Today, Arizona, and millions of Americans are waging a war against immigration, driven by political and emotional forces, completely unaware and unconcerned of the economic implications behind their actions. But the truth is that immigration is an inexorable economic force and that just as governments are incapable of effectively coordinating an economy through concerted and even well-intended efforts (as in the case of Communist societies) they are also unable to determine with any level of accuracy what is the optimal level and composition of immigration for any given nation. There is of course room and even the need for government regulation when it comes to immigration; however, as a whole, immigration is best left unrestrained.
Why politics tends to matter in immigration
In general, if politicians do regulate and restrict immigration it is not because they are trying to reign in and manage economic forces or crime. Rather, they are trying to control and profit from political forces that rely on the emotions of their constituents. When politicians claim that immigrants are taking jobs from American citizens or that they are contributing to rising criminality, for instance, they are not actually proposing solutions for unemployment or security, rather they are taking advantage of American sensitivities in order to obtain political capital and distract the public from their inability to resolve the underlying issues of the nation.
In times like these, in which "recession" and "unemployment" have become ubiquitous preoccupations, politicians like Jan Brewer of Arizona--not unlike the German Nazis of the 1930s and 1940s--find it convenient and necessary to find a scapegoat towards which they can redirect the anguish and fear of a frail nation. Accordingly, they are singling out undocumented immigrants as the culprits of our economic woes and rising crime and using them as a distraction that, profiting from our fears, allows them to gain political momentum.
Why politics should matter less
Do undocumented immigrants truly contribute less than documented immigrants in the US? Do they make our country worse off? Does our government truly have the capacity to distinguish which immigrants are best for our country? From an economic perspective, the answer is a resounding NO. The US is a highly-industrialized, services-oriented economy in which most citizens do NOT want to 1) pay higher prices for commodities and 2) work in jobs that they find gruesome, low-paying, demeaning or inconvenient. Undocumented immigrants come to the United States precisely to work in those gruesome, low-paying, demeaning and inconvenient jobs so that we can keep our low prices and eat our cake, too! Unlike the British investment banker in New York City (which is actually occupying a job that is coveted by Americans) the Mexican migrant worker that picks grapes in California and potatoes in Idaho is carrying out a job that must be done and that yet none of us are willing to do, especially not at the wages that ensure that our grapes and potatoes remain cheap...
What is the logic then behind policies that allow highly-educated foreigners to work in the United States with relative ease, while criminalizing the work of undocumented immigrants in the agricultural and construction sectors? Are politicians truly qualified to create regulation that intends to achieve the optimal level and composition of immigration into the US? In my opinion, it is clear that they are not, as their priorities are not economic, but political, and based on the prejudice and ignorance of their constituents.
Will Brewer's policies reduce unemployment in Arizona? No. In fact, they might increase it as more Hispanic families and businesses flee the state as a result of her restrictive immigration policies. Will Brewer's politics reduce crime? No. They are not targeting criminality as such but are rather criminalizing everyday activities, which will have no lasting impact on long term crime rates. Further, the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are not criminal and those who are could simply be singled out and apprehended just like any other person in the US who might commit a crime, without the need for wholesale persecution of undocumented immigrants.
Refocusing the issue
So long as we want a competitive economy and affordable consumer products in the US, there will be a strong demand for low-skilled labor; and as long as there is a demand for low-skilled labor in the US and low wages in neighboring Latin American countries, undocumented immigrants that are willing to take a chance in the US will keep coming, no walls will hold them back and no laws will prevent them from carrying out the jobs they came to do. Instead of criminalizing their jobs--which we require to be performed--we should create opportunities to legalize the efforts of these entrepreneurial and courageous immigrants by working together with American employers and immigrant workers in order to create an immigration policy that makes economic sense and benefits everyone. Creating a legal path for low-skilled immigrants in the US will allow us to maintain prices low, keep the country competitive and will contribute to reducing the economic gap between countries like the US and Mexico. In fact, Michael Clemens, an economist and senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, has recently suggested that allowing immigrant workers from developing countries into rich countries could be the most effective long-term development strategy to help increase the standard of living in countries such as Haiti or El Salvador.
So why should the US create barriers for the people it needs? Why do Americans believe that it is best to keep a foreigner in Wall Street than in California's Central Valley? Which job would you rather have?
