Thursday, June 29, 2017

A Kind Word on Behalf of the Mexicans

By Robert Higgs

“The immigration problem” or “the border problem” has been a heated topic of debate and politicking in recent years. (This recent spurt is only the most recent in a series that goes back for centuries in U.S. history.) In large part this debate pertains to the entry of Mexicans, especially undocumented Mexicans, into the USA. For those who support a strong “closed borders” or “secure the border” position, the debate often involves claims about Mexicans—what sort of people they are, what one may reasonably expect them to do if they become residents of the USA, what crimes they have committed or will commit in the future, and so forth. Anyone who is familiar with Mexicans is struck repeatedly by
the sheer ignorance and the false claims that immigration opponents marshal in support of their position. The president himself has trotted out howlers about Mexican rapists and drug traffickers as important, standing problems of even the existing flow of Mexicans into the USA.

I have a working familiarity with the social science literature on immigration. (In the past I have written articles for economic history and demography journals that dealt with various aspects of immigration in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.) More to the point for present purposes, I have considerable personal experience with Mexicans. I grew up on the rural west side of California’s San Joaquin Valley in the 1950s in a place with a population composed of about two-thirds Mexicans and their native-born children. In October 2015, I emigrated from the USA, and since then I have lived in the Mexican state of Quintana Roo. I speak Spanish, though not with the fluency I would like, and in one way or another I deal with Mexicans nearly every day. So when I think or speak about Mexicans I do so with some personal as well as scholarly background.

In this light, I am stunned by how many Americans have a false impression of Mexicans. Of course, any generalization about them will be subject to qualifications. Mexico is a large, diverse country with a large, diverse population. And obviously from individual to individual great variations exist. No population consists of nothing but good people (however defined) or nothing but bad people (however defined).

Overall, I have found Mexicans—both those with whom I grew up in California and those among whom I now reside in Mexico—on average to be fine people in all relevant dimensions. They are devoted to their families and love their children. They are extremely hard workers, often under extraordinarily difficult and unpleasant conditions. They are good-natured and friendly, courteous and generous. They are also in many cases surprisingly resourceful, knowing how to build or repair all sorts of things, often without proper tools or materials. Many of them have an artistic capacity that allows them to create various products that are not only practical but also beautiful. Centuries of oppression and brutality by the ruling classes have not destroyed their hope for a better future, and they are often willing to bear great personal costs in order to make that future better for themselves and their children.

In view of the sorts of people they actually are—not as they are painted by vicious politicians and border bullies—one might well suppose that not only are they not an especially worrisome kind of immigrants to the USA, but instead exactly the kind that native-born American should welcome, the sort that among other things will do thousands of difficult and uninviting tasks—for example, working in poultry or meatpacking plants, putting on roofs, holding down building and highway construction and masonry jobs in rain and summer heat, cleaning hotel rooms, cooking and cleaning in restaurants, harvesting crops such as apples, asparagus, strawberries, and hundreds of others that demand backbreaking manual labor, and so on and on—tasks that native-born workers are not exactly clamoring to perform these days.

Moreover, not all Mexicans who come to the USA are unskilled, low-wage workers. Entrants also include highly educated people such as lawyers, doctors, engineers, and information technology workers. Mexico’s labor force is no longer a mass of unskilled or semi-skilled workers, and in many cases both the migrants and the U.S. economy stand to gain by Americans’ welcoming highly skilled people from Mexico. That such people have relatively less to gain does not imply that they have nothing to gain. In any event, it behooves Americans to recognize the existence of this type of migrants as well as those at the bottom of the wage scale.

It would be a most instructive experiment if somehow all the immigrant workers were to be removed from the U.S. economy overnight. The upshot would be calamitous for many U.S. industries and for large geographic areas of the country. Immigration opponents rarely appreciate the extent to which the U.S. economy depends on Mexican (and other immigrant) labor and the tremendous extent to which the foreign workers produce and distribute goods and services essential to day-to-day life for everyone. The oft-heard claim that the migrants come to the USA simply to sponge off the welfare state is so preposterously out of touch with reality that it staggers the mind. Yes, of course, some immigrants take advantage of the welfare state, but their taxes (not just income taxes but also property, sales, excise, and social security taxes), fees, fines, and other personal payments also prop up that system. They are not simply welfare deadbeats (as obviously many native-born persons are) and not simply consumers or competitors for jobs or housing. They are above all producers.

More important, however, they are in the great majority of cases good and decent people seeking what most people seek—an opportunity to work toward building a better life for themselves and their children. For those of us who know them more intimately than most, it is painful to hear the ignorant and malicious statements that circulate about them, especially perhaps on social media, where people are frequently unrestrained in letting loose the most vitriolic and baseless accusations. Individualists, above all, should know better than to judge a large group of people on grounds such as race, ethnicity, or place or birth—attributes that no one has earned but has merely been born with. Americans in particular ought to meet a higher standard than to embrace such collectivism, especially about people who in many cases are personally unknown to those making the negative appraisal. Among the highest aspirations of the American people historically has been the idea that their country would serve as a beacon of freedom and a refuge for the oppressed of other lands. It is high time that more Americans became cognizant of the desirability of reestablishing this noble aspiration.

The above originally appeared at the Independent Institute.

39 comments:

  1. Boy, is he right. Having lived in California (stolen from Mexico) for over 20 years (1975 - 1999), I am witness to his observations. Socially conservative, and hard working, they are essential to the California economy. If there's hard, dirty work to be done, good luck finding an Anglo or Black American to do it. The Mexicans didn't write the 14th amendment, so don't blame them for "anchor babies".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem with your 'dirty, hard work' argument is that it's based on a labor theory of value. Working in landscaping, construction, or hotel/hospitality might be physically hard work but the market price for that work is quite low, and the income & payroll taxes generated don't come close to covering the cost of public education and healthcare that immigrants consume. Obviously the government should not be providing those 'public goods' but that is a moot point as they are and are not going to stop absent revolution.

      Luckily, the anti-immigrant sentiment seems to have won the day, and even many scholars in the LvMI school of thought agree that open borders are not only il-libertarian, but even illiberal.

      Delete
    2. @ChadThrustington

      If immigrants don't fund the state as much as you think they should, I would consider that a good thing.

      Delete
    3. @ChadThrustington,

      --- and even many scholars in the LvMI school of thought agree that open borders are not only il-libertarian, but even illiberal. ---

      I don't know about "many scholars". I only found one essay about the dangers of open borders and a state that grants voting privileges to immigrants but that's it. Generally, the commentary is positive towards immigration from a free market point of view.

      Delete
  2. Before the immigration wave of the 80s and 90s into California, who do you think put roofs on houses, dug ditches, built the houses, worked on your car's engine, poured concrete, held maintenance, city and county jobs? Yeah, those lazy-ass Anglos bums.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean all those dead and retired guys?

      Delete
    2. Re: M,

      --- Yeah, those lazy-ass Anglos bums. ---

      Right. As if there weren't any Mexicans before the 80s and 90s in California.
      Please.

      Delete
    3. And it was possible for high school kids to get jobs landscaping, delivering papers, fast food workers, babysitters, etc... that immigrant adults do now.

      Delete
  3. Only losers and their demagogues whine about immigrants. The illegal ones are the true Americans. Real Americans climb over government walls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Traffic lights are government lights. Government is bad. Therefore anyone should be able to drive thru on red.

      Delete
    2. To Donson: If you believe what you say, then you should have no gripe about vouching personally for one to several immigrants, that you will personally sponsor, maybe even allow to live in your spare room. You will have to provide a "surety bond" should your ward do any crime. The charity and kindness will come out of your own checkbook, without forcing redistributionist coercive schemes on your fellow citizen inhabitants. IF and WHEN this happens, perhaps I will listen to you, and be convinced to do the same charity you preach. (Go ahead, Im waiting for you: tic tic tic tock / crickets)

      Delete
    3. @Chaz Novit,

      --- If you believe what you say, then you should have no gripe about vouching personally for one to several immigrants, that you will personally sponsor, maybe even allow to live in your spare room. ---

      Typical of anti-immigrant zealots to assume that immigrants arrive like shipwreck victims, moving aimlessly around to find shelter, food and water.

      Immigrants come invited in. There are people already here more than willing to vouch for them: those who want to employ them, those who want to rent dwellings to them, those who want to sell them things, those who want want to marry them. But anti-immigrant bigots are also hypocrites, as they are as quick to attack those who are willing to vouch for these immigrants as they are quick to criticize those not willing to vouch for them, or where else does the expression "DEM IMMIGRUNTZ TAKUM ER JEBZ!" come from, if not from the immigrant-haters and Trumpistas? Often accompanied by calls to punish employers who hire immigrants, pr those who rent to them. And the usually mentioned leftist trope of the FIXED PIE fallacy, which the bigots on the anti-immigrant side use to moan the "burden" that these immigrants pose on the "native" population?

      Trumpistas talk from both sides of their collectivist mouths.

      Delete
    4. Francisco: Regardless of your delusion about what the USA stands (and doesn’t stand) for.. and what you imagine as the criteria for new citizenship... the hammer I have over your head is two fold:

      1) I happen to own 1/330 millionth of the USA. I'm not sharing any of my cookies, and don’t give an hoot how much you whine...
      2) I certainly have not invited them... most Americans, also have NOT invited them...there is no blanket invitation...except by Libero-Fascist politicians and voters... the majority of us are normal. Your illiberal cohorts in government are offering bribes of citizenship, to thus cheat in the game called democracy: bad boy, go to your room.

      If you come to my party uninvited, I will very likely ask you to leave, or I'm calling the cops... bye-bye.

      Delete
    5. How's that boot taste Chaz LOL

      Delete
    6. @M.Hfm: Hi there. I cant tell you how that boot tastes...Its still being dug into your mouth.

      BTW Pretty clever thing you have going there w Francisco... you and he are in the same Google+ circle... tag team mates... )

      Delete
    7. @Chaz

      You don't own 1/anything of the border. You never homesteaded it. You never purchased it from a prior legitimate owner. So you have no say in whether some stranger may or may not walk on it.

      Please don't try to force me to pay for a bunch of government agents to impose your fetish of centrally planning the composition of thre population.

      Delete
    8. Hey there Evan. ahhh, but I do own (approx) 1/330 million of what constitutes The United States of America, and an even higher proportion of our GDP?GPP. Furthermore, I'm right, because I say so, and I'm stronger, and bigger than you. Go run to your Mommie government.

      On the contrary.. it is YOU that is a puppet of a Centrally Planned society... I'm the one standing up for laissez-faire society. It is your sheepish acceptance of state ordained theft of production, to redistribute it to those that haven't earned the booty. It is only by virtue of generous Government benefits that some portion (lets say 1/5 x 45Mil non-native tenants), that I have been forced to subsidize, to my resentment. The policies you tolerate are the catalyst for something that left alone, may not have become such a divisive issue.

      There is no racism here, just high standards on who (what skills & knowledge & talent) , and how many (at what rate can the park allow incoming visitors without creating a fire hazard) can join our club... The USA

      Delete
    9. @Chaz

      If the advocates of apartheid are so "big and strong" then why hasn't the Mexican Berlin Wall been built already?

      And it's beyond Orwellian that someone who advocates that state agents swarm across the country and evict anyone without government permission would accuse someone else of "being a puppet of a centrally-planned society.

      Immigrants are not the problem. Big government, which you seem to support, *is*.

      Delete
    10. Evan Even Even, where do I begin:

      It seems like you have at least a modicum of intelligence, that you wouldnt need to resort to "straw man" twisting of my words.

      1) I do not, and never will condone apartheidism, and please do look it up, so you dont creat your own definitions. You do know all races have voting rights, and are part of our government structure, as well as hired by states... there is no apartheid second class here...
      2) I dont even advocate a wall. Any mechanism that can prevent uninvited people (vs the invited that meet some beneficial or socially contributory standards.. like that which took place on Ellis Island immigrant screening**) will suffice: be that sentry, drones, or crocodile moats... all serve the need. You do realize all of this resentment is due to a failure of Washington in having protected our borders. You don't think it was I, that invented the Border Patrol agency? Their function was never to rescue stray kittens, and wayward "la inmigrante ilegal".

      And what I find truly Orwellian are Republicants, and Dumbocrats that advocate a reverse tax system (Earned Income Credit) where some can get up to $6,300 more of a tax refund***, (larger) than they even earned... some can get a tax refund for money they didnt even pay into..That is the very definition of F'ked up, Orwellian logic. It is unsustainable, as Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Detroit have shown us. It is incompatible with morality, and incompatible with freedom.

      And I do not support Big Gov. If you even know the (aprox) 18 powers**** granted to Federal Gov, you'd realize the government needs to shrink by 90%. The corollary of that is we are paying taxes, of which 90% is not allowed in the constitution. So, yes, I'd be the first to give government a circumcision.

      ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Island#Detention_and_deportation_station
      *** http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-earned-income-tax-credit-eitc
      **** http://freedomoutpost.com/congress-enumerated-powers/

      Delete
  4. Why should we care whether Mexicans (or other immigrants) are nice people or not, hard working or not, or productive or not? If I want to contract or associate with an immigrant on or with my private property, why should anyone else deny me this right? Too many times the immigration issue is cast as an issue revolving around a collectivist evaluation of immigrants, or as a welfare problem or a cultural problem. However, the immigration issue is only a problem when people (including those at the state) don't respect private property rights. I should be as free to associate or not with an immigrant as I am with a resident. It is the state, with its illegitimate construction of borders and holding of so-called "public property," and its welfare system, that is the cause of the friction. As in almost every other part of life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most PPSs will control who immigrates into the society to preserve the PPS character. What is going on now is the suicide of the West.

      Delete
    2. But those will be decentralized, individual decisions of private property owners acting as their own border patrol. Today we have centralized decisions being made by individuals at the state who are not the private property owners. If you don't agree with who is welcomed or excluded, tough luck, your opinion and, more to the point, your private property, is irrelevant.

      Delete
    3. Re: PH,

      --- Most PPSs will control who immigrates into the society to preserve the PPS character. ---

      Then it would not be a PPS. Private Property Rights entail exchange, which includes immigration. You may WISH it wasn't true but your personal issues don't become philosophical objections just because you like your own self so much.

      Delete
    4. @francisco, in Galt's Gulch could anyone come in?

      Delete
  5. Dear Mr Higgs, and Robert (thought #1)
    I am partially agreeing with your sentiment. But I will also add overlooked issues.

    Part 1) With 45 million non-native born people now living in USA (legal / illegal / temporary etc etc) what is the BURDEN on native born for home living costs, both apartments, and houses? In a free market society, one would expect a non-elastic increase in the supply of homes: But in regulatory USA, with EPA regulations, local prohibitive zoning, and other obstacles for real estate development, we retard our capacity to build homes at the same rate of immigration, and certainly not without escalating prices for older homes. My point is 45 million non-native people causes a
    shortage, and burdensome price increase. Should our pro-immigration, vote seeking political overlords provide compensatory increase in additional homes for these ADDITIONAL GUESTS?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Chaz Novit,

      --- With 45 million non-native born people now living in USA (legal / illegal / temporary etc etc) what is the BURDEN on native born for home living costs, both apartments, and houses? ---

      At which generation does a population become "native" in your mind, Chaz? Don't the children of immigrants bwcome native to the point that the burden is much reduced, as those new humans also come withbtwo good arms and a head above the shoulders?

      Also, your argument REEKS of a usual socialist trope which is the FIXED PIE economic fallacy. A greater demand for housing, food, clothes and transportation means a greater opportunity for producers to meet this demand by increasing the pie, so WHERE IS THE BURDEN you talk about?

      Delete
    2. Francisco: My actual point and message may have deluded you. Its simple... in a society that hinders the building of new apartments, and to a lesser degree, houses (via numerous regulation and taxes) it is prejudicial when those same open border politicians, and their SJW campaign financiers, advocate influx of newcomers, that also need dwellings. SPECIFICALLY, when these politician proselytizers do not simultaneous fund, or increase via relaxed regulations and taxes for ADDITIONAL homes. Do understand, in a Libertarian society (which we certainly are not) the increased housing supply, for increased population, would not be as constrained, and latency to fulfill the higher demand would not hurt market prices too drastically.

      As for "when a generation becomes native", I will not be cornered into that way of thinking. I will say it is not too far fetched to see the rate of immigration in accordance with our past vast open spaces (1700, 1800, 1900) to a multi-dwelling condominium. At a certain point, the occupancy rate has stabilized, and we do not need to invite new tenants.

      My stinky fixed pie takes into account that real estate speculators should not be enriched at the expense of real estate consumers ( home owners, tenants). Thus the greater demand for housing interests me "not" when it artificially fills pockets of bankers, and speculators. Homes are predominantly for living, not primarily investment, except in a distorted economy, such as we have.
      As to societies measure of wealth. food, clothing, and transportation are the bottom of the barrel. It is innovation the fuels it, the typewriter, the computer, iphones, etc. There is no reason they can buy these as exports from USA, no matter what nation they are physically located.

      Delete
  6. Dear Mr Higgs, and Robert( Thought # 2)
    I am partially agreeing with your sentiment. But I will also add overlooked issues.

    Part 2) There is no typical Mexican immigrant, legal or illegal. There are several groups that vary in regional ethnicity, vary in education and skills, and vary in their motivations to come here. The rural and mountainous regions of Mexico are more "indian like", and seem to have generally lower educations, and skills. Are they equally burdensome to our net-tax-payers ? Are there epigenetic differences that make some immigrant regional subgroups more successful than others? If so, this may persist for several generations down the road, feeding the progressives argument about unfair inequality even further for a call to redistribution. What about those that come with money and education, can we not have a preference for which guests we invite into our collective home called USA?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Mr Higgs.( Thought # 3:Last one)
    LASTLY, here's another overlooked perspective.

    Part 3) Although many simplistically contend that we need immigration to grow as a nation, I will assert that is not the case. Arguably there is a small benefit to growing the new citizen supply (ie immigrants), it perhaps similar to increasing the money supply. Increasing the money supply is inflationary, but perhaps reduces friction in the economy, leading to higher productivity, and greater private product remaining (Rothbard's PPR). Thus, perhaps any discussion on the value of pro-immigration could be handled in a mathematical equation like manner, to figure an optimum sweet spot of benefit to current Americans. That could be a more modern, perhaps scientific way, to decide the number of guests we allow. Maybe the correct number of immigrants is 1000 per year... who has bothered to analyze it in any rational way?

    So ideally, having no immigrants to be our hardworking strawberry pickers, would provide more jobs to lazy Americans. Of course, some would rather be on Welfare, but that shouldn't be an option if one wants to eat, and there is work to be performed. And yes, strawberries may become as expensive as caviar, so what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Chaz Novit,

      --- So ideally, having no immigrants to be our hardworking strawberry pickers, would provide more jobs to lazy Americans. ---

      "Ideally" is meant to be read as "ignoring people's opportunity costs and the disutility of labor".

      The diatribe above is evidence of a serious lack of economic sophistication among Trumpistas.

      Delete
    2. Francisco... ahhh, very clever of you to read my adverbs as precisely as a bible or contract. Let me make it easy...substitute "alternatively" for my overardentterm "ideally". Now that we have that out of the way, I dont give a darn about other peoples opportunity costs (if for example you mean farmers). If they choose a lucrative occupatiohn such as growing marijuana, or a less lucritate such as strawberries.. that a market decision that will reward them or punish them based on free-hand market dynamics. All I need know is how desperately I love strawberries to decide how much Im willing to pay.

      And please stop with the "disutility of labor" reverse economics... youre breathing the fumes of market intervention manipulators... The market, like language, is a self evolved product of human interaction that invisibly runs itself. It needs no central planners to decide prices and allocation. the market evolves spontaneously in an orderly cooperative fashion. Or maybe you dont know your Hayek.

      Furthermore, no matter what reverse logic you delude yourself and gullible friends with... I just dont buy your excuse to change my culture.

      Delete
  8. " They are not simply welfare deadbeats (as obviously many native-born persons are)"
    Such a cowardly article.
    Why are all native born being lumped in together ?
    Unable to type the word "Black" I guess.

    "Among the highest aspirations of the American people historically has been the idea that their country would serve as a beacon of freedom and a refuge for the oppressed of other lands."
    So basically you are trying to pass off the idea that The Framers and all the men who fought the Revolution did so to insure that Somalis and Mexicans could come here in unlimited numbers.
    I am doubtful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: FormerIntelligent,

      ─ Why are all native born being lumped in together ?
      Unable to type the word "Black" I guess. ─

      There are far more white Americans on Welfare than black Americans.

      ─ So basically you are trying to pass off the idea that The Framers and all the men who fought the Revolution did so to insure that Somalis and Mexicans could come here in unlimited numbers. ─

      I love how Trumpistas do their best to emulate their brethren on the left by relying on question-begging and exaggeration instead of reason and logic.

      Somalis or Mexicans cannot enter in "unlimited" numbers. They would be limited by The Market. It is just that YOU happen NOT to like what the Market is willing to accept because you're an anti-market collectivist bigot, but that doesn't mean those numbers are bigger than infinite. Not even close.

      Delete
  9. I like Higgs but he grandstands on immigration.

    Full disclosure, I'm a native born Mexican citizen, with dual citizenship in the US. There is much I enjoy from Higgs on his descriptions of Mexico. There is much I prefer about Mexican culture, its Catholic character and piety, to the atomistic United States culture of decadence.

    But, look at today's Lew article for example: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/06/david-hathaway/not-typical-mexican-politician/

    Mexico has a very different history from the US. Their destiny is not the same, nor are the precepts, assumptions and shared cultural and political memories the same. So there are consequences, including friction and conflict, that will arise from forced integration.

    Freedom as always in a PPS will manage the borders. Bionicmosquito and others (Hoppe) are spot on to say that in the meantime, the best we can do is have a managed border to have some measure of protection of property rights.

    As a Christian, I do believe in providing sanctuary to the immigrant, but that is always in the context of those who "repent" and seek to learn about Christ, or have an immediate temporary need. It has never been about becoming a keeper for a group of people where your neighbors, without their consent, bear some of the cost and risk. And fundamentally, that would be my burden to bear, and I cannot impose that cost on others without their consent.

    So Higgs' lack of nuance on this point is disappointing. Very much so, since it's so damn PC and lacking perspective and wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ". . . the best we can do is have a managed border to have some measure of protection of property rights."

      What is left unsaid in this statement is that those who subscribe to this view demand that the individuals at the state "manage" the borders. Those who hold this view tend to excoriate the state in all other areas for its incompetence, its unresponsiveness to individual preferences, its cronyism, and its blatant aggression against private property rights (first, to sustain itself through taxation, second, to restrict others' freedoms through regulation). But in immigration we're supposed to take a more benign view of the state? As Hoppe has said elsewhere (paraphrasing him), the largest and most destructive property rights aggressor is supposed to be our property rights protector? It takes our income and seizes our land to set up and maintain border control, and uses a one-size-fits-all immigration filter; this is desirable?

      Delete
  10. It was LBJ in the 1960s who changed the immigration laws. His purpose was to import tens of millions of Democrat voters. Has the import of 60 million from the 3rd world brought us closer to liberty?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't that an indictment of the state's management of borders? The individuals at the state will manage borders to serve their own interests, not those of private property owners (whose interests are too diverse to be managed centrally, anyway).

      Delete
    2. Correlation causation fallacy, as usual.

      Delete
  11. Being a "hispanic" myself and born and raised in Puerto Rico, at least, with P'ricans and, mostly, Mexicans I talk to, when it comes to politics and the role of government in society the hispanics tolerate and expect things from government that no libertarian would agree. All we are doing is allowing an additional mass of people, with the inclination, and over time the ability, to increase government's reach, to do just that. Additional number of people to try to reach and educate, of which only a very small number will come around to a more libertarian view of government.
    I guess the libertarians will change their nomenclature and call themselves Sisyphus/Sisyphusians. Any progress in educating the public is to be lost by allowing more people than were educated, to be educated. Rinse, repeat.

    ReplyDelete