« Will you give me your secret blog address? | Main | *The Economist* now hosts an arts blog »
Tyrone's immigration plan
Yes, my evil twin Tyrone remains a loyal MR reader, and frequently he emails me his rantings, in the hope I will publish them. Usually I refuse, but every now and then I feel the need to remind you just how off-base he is (no kudos to the wise guy who emailed, suggesting that Tyrone is in fact my "Inner Economist")...
Tyrone just sent me the following, I added in the link:
Tyler, you had a good point that the demand for immigrant labor is often the demand for illegal immigrant labor, but you didn't take it far enough. We too frequently conflate illegal labor with unskilled labor, when instead this dichotomy should be challenged. We need to make illegal labor more highly skilled and thereby restore its good name.
Toward that end I have a modest proposal. The federal government should allow, by default, any northern European to work in the United States illegally. The labor would be legal in the sense that the employer would face no criminal penalties. But the worker would collect no social security or Medicare benefits, receive no OSHA protections, and the worker would never be sure how long this grace period would last.
Hi-tech employees, especially for short projects, would receive many offers very quickly. So would many medical professionals.
Who would come? It is obvious -- those from high marginal tax rate countries. That means France and Sweden, etc. In essence our government would be engaging in tax arbitrage by not paying these people benefits. Those are the optimal illegals.
Transient communities of Swedes would congregate on the shores of the Minnesota Lakes, sharing lutefisk, waiting for rides (a lot of them come from Stockholm and thus can't drive), and exchanging rumors about where hi-tech work is available.
These people would never fully integrate with the capital stock of the United States. But the program would attract people who already had high levels of human capital from their native Sweden.
Don't charge them admission for a visa, that would give the gains to our rapacious and spendthrift government, rather than to the people of this fine land.
Do let them own pets.
But don't make them legal, that just means higher wages for them and lower net gains for all right-thinking, baseball-loving Americans.
All the legal spots should be reserved for Mexicans.
Poor, poor Tyrone. His mind never recovered from that military ambush he faced in the Congo. That is why he talks of giving free entry to all Venezuelans, or at least the women. He wants to set up an artificial American island just off the shores of Cuba, with lighted beacons along the way. He wants to give "the Puerto Rico deal" to Trinidad, or indeed to any individual citizen of Trinidad who wishes to take it. He thinks that free citizenship should be offered to any person who can score in the 80th percentile on GREs.
Poor Tyrone has no idea of the cultural foundations of democracy.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 26, 2007 at 10:07 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
Tyrone and I agree on something. I'm all for open immigration laws for Venezuelan women.
Posted by: nelsonal at Jun 26, 2007 10:08:59 AM
Could you ask your brother why he believes those Swedes and Frenchmen ( who currently are not exactly queueing up to get to the US) would suddenly come in droves once they learn they will get no benefits nor citizenship in the US?
And more interesting, would this system lead to an exodus of American libertarians wanting to become Swedes, so they can return to the US and work without government hassle?
Posted by: Marius at Jun 26, 2007 10:36:58 AM
"free citizenship should be offered to any person who can score in the 80th percentile on GREs" sounds like a great idea to me.
Posted by: Dave Barnes at Jun 26, 2007 10:38:48 AM
I agree with "...free citizenship should be offered to any person who can score in the 80th percentile on GREs." also. While the test itself is, perhaps, a terrible way of judging anything, a merit-based immigration policy would certainly benefit the US.
Posted by: Paul R. Dorasil at Jun 26, 2007 11:01:47 AM
Tyrone's plan sounds surprisingly similar to Lance Pritchett's plan, written up in an NYTimes article a few weeks ago --
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/magazine/10global-t.html?ex=1183003200&en=8ed239e3fe85189c&ei=5070
Posted by: Jeff Evans at Jun 26, 2007 11:24:16 AM
Of course, we can also benefit by importing people in the 8th percentile of the GRE.
Posted by: mobile at Jun 26, 2007 11:47:39 AM
Oh GRE... Talking about monopolies...
Can I average out my perfect math score with the verbal score to beat the 80% mark?
Posted by: pinus at Jun 26, 2007 12:13:07 PM
Could you ask your brother why he believes those Swedes and Frenchmen ( who currently are not exactly queueing up to get to the US) would suddenly come in droves once they learn they will get no benefits nor citizenship in the US?
Because it's still a better deal than they get at home.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan at Jun 26, 2007 12:23:08 PM
I have an idea. I repeatedly take the GRE and get the needed 80 percentile. Every time I take it, I get one free citizenship that I can go sell. I split the revenues with the local tax man. How about that?
Posted by: Richard Pointer at Jun 26, 2007 2:30:22 PM
Citizenship is nontransferrable?
Posted by: Nick Tarleton at Jun 26, 2007 6:56:42 PM
It is interesting how Cowen and assorted other Open Border libertoads
with absolute job security are trying to be relevant and funny in
immigration debate.
How come all they produce is irrelevant nonsense?
Posted by: mik at Jun 26, 2007 8:26:26 PM
No one has absolute job security.
Posted by: rluser at Jun 26, 2007 9:13:37 PM
The only debate regarding the immigration issue we the public get to partake in is whether Bush is crazy like a fox or as dumb as a fencepost.
Posted by: fustercluck at Jun 26, 2007 10:17:12 PM
Mr. Tyrone,
Do you really think very many would take the opportunity? My impression is that swedes are pretty happy where they are. Speaking as a norwegian software engineer: you couldn't throw a visa at me.
Oh, there may be one or two right-wing bastards who'd go. Good riddance to them. I think we're better off without them in the long run.
Posted by: Harald Korneliussen at Jun 27, 2007 2:00:26 AM
"But the worker would collect no social security or Medicare benefits [..]" Assuming that also means not paying the social security and medicare taxes, then I'd like to take that deal myself... and I'm an American citizen!
Posted by: eddie at Jun 27, 2007 11:04:04 AM
Harald, this Finn supports the idea behind the post here, but he's a Canadian so he probably doesn't know any better.
Posted by: TGGP at Jun 27, 2007 2:41:56 PM
"No one has absolute job security."
Cowen job security is much closer to absolute than abcolute majority of
economic models to reality.
Posted by: mik at Jun 27, 2007 4:32:23 PM
"there may be one or two right-wing bastards who'd go.
Good riddance to them."
Apparently both of them were on H1B visas at my last job.
What's probability of that?
And while you may or may not be better off without them, the paid
way more in taxes than consumed in services. While depressing wages for
native employees of course.
Posted by: mik at Jun 27, 2007 4:36:12 PM
Tyrone should also keep in mind the big picture - if we grow the US internally (increase the birth rate) we have huge expenses in educating and caring for the "youtes" until they turn 18 and can work. A large chunk of them end up in courts and prisons. A large chunk end up spending years at the minimum wage level (paying no income taxes). Remeber al those dirty f'ing hippies from the 60's?
Compare that scenario to "the Puerto Rico deal" (growing through minimally regulated immigration) and the economic case for immigration looks pretty good.
The third choice - no growth - is worse than growth through immigration, if we assume the US is not yet at optimum population density. Since we are at about a third of the population density of France, I am quite prepared to support growth as the best approach compared to no-growth for the foreseeable future.
Perhaps we should give some preference to those from abroad who would agree to help develop our less developed areas.
Posted by: cfw at Jun 27, 2007 6:09:43 PM
"Since we are at about a third of the population density of France, I am quite prepared to support growth as the best approach compared to no-growth for the foreseeable future."
Looks like you have not been to France and haven't been to many US states.
If you would have been you would not compare apples and apple tartins.
Posted by: mik at Jun 27, 2007 9:21:30 PM
France and Germany have been my stomping grounds (off and on) for years, I have lived 9 years in Germany and I have lived in lots of states (Army brat growing up).
Outside Paris, France is at the density that makes it one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world. People eat well there, generally speaking.
France has about 113 persons per square km, compared to say 38 for the US and 230 for Germany.
The French do a poor job integrating immigrants and the US does a good job - that is one of our competitive strengths and we should build on it.
We are also a country of real estate developers and have been for 500 years - we have done it reasonably well (except for shameful conduct toward aboriginal Indians) and can do it as well as any country in the world for the foreseeable future.
Again, if you want your son and daughter to grow up with more opportunities than you, build on the expertise the country has honed for 500 years (real estate development and integration of immigrants).
The no growth option robs them of opportunities. Do not conflate concern about increasing economic inequality - a real problem, despite what TC may argue - with immigrant issues.
Posted by: cfw at Jun 28, 2007 12:51:36 AM
"Outside Paris, France is at the density that makes it one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world. People eat well there, generally speaking.
France has about 113 persons per square km, compared to say 38 for the US. . ."
Well, OK. Since we can't exclude our nation's most populous cities in our population density projections as breezily as you dismissed Paris in the quote above, let's just take a look at what exactly you are advocating:
US area in square kilometers: 9,631,420
Total US population (estimate): 301,965,000
US population density: 31.3 person per sq km
If we were merely to DOUBLE that last number, we would be looking at a total US population of over 600,000,000. Bear in mind that there would not be explosive growth in areas with the lowest current density, like AK, ND, and WY, nor would some of the states with large areas of low density (NM, NV, OK etc) see a lot of population growth throughout those sections, due to largely intractible obstacles of climate and/or terrain.
So, are you prepared for, say, 50 million people in the metro LA area? Plenty of 'economic opportunities' I would imagine - but would it be worth it?
Posted by: Brent Lane at Jun 28, 2007 10:19:04 AM
Brent Lane,
"So, are you prepared for, say, 50 million people in the metro LA area? Plenty of 'economic opportunities' I would imagine - but would it be worth it?"
Vast profits for the upper class. Extreme inequality. An infinite supply of cheap servants (and bodyguards to minimize kidnappings). Zero middle class.
What's there not to like?
The MR version of paradise.
Posted by: Peter Schaeffer at Jun 28, 2007 11:59:44 PM
I come from asia, injoy 室內設計,work in a 搬家公司,other enjoy isecosway和科士威,good see U。
Thanks.
Posted by: jack at Jan 6, 2008 9:58:04 PM
