Immigration Choices
An attempt to find the source of disagreement
I am engaged in a few on-going arguments/debates/discussions with various friends and relatives. These don’t seem to be super productive—these people aren’t listening to me! Or me them it seems as neither side seems to be giving ground.
Perhaps this will be a productive exercise. I think I know some of where and how we look at this issue differently. But this might help to better define those differences.
The fact of the matter is if we have differing values or principles, we could logically reach incompatible ends. Likewise if we have different assumptions, theories, or “facts” forming our premises, we could logically reach differing conclusions. If we have errors in reasoning, then reasonable minds should reach a resolution of agreement. The second and last categories have mostly formed the basis for my approach to these disagreements. However, I now suspect that this is not the case and that the disagreement lies to a large degree in the first category.
To help tease this out, I have come up with the following 25 question survey. None of these have right or wrong answers per se. Layering in additional assumptions or goals to each of these might allow us to find inconsistencies in how you or I might answer. Likewise the reasons you or I might choose an answer might be based on good or bad premises, data, or theories. I’m trying to set all of that aside to be more hypothetical and value oriented. These are somewhat in the spirit of Bryan Caplan’s “keyhole solutions” that he considers at the end of his book, Open Borders.
Consider each of these in total isolation of each other, and feel free to suggest alternative choices or questions altogether. I know some might be considered fanciful hypotheticals. Still, I believe they offer insight into our thinking about immigration specifically and other topics generally.
Undoubtedly these reflect my personal biases despite my efforts to be neutral in crafting them. Feel free to pass if any are unfair questions—I would be interested in why they seem unfair and what might rescue them. But beware: arguing with the question is a common tactic to avoid answering the question—especially when one's answer might be hard to reconcile against other principles or social-desirability bias.
All of my answers (not the “correct answers”, but simply my own) are the last choice of each set. This does not mean I find any of these necessarily optimal or perhaps even desirable. It is just that given the question as it is the final option is my preferred choice.
The Survey
Which of these levels of maximum annual legal immigration (citizenship) growth would you want to lock in? Assume the composition of immigrants would be what you think is most realistic.
0%
1%
5%
No limit
Which of these is optimal? Any and all immigrants willing to pay $X to become a citizen can do so provided they are not a known criminal or carry a communicable disease. They can borrow against future earnings from a third party who would immediately pay the fee. X equals (adjusted annually for inflation):
No price - do not allow this
$100,000
$50,000
$10,000
What government program(s) should illegal immigrants be able to use?
None
Any
Limited as you would define it and perhaps increasing after time has passed (e.g., traditional general assistance (e.g., TANF, etc.); emergency medical services; courts—they can sue for torts and seek legal defense)
Assume the status quo of current paths to citizenship granting that it is a very restrictive and time consuming, lottery-like experience (just assume it if you don’t believe it). Which of these is best for those wishing to come to the U.S. to work while waiting on citizenship chances (no time limit)? Assume current eligibility/ineligibility for govt benefits.
No entry
Maximum annual entry = X% of U.S. labor force with no entry of family (you can set X)
Maximum annual entry = X% of U.S. labor force with entry of immediate family (you can set X)
Allow entry without limit
What changes to U.S. law would you choose (you can pick more than one)?
Asylum seekers who cannot be immediately processed must be sent back to sending country (this was the “stay in Mexico” Title 42 program that I would argue didn’t work, but you may see it differently or still support it in principle).
Children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. are not citizens.
States rather than the federal government can determine levels of immigration (for their own state).
None of these
Should we allow higher levels than current limits on high-skilled workers (e.g., H-1B visas)?
No
Yes
Assume a U.S. citizen loses his job. If the job was lost directly due to any of these factors, is it ethically worse than losing his job to another competing U.S. citizen?
A legal immigrant
An illegal immigrant
A foreign worker (outsourcing abroad)
Technology domestically (automation by existing employer eliminates his job)
Technology internationally (automation by foreign competitor eliminates his job)
No
Which of these is the biggest downside of legal immigration?
Change in culture
Change in politics (how immigrants influence politics, voting or otherwise)
Labor competition
Stress on government services
Which of these is the biggest downside of illegal immigration?
Change in culture
Change in politics (how immigrants influence politics, voting or otherwise)
Labor competition
Stress on government services
However well or poorly you assume the U.S. economy currently works completely outside of the effects of immigration (things like job creation/destruction, income growth, movement up and down the economic ladder, etc.), which of these would improve it overall? In terms of levels of legal/illegal immigration:
Low/low
High/low
Low/high
High/high
Is America’s capacity to successfully absorb immigrants today?
Generally better than it has ever been
Generally worse than it has ever been
About the same as it has ever been
Does an aging U.S. population worry you?
No
Yes
Does a shrinking U.S. population worry you?
No
Yes
Which of these U.S. population trends would be best?
Shrinking slowly because emigration outpaces organic growth and immigration
Shrinking more rapidly because emigration outpaces organic shrinking and immigration
Growing slowly organically (without almost any immigration)
Growing more rapidly (because of the same organic growth plus substantial immigration)
Should we trust the government to best determine the level of immigration?
Yes
No
In the long run (over several political cycles) is the federal government or are state governments better at managing the border (protecting, processing entry, etc.)?
State
Federal
Which of these statements do you most agree with?
The federal government can in realistic theory do a great job providing both highly active border and immigration management.
The federal government plays the role of a necessary evil as the best/least bad provider of both border and immigration management.
The federal government should play a very important but minimal role in managing the border with little to no control over the level of immigration.
Which of these statements do you most agree with?
If Americans were more like they were in the past, we could today have the more open-immigration policy like we had in the past.
If immigrants were more like they were in the past, we could today have the more open-immigration policy like we had in the past.
The world is too different today to have the more open-immigration policy like we had in the past.
We could today have the more open-immigration policy like we had in the past.
Which of these statements do you most agree with?
The U.S. is too rich to allow high levels of immigration.
The U.S. is too vulnerable to allow high levels of immigration.
The U.S. is too poor to allow high levels of immigration.
The U.S. can allow high levels of immigration.
Considering the actual history of U.S. immigration, how would the U.S. be overall today if immigration would have been meaningfully higher across all of that history because of fewer restrictions imposed domestically (U.S. limits) or internationally (foreign government limits)?
A lot worse
Slightly worse
About the same
Slightly better
A lot better
Assume by some irreconcilable U.S. government administrative snafu that you and your immediate family were denied reentry to the U.S. after a vacation in Mexico based on erroneous grounds that you had forfeited your citizenship. All your property in the U.S. was turned over to the state. If you thought for certain that this would not be reversed and that your best life would be in the U.S., would you illegally immigrate back to the U.S.?
No
Yes
Assume while you and your spouse are on vacation in Mexico having left your young child at home with grandparents a pandemic erupts. The border is closed disallowing your return to the U.S. for 10 months. During that time you have a second child in Mexico. Assume further that the U.S. passed a Constitutional amendment before your trip that makes children both conceived and born in a foreign country non U.S. citizens. Once you can return, you are not allowed to bring your new child until they have been through the citizenship process, which cannot begin (by the new law) until age 15. Would you illegally immigrate your child back with you evading authorities as necessary?
No
Yes
If through a couple of violent political upheavals, the U.S. became a socialist dictatorship harshly antagonistic to you generally while Mexico became extremely close politically and socially to what the U.S. is today, would you illegally immigrate to Mexico with your family? Assume your wealth was certainly threatened in the U.S. and your future economic (and social) prospects looked better and better in Mexico relative to the United States.
No
Yes
Do we have a moral/ethical obligation to obey immoral, unjust legislation of a passive (indirect) nature assuming that legislation came about through the otherwise legitimate legal process? (e.g., A bill making illegal the donating of food without a federal license is passed by Congress, signed into law by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court without qualification upon challenge.) The example is just to give the framework for the overall question. Feel free to come up with your own example of an unethical/immoral law that is otherwise soundly codified by the rules of lawmaking.
Yes
No
Does your answer to question 24 change if the law becomes something more actively (directly) consequent? (e.g., The legislation is that all people older than 80 will enter a lottery where 1/10,000 will be put to death?)
Yes
No