A Pragmatist on Immigration
A successful businessman from Atlanta, Bahns Stanley, recently sent me a practical fix for immigration. It is “practical” because it considers the heart of the immigration debate: (1) entry into the USA should always be legal and documented, (2) some economic sectors, such as agriculture, really do need immigrant workers, and (3) most immigrants deserve a legal path to citizenship.
Stanley is no armchair quarterback. He earned a political science degree from Duke and MBA from Virginia. He has owned companies around the world. His grandfather was a congressional Democrat and Virginia’s governor. On top of that, he has discussed his ideas with Hispanics in elected office, meaning his plan’s viability has been test-marketed. His 3-part solution follows:
Most DACA residents get a short path (3-5 years) to citizenship because they did not knowingly break the law and have assimilated into US society.
All legal immigrants, who register for citizenship at entry, would have a moderate path (5-7 years) to citizenship.
Most undocumented immigrants, because of illegal entry, could remain only if they register and begin a long path (10-12 years) to citizenship. However, if these foreigners returned to their home country and re-entered the US legally, they get a moderate path (5-7 years) to citizenship.
Mr. Stanley includes a few iron-clad caveats. Foreign residents would pay federal taxes at the maximum rate until they became US citizens, because non-citizens should contribute to the real cost of government services. Once granted citizenship, their income taxes would re-set at the applicable (lower) statutory rate. Also, states would retain the right to set SALT (state and local tax) rates for non-citizens. Stanley’s plan sets no numeric limits and provides every immigrant a path to citizenship, thereby upholding the core value of welcoming those who seek the American dream.
To appreciate Mr. Stanley’s plan, one must understand how socioeconomics shape the immigration debate, pitting global elites against working-class citizens. In short, world views and social values determine how Americans feel about immigration. Recent research by social scientists has uncovered why these two Americas are worlds apart on immigration.
Harvard economist Raj Chetty's research found that anti-free-trade voters can clearly explain their position: free trade triggered the loss of American jobs, and immigrants caused the replacement jobs to pay less. In contrast, global elites believe immigration has a net positive effect on American GDP because they don't live in small towns or work in jobs where the economic reality is right in front of them. Chetty gets to the obvious: individual households don’t live the GDP averages.
In her recent book, White Working Class, Joan Williams, a law professor at California-Berkeley, contrasts global elites, who seek social honor by presenting themselves as citizens of the world (many belong to global networks), to blue-collar Americans, who stay close to home where they can rely on family and friends for employment or help with home economics (such as child care). Williams found that elites do not need help from family or friends because they solve home-economic problems with money.
There is also a difference in social values shaping the immigration debate. A 2007 joint study from Stanford and UC-Santa Barbara found global elites value achievement and individuality, while blue-collar Americans value loyalty and solidarity. Whereas the “little town blues” hold no value for the “king of the hill” or “top of the list” in New York, loyalty and solidarity bind working-class Americans to their communities. 500 counties create 66% of US GDP, and Hillary Clinton won those - even after calling working-class Americans “racists” in New York. However, Donald Trump won 80% of the nation’s counties - where the forgotten citizens and communities were really hurting.
In short, the root problem of illegal immigration is the economic harm done to native-born Americans by waves of cheap labor competing for scarce and low-paying jobs. If you spend time in America’s forgotten communities, you would understand their grievances are completely legitimate. This problem is real and Mr. Stanley offers a real-world economic solution by addressing after-tax wages, which are the paramount concern of America's hourly workers: non-citizens would have to work longer hours to earn the same take-home pay as citizens in the same job. Brilliant!
Stanley's plan withholds more tax from the non-citizen’s paycheck (to pay for government services), and that single element solves the wage-suppression problem - - because low-skilled immigrants seek the highest take-home pay (just like native-born workers). Higher taxes will encourage non-citizens to seek higher wages, forcing the lowest hourly wages upward when business owners increase hourly wages to attract workers. After supply and demand work their magic, blue-collar Americans will soon regard immigrants as “fair” competition.
This is true, because working-class Americans have historically regarded immigrants favorably, describing them as “family oriented” and “hard workers” and “just like us” (source: Dignity of Working Men– 2002 Harvard University Press). In other words, the attitudes of native-born blue-collar Americans toward immigrants changed recently – and only because of the “greatest reshuffle of individual incomes since the Industrial Revolution” (source: Luxembourg Income Center).
Sadly, Stanley’s logic might be beyond Washington’s aptitudes and attitudes. The DNC wants to campaign against racist Republicans, and the RNC wants to campaign against open-border Democrats. While it is wrong for politics to complicate solutions, candidates hold onto emotional issues that fire up their base. Meanwhile, the little people (of every color) suffer - and grow angrier - until their numbers and votes grow, and a solution to illegal immigration becomes a political mandate.