Thread: Economists: Illegals Provide Social Benefits

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 3710.shtml

Economists: Illegals Provide Social Benefits
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax
Friday, June 23, 2006

Washington, D.C. -- "Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever conceived.

"Not just because the immigrants are much better off, but also because they send billions of dollars of their own money back to their home countries - a form of truly effective foreign aid," concluded the 500-plus signatories of an "Open Letter on Immigration to President Bush and Congress" dispatched this week.

The list of more than 500 signatories includes five Nobel Laureates - Thomas C. Schelling (University of Maryland), Robert Lucas (University of Chicago), Daniel McFadden (University of California, Berkeley), Vernon Smith (George Mason University), and James Heckman (University of Chicago).

The Open Letter on Immigration, a project of the Independent Institute, a prominent think tank headquartered in Oakland, Calif., reminds President Bush and all members of Congress of America's history as an immigrant nation.

They present the overall economic and social benefits of immigration, and the power of immigration to lift the poor out of poverty: "America is a generous and open country and these qualities make America a beacon to the world. We should not let exaggerated fears dim that beacon."


"Economists disagree about a lot of things, but there is a consensus on many of the important issues surrounding immigration," said Alexander Tabarrok, research director at the Independent Institute and the primary author of the letter.

"The consensus is that most Americans benefit from immigration and that the negative effects on low-skilled workers are somewhere between an 8 percent wage reduction to no loss in wages at all."

Reflecting this consensus, the signatories to the "Open Letter" include prominent economists involved in both Democratic and Republican administrations such as N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, and J. Bradford DeLong, deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury under former President Bill Clinton, as well as Alfred Kahn, chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board under former President Jimmy Carter, and Paul McCracken, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under former President Richard Nixon.


The framers of the "Open Letter" say that they believe that the emotional debate taking place in Washington, D.C. and around the country could be "elevated by a modest and non-partisan reminder of the value of immigration, and plea for a clear-eyed consideration of the principles at stake and the historic American goals that will be affected in any outcome."

The "Open Letter" notes the economic benefits of immigration, but puts them in context. For instance, "Overall, immigration has been a net gain for American citizens, though a modest one in proportion to the size of our 13 trillion-dollar economy."

Similarly, the signers also acknowledge that "immigration of low-skilled workers may have lowered wages of domestic low-skilled workers," but also note that the resulting wage reductions for high school dropouts is estimated to be from 8 percent to as little as zero percent.

In addition, the "Open Letter" points up connections that sound immigration policy can make between the political values on both sides of the debate, balancing, for instance, compassion for those low-skilled workers seeking jobs with the power of freely competitive markets to create those jobs:


"Immigrants do not take American jobs. The American economy can create as many jobs as there are workers willing to work, so long as labor markets remain free, flexible, and open to all workers on an equal basis."

"Public fears of lost jobs are unfounded and most workers will not experience any negative impact on their wages. Congress would do well to recognize the benefits of immigration and pass a reform that allows greater numbers of legal workers into America," said signer and Independent Institute research fellow Benjamin Powell, director of the Center on Entrepreneurial Innovation.


On June 20, The Wall Street Journal endorsed the position of the "Open Letter," noting: "Finally a consensus has been reached on immigration. No, not among politicians, who can't agree on a rational immigration reform. The agreement is among professional economists."


The Journal further noted a survey several years ago by the Cato Institute of the past presidents of the American Economic Association and the past chairmen of the President's Council of Economic Advisers.

According to the Journal, 80 percent of those surveyed agreed that immigration has had "a very favorable impact on the nation's economic growth," and 70 percent said that even illegal immigrant workers "have a positive economic impact."

Noted the Journal, the experts further agreed that on balance immigrants don't displace native workers, depress wages or abuse welfare

The mission of the Independent Institute, a non-government-affiliated 501C tax-exempt organization, as stated on its Web site is "to transcend the all-too-common politicization and superficiality of public policy research and debate, redefine the debate over public issues, and foster new and effective directions for government reform."

Noted the Journal, the experts further agreed that on balance immigrants don't displace native workers, depress wages or abuse welfare

Yeah and I have some really nice swamp land here in Florida I would like to sell you, any takers?

Folks, Here's a reply, so I'll post it here.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... 59312.html

Economists' letter intellectually dishonest


By Dimitri Vassilaros
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, June 25, 2006

If all economists were laid end to end they would not reach a conclusion, said George Bernard Shaw.
However, the 500 or so who signed The Independent Institute's open letter to Congress and President Bush about the economic benefits of immigration did reach a conclusion. But there are not enough column inches to address all the disturbing immigration issues these dismal scientists ignored, dismissed or made wrong assumptions about.

This must be addressed first. Apologists for the foreign infiltrators know that Joe Six-pack considers their support of illegals indefensible because, by definition, they are lawbreakers. Their mouthpieces are reduced to two options: name-calling and topic-changing.

The self-appointed advocates of illegals whisper "nativists" or scream "racists" to define and intimidate supporters of the rule of law. To their credit, those who signed the open letter did not resort to that despicable lie.

The apologists' second option is to subtly redefine the debate from illegal entry to immigration. The economists chose door No. 2. That would explain why the open letter says, "The current debate over immigration is a healthy part of a democratic society, but as economists and other social scientists we are concerned that some of the fundamental economics of immigration are too often obscured by misguided commentary."

But the debate is not about immigration or how it affects this republic's economy. It is misguided commentary to be dismissive about the real subject -- illegal entry.

"The tone of the debate was strident," said Alex Tabarrok, research director of The Independent Institute, a nonprofit public policy organization based in Oakland, Calif. "A lot of things were said about immigration that economists knew were not true."

And a lot of things were not said about immigration that these economists apparently knew little about. Like crime.

Why was there no mention of the "fundamental economics" of illegals who rob, rape and rub out Americans?

"The open letter does not try to deal with all the issues," Mr. Tabarrok said. "Economists are not experts of all the cultural issues and political conditions. I cannot say if illegal aliens have a high or low crime rate. It's difficult data to get."

How difficult could it be to call Allen J. Beck, chief, Corrections Statistics Unit, Bureau of Justice Statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice?

My call was returned promptly, and later that day Mr. Beck offered the following information about the percentage of "noncitizens" in federal and state prisons, and city and county jails, as of midyear 2005.

In federal prisons, noncitizens compose 19.3 percent of the total population. State prisons, 4.5 percent. And 4 percent in local jails. That does not include the illegals held by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security.

But Benjamin Powell, research fellow at The Independent Institute, considers illegal entry a "trespass crime." And the cause? "It's not immigration. It's immigration policy," Mr. Powell says, adding that the solution could be to make more illegal aliens legal.

When asked why the impact of illegal entry was not factored in, Powell said, "That's a good point. We did not do a cost-benefit analysis."


Dimitri Vassilaros is a Trib editorial page columnist. His column appears Sundays, Mondays and Fridays. Call him at 412-380-5637. E-mail him at dvassilaros@tribweb.com.