Boehner et. al. on Immigration Reform: "R. I. P."

[derspiess]

It's not his primary argument to the public, but it does seem to be the pro-amnesty GOP politicians' primary pitch to fellow Republicans.  And I don't doubt that it's their primary motivation (along with appeasing their corporate donors).

[The Minsky Moment]

Of course it's being argued.  It's impossible to get through an article or TV news story about immigration without mention of connection to Latino votes.

So it is being argued by pundits who are analyzing motivations on political talk and news shows.  Not by the people advocating the policy.

I am not questioning that Marco Rubio and bill supporters hope to get Latino votes.  Why shouldn't they want that?

But I have no reason whatsoever to question the genuineness of Rubio's (and the other backers') policy arguments for the bill.

[Razgovory]

It's not his primary argument to the public, but it does seem to be the pro-amnesty GOP politicians' primary pitch to fellow Republicans.  And I don't doubt that it's their primary motivation (along with appeasing their corporate donors).

I know they are Republicans, but isn't it possible they vote a certain way, at least sometimes, because they feel it's the right thing to do?

[The Minsky Moment]

Let's take another example Yi mentioned on page 1 - the Cuban boycott.
The problem with the boycott is not that it is motivated by a desire to pander to the Miami Cuban vote.
The problem with the boycott is that it is a stupid and counter-productive policy.

The pandering aspect is only interesting as an ancillary matter, as a possible explanation of how someone could convince themselves to back a policy in the face of seemingly overwhelming evidence of complete and utter failure.

[derspiess]

It's not his primary argument to the public, but it does seem to be the pro-amnesty GOP politicians' primary pitch to fellow Republicans.  And I don't doubt that it's their primary motivation (along with appeasing their corporate donors).

I know they are Republicans, but isn't it possible they vote a certain way, at least sometimes, because they feel it's the right thing to do?

Absolutely.  Particularly if it's something you happen to agree with them on

[The Minsky Moment]

I think without a truly tight border amnesty is just another way of incentivizing illegal immigration.  This is our third now, isn't it?  Wanna bet how long before the next one?

Let's examine those incentives a little more rigorously.
I assume that the primary motivation for most illegals is economic: they can make more money in the gray labor market here than in their country of origin, even after subtracting out transport costs and risks of incarceration and deportation.
Formally, that would be modelled by looking at the net present value of net income flows expected from dwelling illegally in the US as against the equivalent NPV for staying in Mexico.
In calculating an NPV, one has to know the discount rate.  Since we are talking about subjective preference, this could vary a lot, but my guess is most illegal migrants have pretty high discount rates - they are focusing on what they can earn now and in the near future, not 10-20 years from now.

With that background, how does the possible potential for future amnesty impact incentives.  First of all, it is uncertain as to when or if it will happen or what the eligibility criteria are - so any benefits must be separtely discounted for that.  Second, the next amnesty if it occurs will probably not be for another 10 years or so.  Third, if it follows the pattern on the one in the bill, many of the benefits of the amnesty don't kick in until another 10 years have passed.  Fourth, to take advantage of the amnesty requires significant payments in terms of penalties and taxes that reduce the expected return to the amnesty.  Put it all together you have an uncertain option that carries significant cost to exercise and is not likely to lead to significant benefits until about 15-20 years in the future.  So the impact in terms of increasing NPV of crossing the border is probably quite small.

Or put another way in English, I doubt that a prospective migrant literally "on the fence" is going to be tipped over into migration by the prospect that sometime 10 year from now, he might be able to earn the right to become a permanent US resident 10 years after that if he jumps through a bunch of hoops, fills out lots of paperwork, and pays a bunch of fees and taxes.  I think it is far more likely that learning that wages for picking berries are being raised $.10 an hour for the next 2 months is going to have a bigger impact.

Now take that incentive effect and weight it against the benefits of amnesty now - higher investment in physical and human capital and more new small business formation due to settled expectations and higher payments to the fisc.
Looks like a slam dunk to me.

[Razgovory]

It's not his primary argument to the public, but it does seem to be the pro-amnesty GOP politicians' primary pitch to fellow Republicans.  And I don't doubt that it's their primary motivation (along with appeasing their corporate donors).

I know they are Republicans, but isn't it possible they vote a certain way, at least sometimes, because they feel it's the right thing to do?

Absolutely.  Particularly if it's something you happen to agree with them on

From the political point of view, this is Rubio's issue, and his chance to shine.  By sinking this bill I think it harms in chance to win a Republican Primary.  From the democratic point of view (at least from mine), this is good for Dems since he is the strongest of the "conservative" candidates in the nest Presidential election.  Actually passing the bill, I don't see a major gain for Democrats, besides doing the right thing.  Sure it would be a win for Obama, but he won't be President forever.

[Sheilbh]

So it is being argued by pundits who are analyzing motivations on political talk and news shows.  Not by the people advocating the policy.

I am not questioning that Marco Rubio and bill supporters hope to get Latino votes.  Why shouldn't they want that?

But I have no reason whatsoever to question the genuineness of Rubio's (and the other backers') policy arguments for the bill.

Exactly. I think it's a bit like David Cameron on gay marriage. I've no doubt he thought it would be an easy way for the Tories to show how they've changed and the media were overwhelmingly interested in its role in Tory modernisation. But I also think he sincerely believes that marriage is a really good thing that the government should encourage and that he believes that gays should be able to marry like anyone else.

There's political considerations in there, of course, but I think that can be mixed with 'purer' motives in such a way that even Rubio probably wouldn't be able to say how much of his conviction is driven by political or policy considerations.

On securing the border I think this is relevant:
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-perhaps-less/

I think the combination of more border security and an improved domestic economy have probably had an effect.

I don't understand the problem with the word 'reform' either. I mean it's commonly used by the press. Even the Guardian will refer to the government's 'welfare reforms' or 'education reforms' or their really hated 'NHS reforms'. Similarly the Telegraph has no problem deriding the Lib Dems' attempted 'constitutional reforms'. I don't think 'reform' implies that it's necessarily a good thing.

[Admiral Yi]

Joan: Your purported rigor appears to consist entirely of the assumption of a high discount rate.  Not sure it obtains.  Illegals are usually supporting families at home (not a short-term undertaking), or often have families once they're here.  Another consideration is the desirability of US citizenship: people around the world are lining up for a shot at the American dream.

Shelf: The only UK media I am read regularly is The Economist.  I can't recall them ever using that to describe proposed legislation in that way.

And I know for a fact that no one in the press ever talked about the chances of tax reform passing when referring to Bush's tax cuts or about the chances of intelligence reform passing when talking about the Patriot Act.  To be fair, not every piece of legislation Obama has proposed has gotten labelled in this way either; I've only noticed it with immigration.

[Valmy]

Are the illegals even really a concern? 

Not to you, Languish, and others, no.  But it is for a lot of other folks.

Um...ok any particular reason you are ignoring my entire point there and just taking my question out of context?

[derspiess]

I think this is the part where you clarify your point and tell me how I took it out of context.

[The Minsky Moment]

Joan: Your purported rigor appears to consist entirely of the assumption of a high discount rate.

No it doesn't.  It only assumes *a* discount rate.  Because any reasonable discount rate is going to make the benefits of an amnesty that far out quite small.

Now as a matter of fact, I do think the discount rate is even higher than usual for the reasons stated and I haven't seen anything convincing to the contrary. Yes illegals may be supporting families.  But that means supporting children and migrants thinking about how to support their children are thinking about what happens in the next 0-5 years (i.e. getting food on the table and roof over everyone's head), not 15+ years when most of all of those children will have been reared and left the household. 

As for the "dream" of American citizenship or permanent residency, I would need to see some data or hard argument that establishes that migrants place a value on that above and beyond the benefit it brings of the unquestioned right to work above the table.

I do find it curious that your otherwise homo economicus leanings seem to have deserted you on this issue.  For example, speculating on the value of "dreams" over cash flow.  Or for that matter, reconciling your position re mimumum wages that preventing otherwise voluntary exchanges creates deadweight loss with the notion that labor contracts voluntarily entered into should be blocked simply because it involves crossing an invisible line drawn up by dipomats 170 years ago.

[garbon]

simply because it involves crossing an invisible line drawn up by dipomats 170 years ago.

You had me till this part. This is a bit much.

[The Minsky Moment]

The economic effects of restricting immigration are similar to those of raising the minimum wage: lower total employment, less output, but possibly higher wage levels for those that are employed.  And for the same basic reason: the policy is stopping trades of labor power for money that would otherwise occur in the absence of the policy.

[Admiral Yi]

No it doesn't.  It only assumes *a* discount rate.  Because any reasonable discount rate is going to make the benefits of an amnesty that far out quite small.

Now as a matter of fact, I do think the discount rate is even higher than usual for the reasons stated and I haven't seen anything convincing to the contrary. Yes illegals may be supporting families.  But that means supporting children and migrants thinking about how to support their children are thinking about what happens in the next 0-5 years (i.e. getting food on the table and roof over everyone's head), not 15+ years when most of all of those children will have been reared and left the household. 

As for the "dream" of American citizenship or permanent residency, I would need to see some data or hard argument that establishes that migrants place a value on that above and beyond the benefit it brings of the unquestioned right to work above the table.

I do find it curious that your otherwise homo economicus leanings seem to have deserted you on this issue.  For example, speculating on the value of "dreams" over cash flow.  Or for that matter, reconciling your position re mimumum wages that preventing otherwise voluntary exchanges creates deadweight loss with the notion that labor contracts voluntarily entered into should be blocked simply because it involves crossing an invisible line drawn up by dipomats 170 years ago.

Since we are talking about subjective preference, this could vary a lot, but my guess is most illegal migrants have pretty high discount rates - they are focusing on what they can earn now and in the near future, not 10-20 years from now.

People all the time make decisions that bear fruit 10-20 years in the future: medical school, getting into the right pre-school, not to mention all the legal immigrants who come to this country so that their children can have a better life.  I see no reason to believe that illegal immigrants to the US would think and behave any differently.