Econ prof’s immigration talk inspires students

Immigration, a hot public policy topic under debate by federal legislators, was the subject of a recent lecture by an economist who imparted his views on the controversial issue for La Sierra University business students, faculty and guests.

Bryan Caplan, professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., delivered a business colloquium lecture at La Sierra University on March 12. His presentation, “Immigration Restrictions: A Solution in Search of a Problem,” outlined four main arguments underscoring the desire for immigration restrictions and his refutations of those arguments. He also posited some of his views and solutions to the immigration concerns currently vexing the nation's leaders.

Caplan has written several books including “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies” published in 2007 and 2008 by Princeton University Press. He has written nearly 60 journal articles and book chapters. In addition, his work has published in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, American Economic Review, Economic Journal, Journal of Law and Economics, and Intelligence. He has also appeared on ABC's 20/20 television news magazine and on public affairs network C-SPAN.

The four pro-immigration restriction arguments Caplan addressed during his talk consisted of the following: immigration restrictions protect Americans from poverty; immigration restrictions protect American taxpayers from welfare state exploitation; immigration restrictions protect American culture; immigration restrictions protect American liberty.

“There about a billion people on earth who live on a dollar a day or less. They would love to move here. Jobs that Americans consider ridiculous and horrible, would be [these] people's idea of paradise.” For example, shining shoes in America would be a huge step up from working the fields in Cambodia for one dollar a day, Caplan said.

While some economic theories predict a lowering of wages with increased labor supply due to competition between domestic workers and immigrants, Caplan argues that most immigrants arriving from third world countries have different types of low-level skills than Americans and thus are not a threat to jobs Americans want. “We're talking about the kind of labor [skills] very few Americans actually have,” he said, such as those possessed by a farmer from Bangladesh. One of the obvious differences between American labor and immigrant labor is English language skill, Caplan said. In areas with high immigrant populations, such as coastal urban areas, immigrants wind up performing jobs like cleaning hotel rooms and other work that requires limited English. But in areas of the country where there are few immigrants, local English speakers perform the same work, jobs for which they are over-qualified, he said.

Even if it were true that immigration would drastically reduce wages and impoverish a lot of Americans, a “cheaper and more humane alternative” might be to charge immigrants an admission fee or surtax, like 10 percentage points, and “use the money to compensate native workers who lost out,” Caplan said.

He addressed the fear that immigrants will arrive in the United States, go on welfare and “suck the American tax payers dry.” In reality, most government handouts are given to older citizens through Social Security and Medicare, he said, and a large portion of Medicaid, intended for the poor, pays for nursing home fees for the elderly. New immigrants, by contrast, tend to be young and thus will not receive such funds, said Caplan. An alternative for mitigating such anxieties may be to allow immigrants' entry to the United States but deny them welfare benefits, he said.

American culture, rather than receding at the hands of immigrants, actually thrives in centers of high immigrant concentration like New York and Los Angeles. By contrast, areas of the country deemed culturally bereft are home to few immigrants, he said. Furthermore, young immigrants typically become proficient in English, and 90 percent of second-generation immigrant Americans are fluent in English, said Caplan.

Caplan also refuted arguments that immigrants will vote to overturn the government and destroy American liberties, largely because immigrants have low voter turnout, he said.

In the end, mainstream research on the issue has failed to find a seriously negative impact resulting from immigration, Caplan said. “Out of the people publishing in normal journals, almost no one has found a large negative effect,” he said.

Furthermore, immigration can help lower the amount of per capita national debt. “When immigrants come here they are dividing national debt by a larger number of people which means the average amount of debt owed by the people who are already here goes down,” he said.

Kendall Trood, a senior accounting major in the Zapara School of Business, appreciated Caplan's “succinctness and that he not only brought up problems, but also offered solutions,” she said. “Professor Caplan's presentation spoke directly to the major issues brought up by those who are pro-immigration restriction and not only disproved the common misconceptions cited as facts, such as that Americans end up bearing the cost of those who are here illegally, but offered alternatives that were both "cheaper and more humane" than current legislation permits,” she said.

The lecture is in keeping with the business school's objectives of seeking “to expose students and faculty members to the ideas of creative thinkers in business, economics, and related disciplines,” said Gary Chartier, associate dean of the Zapara School of Business and professor of law and business ethics. He knows Caplan through mutual friends and through reading Caplan's work. He noted that Caplan freely selected his lecture topic for the La Sierra colloquium.

“Professor Caplan is a thoughtful and provocative interdisciplinary scholar who uses economic analysis to enlarge our understanding of many different aspects of social life,” said Chartier. “I hope those who attended his talk will gain both deeper comprehension of issues related to the immigration debate and greater awareness of how expert professionals engage in careful social-scientific reasoning and argument.”