Программа по формированию навыков безопасного поведения на дорогах и улицах «Добрая дорога детства» 2
Скачать 0.64 Mb.
|
Text 2 Guests v gatecrashersThe uncomfortable economics of immigration reformHOW much of a jerk do you have to be to oppose immigration? That question is mischievously posed, and ingeniously answered, in a recent post on “YouNotSneaky”, an economics blog. The blog's author points out that a low-skilled worker can make $9.34 an hour in America, compared with just $2.56 in Mexico. He also assumes that migrants depress the wages of low-skilled Americans by 5%—a widely cited estimate. Thus Mexican workers gain dramatically by moving north, whereas low-skilled Americans lose out slightly at worst. To justify opposing immigration, the blog concludes, you must attach at least 20 times more weight to the well being of a native-born American than to a Mexican. Such calculations will not trouble America's politicians, who are busy trying to solve the “problem” of illegal immigration. Congress's fix promises a sorely needed path to citizenship for the 12m or so people already in the country illegally. But it could prove worse than the status quo for future migrants and native-born Americans alike. The “compromise plan”, hashed out by a bipartisan group of senators, offers would-be illegals—the 500,000 or so low-skilled workers who sneak across the border every year—a legitimate route into America, through a temporary guest-worker programme. Guest-worker visas would last for two years and could be renewed up to three times. The idea is that if the front door is ajar, no one will feel the need to break in at the back. Unfortunately, the senators' plan ignores the economics of illegal immigration. Its laws of motion are set out in a recent paper by Gordon Hanson of the University of California, San Diego. He points out that unskilled labour is increasingly scarce in America. Since 1960 the share of native-born workers with less than a high-school diploma has fallen from 50% to 12%. In response, illegal immigration has proved to be a fairly efficient system for matching willing workers with eager employers. Some 24% of farm workers, 17% of cleaners and 14% of construction workers are foreigners doing their jobs illicitly. This workforce is geographically mobile, and sensitive to economic conditions in America or at home. One study in the 1990s showed that a 10% drop in Mexican pay relative to American wages prompted a 6% increase in attempts to steal across the border. More recently, the incentives have shifted the other way. A slowdown in remittances to Mexico and other Central American countries suggests the housing bust, and home-building slump, may have reduced the pace of illegal immigration. Such efficiency is sadly absent from Congress's guest-worker scheme. The senators' original compromise envisaged some 400,000 visas a year, not far off the estimated figure for illegal entrants. But the number has already been slashed to 200,000 and will not vary with economic conditions. Employers will have to prove that they cannot find a willing American worker before they apply for the visas. And would-be migrants must undergo background checks and a medical exam before they arrive. Changing employers once in America involves more bureaucratic hoops. In short, neither American employers nor would-be migrants are likely to find the guest-worker channel as appealing as the illegal routes they already ply. Not surprisingly, therefore, the senators want to make illegal immigration less appealing. The compromise bill promises some 6,000 extra border guards, hundreds of miles of new fencing and a huge database for checking workers' legal status. Is all this policing and picketing worth it? Illegal immigration, after all, is a boon to the economy as a whole, much as freer trade yields a net economic gain. An influx of low-skilled workers may squeeze the wages of their competitors, but it benefits the businesses who hire them, and profits consumers, who get their lawns mown and children minded at lower costs. Set against this economic gain is a fiscal cost, as immigration's opponents are quick to point out. Illegal migrants, with their low skills and large families, are likely to consume more in government services, such as education and health care, than they pay in taxes. The exact fiscal impact is controversial. The federal government is probably a net winner, whereas states, which pay a bigger share of schooling and emergency health care, lose out. Today's taxpayers may suffer—they must pay for educating the children of illegal immigrants. But tomorrow's may gain—these first-generation Americans will likely earn far more than their parents, adding to the pot of taxes in the future. |
