Daily Archives: 29 August 2012

Some Immigration Musings

Posted on by
1

Former Governor, Ambassador, and Republican Presidential Candidate Jon Huntsman had some thoughts on immigration in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.  His heart is in the right place, but his thoughts are incomplete and naïve.

Huntsman rightly points out the importance of immigrants to our nation’s economy and to our freshness of thought.  He also rightly reviews past mistakes we’ve made vis-à-vis immigration—the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, the 1907 Gentleman’s Agreement, the 1924 Immigration Act, among others.

But he offers nothing concrete in the way of a solution beyond the usual “need to improve our visa system” and “need to recruit immigrants.”  But he does add this:

Such initiatives won’t only bring talent here—they will allow us to deny it to our competitors.

Sure.  Immigrants are pieces of meat, or tools to be used to our advantage and against other nations in a zero sum game.

Cue Bill the Cat.  This drivel is of a piece with the Progressive claptrap that says all blacks must be Democrats or they’re traitors to their race, that gays must be Liberals, or they’re self-hating…whatever.

No.  We should be welcoming immigrants because they’re human beings who want to make something better of their lives and their families’ lives and they have something to offer our nation—not because they have something to offer.

Note, though, that the visa games Huntsman rightly decries do need to stop; this is an important component to real immigration reform.  But there’s far more to this than just putting paid to some visa quota nonsense.  We need to make it much easier for folks who want to come here to do so easily.  The delays in getting visas need to be eliminated.  The visa system needs to be simplified: there really only needs to be three kinds of visas: residency, visitor, and business.  And I’m not convinced three categories really are necessary.  All categories should offer a path to citizenship, but that decision should be take-able by the immigrant (or resident alien, if he just wants to live here) at any time, or never, without impacting his visa.

It needs to be far easier physically to cross our borders, too.  Entry stations should be far more closely spaced, and not at all limited to urban areas.  This, just incidentally, will severely hamper human trafficking as the mules (and worse) will find their services needed far less.

But legal entry into our country is only one leg of the stool of immigration reform.  Sitting opposite that easy entry is a need to tightly secure our borders.  There really are folks who want to enter under the radar because their hearts are not pure and their goals are nefarious: drug traffickers and terrorists come to mind.  Accordingly, it ought to be hard to enter without a visa and at any place other than a check point.  This will require improvements and expansion in border patrols, surveillance equipment, and so on—and not just at the borders, but in depth.

And the third leg.  What do we do about the illegal aliens that are present?  Justice—to Americans, to aliens who have entered legally (maybe especially to them, since they’ve grunted through our Byzantine entry mazes and still got in legally), to existing immigrants—demands that the illegal aliens not be given a pass.  Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D, IL) and Senator Marco Rubio (R, FL) both have partial solutions that are worth building on in this area.

Most importantly, and making reform harder to do, all three legs of this reform must be done together.  No one of these is sufficient, and if less than all are done, the imbalance will just blow up the effort.

Government Market Intervention European Style

Posted on by
Reply

From The Wall Street Journal we learn that that the European Central Bank wants to “manage” the interest rates on member nations’ sovereign debt instruments, and it wants to do so by entering the market for government bonds—announcing its buys and sells in a manner intended to “influence” the market’s interest rates imposed on those governments’ borrowings.  The WSJ quotes the ubiquitous “person familiar with the matter” as saying

ECB would guide investors toward a target, or range, for government bond yields of Spain and others by publicly communicating specifics about the amount of the bond purchases it conducts, as well as the details on the types of bonds it buys. For instance, if the central bank says it bought €1 billion ($1.26 billion) worth of shorter-dated Spanish bonds, it could move investors toward the yields it deems appropriate by raising or lowering purchases in subsequent weeks.

But the real thinking was revealed by the ECB’s President, Mario Draghi.  “Exceptionally high” risks are embedded in many government bonds markets, the WSJ cites him as saying, and to the extent to which these “risk premia” include a euro breakup scenario, they are “unacceptable.”  Thus, the market should sit down, shut up, and do what its betters tell them to do.  Investors’ pricings on exploding debt will not be tolerated.  Their duty is to simply keep lending at rates their Betters dictate.

Never mind that, as the Bundesbank’s Jens Weidmann puts it,

In democracies, Parliaments, not central banks, should decide about such comprehensive sharing of risks[.]

He’s not one of the Know Betters, so he’s just whispering in the wind.

***

Then we have this from Spain, in particular.  The government says it expects the Spanish economy to contract 1.7% this year, despite growing exports (from the declining euro more than any real productivity-related effects), and it will contract next year by an additional 0.5%.  Yet that same Spanish government fully intends to impose “billions of euros” in tax increases over these next two years (along with allegedly large spending cuts).  You read that right.  In a contracting economy, the government fully intends to take a ton of money out of the private sector: it intends to defund the very part of the economy that is the engine of economic prosperity—and here, of economic recovery.

***

And then there’s this.  The Obamacare Independent Payment Advisory Board, consisting of “15 philosopher kings,” is starting to be set up, although we don’t get to know who these kadi are until after the election this fall.  This Board will have the power to dictate prices to all participants in the health care industry: hospitals, doctors, insurers, patients alike.  No market forces at all here.  And yes, there will be plenty of patients: customer participation is mandatory.  Of course there’ll be fewer and fewer providers as these are driven out of business by the Board’s price controls; this will turn the Board into a Death Panel.  A third example of government market intervention European style.