backs on this now?
Also, remember that many “high-skilled” immigrants do not want to forever be separated from their families. Favoring one over the other, you may end up with fewer of both. A master’s student in mechanical engineering might have uneducated or “unskilled” parents. Why immigrate to the US if their parents had to remain in China? The human element matters.
Further, I don’t find any evidential support for an immigration “pause” in times of elevated unemployment. First, we know that such a measure will be abused by politicians. Second, the solution to a weak economy isn’t to close off the economy to…. more consumers and more taxpayers. This is the Lump of Labor fallacy. This idea might be popular but it is your typical run-of-the-mill zero-sum error.
Thanks for the comment. Obviously, we have strong differences on this topic.
To keep my reply organized, I will number the points based on the order that you gave in your comment.
1) I don't understand your question. I am pointing out the obvious fact that the vast majority of Americans have no family overseas, so current policy privileges the interests of the minority that do. Many of them originated as illegal immigrants.
2) The term "chain migration" has been in the academic literature for generations, exactly because it accurately describes an important phenomenon of immigration. The key is not the speed but its volume and duration. One initial immigrant (legal or illegal) can lead to dozens of family members after a few generations. The term also works well because it describes the fact that it goes well beyond the nuclear family that the term "family reunification" implies.
3) Actually, it would be very easy for the government to pick high-skilled immigrants. I gave you a list of occupations that qualify under my proposed criteria. That is actually easier than determining which family members or which refugees are more deserving. Yes, cheaters need to be ferreted out, but an exam or interview by experts can deal with this. That is not too different from a difficult job interview.
Under my proposed system, neither the dishwasher or the PhD in French Art History will get in, so I am not sure why you ask the question.
4) Low-skilled immigration in the 19th and early 20th Century was viable because there was huge demand for factory workers and farmers. That is no longer the case. To suggest that we need to maintain the exact same system that we had in the 19th Century despite the dramatic changes in the skills necessary is not credible. Policy needs to evolve with changing conditions.
5) I regard immigrants being split up from their families as a good thing, not a bad thing. It is a great way to ensure the immigrant is highly motivated and increases the chances that they will marry an American citizen and more rapidly integrate.
Given that hundreds of millions of immigrants want to move to the USA, I am not worried that there will be no supply of new immigrants because of this.
6) The evidential support for an immigration pause is that in a recession, a large percentage of employers simply stop hiring or dramatically cut hiring. This makes it far harder for new immigrants to quickly get a job. If adopted as written, it is no more likely to be abused than any other law. In fact, family reunification has a huge incentive for politicians to intervene in the decision currently. So do refugees and asylees.
New immigrants during a recession are very unlikely to pay taxes and will have to spend less just to survive.
None of my proposed policy is zeros-sum thinking, except to acknowledge the obvious fact that we cannot choose everyone so some potential immigrants will be turned back. In a democratic system, the American people have the right to determine rules for entry via their elected representatives.
I think that your own personal situation may be clouding your judgment on this issue.
You and I generally agree on most things and we take a non-zero-sum view of the world. For that reason, your views on immigration seem to stick out. I do want to quickly counter a few of your points here:
1) I don't understand your question. I am pointing out the obvious fact that the vast majority of Americans have no family overseas, so current policy privileges the interests of the minority that do. Many of them originated as illegal immigrants.
--I genuinely don't understand why you believe this is a privilege or that its relevant. Sorry.
2) The term "chain migration" has been in the academic literature for generations...The term also works well because it describes the fact that it goes well beyond the nuclear family that the term "family reunification" implies.
--"Nuclear family" includes parents and siblings, by definition. If a brother of a US citizen can (eventually) immigrate and sponsor his spouse and children (his nuclear family), is that not also "chain migration?" Can you effectively distinguish between "family reunification" and "chain migration?" I do not see any reasonable means of doing so. Hence why I prefer the latter term.
3) Actually, it would be very easy for the government to pick high-skilled immigrants
--You generally take the position that government is an impediment to progress and growth in your writings, that govt is poor at picking winners/losers in the market, or in accurately foreseeing/funding new technology. If the government has a poor record of picking winners and losers in the market, can we really expect it to be "very easy" to pick immigrants who are likely to succeed? I am not convinced. On the contrary, American history seems to suggest that many of the greatest tycoons and inventors would have been blocked by immigration authorities because either they or their parents lacked the requisite "skills."
4) Low-skilled immigration in the 19th and early 20th Century was viable because there was huge demand for factory workers and farmers.
---See number 3.
5) I regard immigrants being split up from their families as a good thing, not a bad thing.
---Wouldn't it be better to allow people to decide this for themselves?
6) The evidential support for an immigration pause is that in a recession, a large percentage of employers simply stop hiring...This makes it far harder for new immigrants to quickly get a job.
---This, as you know, would never be justified on the basis of protecting "immigrant's" jobs, it will always be used to protect "native" Americans' jobs. Hence why it will inevitably be abused, the "pause" will become permanent, no matter how it is structured.
Further, the basis for this goes right back to the Lump of Labor Fallacy, a zero-sum view that there is a limited demand for labor. We know from studies of Israel in the 1990s and the Mariel Boatlift, that, even during recessions, increased immigration (skilled or unskilled), increases demand for jobs. The net effect of immigration is small when it comes to jobs and wages.
"I think that your own personal situation may be clouding your judgment on this issue."
--I think it gives me insight into the "on the ground" realities of immigrants and immigration. If implemented as above, many skilled immigrants I know will have to return abroad to reunite with family if they cannot also eventually bring them to the US. That's doesn't seem to be the effect you're hoping for.
I am glad that we agree on most points, and I am perfectly fine with other people having different opinions.
I do, however, have a really hard time understanding how a person who claims to want to change public policy to increase material progress can possibly be against an immigration policy that is primarily based on skills.
Can you make the argument that "family reunification" contributes more to material progress than high skills? And, yes, it is zero-sum. There are only so many slots to come in each year (as it should be) so more of one kind of immigrant is less of other kinds.
You must know that some people with certain skills contribute much more to economic growth than others. Otherwise, why would employers pay for those people? Your arguments imply that the market does not work and all people are inherently equal.
You must also know that higher-income people pay more in taxes and receive fewer government benefits and are much less likely to engage in violence and other criminal activity.
You must know that some of the characteristics that enable people to have more skills are heritable, so they are then passed on to their ancestors.
In answer to your questions:
1) I do not understand why you cannot understand this basic point. I think you actually do understand it, but do not like the implications of it.
2) You can use any term you prefer, but it is absolutely not true that "chain migration" is a fake concept invented by nativists. The key factor is that it goes on many generations. Mexican immigrants from the 1970s (legal and illegal) are still enabling distant cousins that they may have never met to come via family reunification. Brothers and sisters have children, so once the brothers and sisters get in (legally or illegally), they can sponsor their own nuclear family, and so on. And parents have brothers and sisters. And spouses have their own parents, brothers and sisters. In large families "family reunification" grows exponentially. This goes way beyond the nuclear family of the original immigrant.
This has been known in the academic literature for generations. This is not a nativist conspiracy theory.
3) I explained to you how it can be done. It is not complicated at all. If you think that it would not have the desired effect of increasing material progress, then explain why. But insisting that governments cannot pick from the list that I gave is not simply credible. Employers do it all the time. And regardless of the immigration policy, it is those same employees who make the decision anyway (including your preferred system).
What if employers who were looking for new hires from that list made the decision instead? Would you then support my proposal?
Your point neglects the far higher number of potential tycoons and inventors who are currently being blocked by an immigration policy that favors family reunification for unskilled workers.
Do you honestly believe that future tycoons and inventors are more likely to come from unskilled parents? You cannot possibly believe that.
5) No, it would not be better. The American people have the right to determine who gets to live in this nation. They have clearly spoken via opinion polls as to what they want, but the government is refusing to give them that.
If I added a 10-year exemption for family reunification for recent highly-skilled immigrants, then would you support my proposal?
6) I really do not see how you can disagree with the clear fact that a large percentage of employers simply stop hiring or dramatically cut hiring during a recession. This makes it far harder for new immigrants to quickly get a job.
But anyway, the pause part of my proposal is really just an add-on. If I dropped it, would you support the rest of the plan?
Regarding "many skilled immigrants that I know will have to return abroad"
Yes, that is probably true, but the number of skilled immigrants throughout the world who want to come to the USA is so high that there will be plenty more to replace them. The higher the percentage of immigrants that come for family reunification, the lower the percentage of high skilled workers so that does less to promote material progress.
Your preferred immigration policy is clearly less pro-material progress than mine. I really do not understand why you cannot see that.
Thanks for the comment.
I am glad that we agree on the main point of my proposal.
The pause is not really essential for my overall proposal. It is really to make it more politically palatable for American voters and fairer for immigrants who accidentally come to the USA at a time when it is very difficult for them to get a job.
I would be willing to change the metric for a pause to focus on the unemployment rates for the occupations that I listed or perhaps a drop in wages.
I am skeptical of the H1B visas for exactly the reasons that you outline above. We do not want an immigration system where employers choose immigrants because they can pay them less.
I do not like the idea of auctioning visas because then you let employers decide who gets into the USA instead of the American people. Even if none of the skilled immigrants get jobs in their field, I believe that it will still be a big win for the American people. They and their children are still far more likely to benefit the nation than typical low-skilled workers.
And I do not buy the gaming argument. I never said that Congress or the President should have the power to just declare a pause. If Congressional legislation is explicitly tied to an official unemployment metric, I really do not see how it is anymore vulnerable to gaming than any other legislation. I seriously doubt the Department of Labor will change the unemployment data just to implement a pause in immigration. The President, who is in charge of the executive branch, has the incentive to make unemployment stats look better, not worse.
Our current system based on family reunification is far more vulnerable to politically-influential people lobbying for which of the family members gets to enter USA. Indeed, it seems to be very common.
I guess that I was a little off in my phrasing. The American people would not choose the individual immigrant.
The American people elect representatives to write legislation. Hopefully, those legislatures would see the light and pass my proposed legislation. Each year Congress sets a cap on the total number of legal immigration. I do not have a strong opinion on what is the right amount, so I stick with what it is now. Then it is up to the USCIS to determine which foreigners are allowed to immigrate.
I open on the nitty gritty details of how exactly that choice is made as long as it complies with the principles that I outlined in the article.
I think that it would be a very good thing if industry experts are part of the interview process to verify that the person actually has the skills that they claim. I am agnostic as to whether those industry experts would be the actual employers who will immediately hire them.
I definitely do not want an immigration system that is effectively replacing American citizens with cheaper foreign labor. There needs to be safeguards against it. I am not sure exactly what those should be.
I do not actually know much about auctioning proposals and the trade-offs involved. If an auction system can be implemented within the principles that I listed in the article and this comment, I would support it. If not, then I would prefer a better system.
Either way, I do not believe that the implementation details make my proposed reform impossible to implement.