Orson Scott Card and Immigration Policy
I think that most people have one or two topics in their life which, when the subject comes up, they simply can’t keep their mouth shut or know when to quit, and they end up annoying everyone around them until ultimately no one will talk to them anymore about that subject. For me, that topic is immigration. I don’t really know the roots of those feelings, beyond a few books I read in college and occasional debates with folks on the playground. I just know that I’ve irritated nearly everyone I know at least once. I set out now to do it again.
A couple of weeks ago, I touched this topic briefly by linking to a set of statistics suggesting that cities with high levels of Latino immigrants (and, logically, high levels of “illegal” immigrants) have very low crime levels.* Yesterday, I linked to an article in the Economist which illustrated how illegal immigration has fallen as the US economy has tanked, providing evidence (in my opinion) that, contrary to popular myth, folks jumping across the border are not solely interested in sucking on the dole here. But I’ve never really given much time or space on this blog for explaining what I think we should do, so I’ll give it some effort now.**
My wife gave me a copy of a new novel by Orson Scott Card for Christmas, called Ender in Exile.*** In addition to an amazing and compelling plotline, the Ender series has taught me a tremendous amount about ethics and philosophy (Perhaps you think science fiction novels have little to offer in terms of policy analysis? I’ve personally found that to be incorrect more often than not; YMMV) and I’ve become accustomed to finding little bits of brilliance that I want to shout at random people on the street. However, insights into immigration policy have never been among them. Glorious to report, this has now been rectified.
As background: Inhabitants of Earth are spreading out into space to colonize recently-discovered planets. Because room on the ships, as well as resources on the planets, are scarce, the governing bodies want to ensure the proper mix of colonists so as to maximize the probability of a successful colonization. The following is an email between two bureaucrats discussing the optimal policy:
“I had the foolish idea that we should test for desirable and useful traits so that we could assemble ideally balanced teams to the colonies. But we’re not getting such a flood of volunteers that we can afford to be really choosy. And as history shows us, when colonization is voluntary, people will self-select better than any testing system.
“It’s like those foolish attempts to control immigration to America based on the traits that were deemed desirable, when in fact the only trait that defines Americans historically is ‘descended from somebody willing to give up everything to live there.’” (emphasis added)
Holy Markets-in-Everything! Can’t you just feel the awesomeness of that last sentence? It’s like Adam Smith was reincarnated as a Sci-Fi novelist named Orson! Let me explain: Any economist can tell you that the most “efficient” allocation of a resource is that in which the individual who gets the resource is the individual who willing to give up the most to get it. Why shouldn’t this apply to resources like green cards and work permits?
Think about it this way****: If you are constructing a new society, who would you want to invite to live there? Ideally, you would get a bunch of people who are all really educated, wealthy, productive, peaceful, cooperative, etc…right? But, what if none of those people want to live in your new society? Well, isn’t it reasonable to invite those who want to live there the most? This option even holds a self-enforcing mechanism for good short-run behavior: those who most desperately want to get in would engage in behavior that would ensure they remain there happily (i.e., become productive, contributing citizens).
Of course, in the US, we’re not creating a new society, but we are trying to decide which and how many people to let in. The problem is, in contrary to Card’s wise bureaucrat (never thought I’d type those words together!), we’re trying to be really choosy about who gets in–we have all kinds of quotas, family-based rules, sponsor requirements, and other more arbitrary regulations on who gets a green card. We only want wealthy, educated, Westernized white people. The problem is, I don’t think we have a gigantic mass of Germans or Norwegians pounding at our gates to get in.Rather, the mass of applicants is made up largely of those seeking a better life–not a similar life in a different place–and willing to give up their homeland, leave friends and family, and in many cases, risk their lives to obtain it.
The intensity of this desire, and the nobility of the goal is never taken into account over at the INS (check out that link and look at the picture of the smiling lady who wants to help. If you ever actually go to an INS office–I’ve had to a few times–I promise you’ll never see a smiling person behind the desk, and they’ll definitely not ask how they can help you). Certainly I realize that I am completely ignoring the problem of actually measuring a person’s desire–which is no small problem. I know that I am ignoring my cold, unfeeling, inner economist and that I sound like a bleeding heart. I am just saying that Card points out that America’s history–some may call it a great history–was based on voluntary immigration. Only when we became rich and fat did we slam the door shut and decide we need to protect the jobs and lifestyles and culture of the current American citizens.
Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if, when we look upon an “illegal” immigrant, we think first of their sacrifice and intense desire to live in a place we were just born into, and second (or not at all) about how exactly they got here?
As always, criticism is welcome.
*Obviously, this correlation does not prove anything about whether or not an illegal immigrant is more or less likely to commit a given crime; it is just anecdotal evidence against the oft-repeated claim that a disproportionate number of immigrants “are criminals.”
**Some people get on my case for this type of writing in general…criticizing a given policy, but rarely suggesting a better one. I shall attempt to be better at this in the future.
***If you’re familiar with Card’s Ender series, then know that this is a new book filling in the gap between Ender’s Game and Speaker for the Dead. If you’re not familiar with the Ender series, repent and be better!
****Get ready for some seriously bad thinking here. Most of this came to me in the middle of the night, and we all know how that goes.
Wow…Now that I read it myself, that last sentence is so mushy-gushy that I’m almost embarrassed to have written it. Yikes.
Scott
12/31/2008 at 2:23 am
So, this will be no surprise to you Scott, but I think that it bears mentioning.
I think that much of the American distaste in regards to immigration is self-deluded racism. I have met people who express disdain for the Mexicans (they might actually be from any South American country, but it is usually irrelevant to this person, and any attempt to explain that would only serve to further humanize the person in question, which would not be a desirable situation) who are probably here illegally, and are stealing the jobs from honest Americans.
But let’s be a bit more specific: let Elaine Proko , an anti-immigration activist speak for the nays: “We flush our toilets. We don’t let our kids run rampant. We watch that they don’t get into gangs. We don’t let our children run through stores. We don’t ask for free everything, like hospital care. We don’t ask for free insurance. I don’t know any American that hasn’t been willing to pay for their own insurance.” These are some noble “US Americans” she’s representing…http://immigration.freedomblogging.com/2008/07/21/poll-are-socal-anti-illegal-immigration-orgs-hate-groups/#more-802
I don’t mean to be insensitive to those who’ve lost jobs and lay that loss at the door of immigration, but I think that there should be some discussion about what they’re actually railing against. Would they be just as angry at the competition if it were of European origin? Or would that be okay because they’d look like you? Is it really the competition for your job that you don’t like, or is it the person competing? I don’t know that things should change from what they are now, I’m advocating a little bit of honesty about motivation, not sweeping policy reform.
dan
12/31/2008 at 11:17 pm
Agree. Whenever I try to argue that it is in our economic self interest to open borders it falls on deaf ears. It’s like trying to argue to that jim crow laws were bad because they were a barrier to trade and thus inefficient. True, but beside the point. More effective to argue that jim crow/our immigration laws are immoral. They are.
Ryan
12/31/2008 at 11:21 pm
Scott,
It distresses me to be in complete agreement with you for once, and normally I abstain from me-too-ism. It’s like when you say something and I reply, “Isn’t it, though?”, meaning effectively that I like what you said so much that I am going to retroactively steal credit for it. I hope there is credit enough to go around on this one.
I second Ryan’s point even more. You had us at “immoral”. That should be sufficient self-interest for any human being.
Dan Weston
01/01/2009 at 12:54 am
@ Dan (Weston)…
“…in complete agreement with you…”
…(passed out on the floor)…
Scott
01/01/2009 at 1:37 am
@ Dan (first Dan)
That statement from the anti-immigration activist is hilarious…and tragic. I need to do another post about some of the other issues we talked about on the phone the other night.
@ Ryan-
I’m sure exceptions abound, but off the top of my head, I’m finding that (in my world view) inefficient and immoral often go hand in hand. Admittedly, this is MY version of morality, which many others find despicable, but…
@ Dan Weston…
I think you’d find you and I agree on much more than you expect. Given your dislike for me-too-ism, I will now logically conclude from here on out that if you don’t comment on something I say, you agree in full.
Scott
01/01/2009 at 4:56 pm
Dan,
“Would they be just as angry at the competition if it were of European origin?”
I think yes. During the big Ellis Island immigration times, there were plenty of people who were angry at German and Irish immigrants. They were constantly referred to as stupid drunks.
Mormon Heretic
01/01/2009 at 8:30 pm
@ MH…
I actually think your example about the German and Irish immigrants works in Dan’s favor.
His point (as I understood it) is that you can’t call today’s European immigrants the “stupid drunks”…it’s only the “Mexicans” (as Dan described this term) which receive that sort of welcome today. Essentially, today’s Mexican’s are treated like the stupid drunks of 200 years ago.
More to the point, although there was animosity between citizens and early immigrants, there was never the automatic assumption (which we have today against Latinos) that they had no right to be here. Not liking someone and calling them a stupid drunk is far different from seeking legislative action against their ability to exist in a geographic region.
Scott
01/01/2009 at 10:39 pm
Exactly Scott. The Irish and Germans were the punching bags of their day, but they are not today. To elaborate a bit, I think that it’s not just South Americans that are on the receiving end of US racism, it’s ‘Dirty Third-Worlders’. My assertion is basically that if they come from some respected (generally developed) nation, they are likely to receive respect, and it’s acceptable that they move to the US. If immigrants, on the other hand, come from a third-world country, they are more likely to be told they don’t belong unless they are only applying for a job picking lettuce in 110 degree weather.
All this aside, I still don’t think that the tuba belongs in any respectable music that’s not played in a chamber…
dan
01/02/2009 at 6:41 am
This issue makes me crazy. I taught a unit to my 8th graders on Immigration and the Mexican border. I actually had one student raise his hand an say, “Why can’t we just shoot them?” (Those coming across the border illegally). He wasn’t joking and I was aghast. It points to the underlying problem in all this– racism. I agree with your points as well as Dan’s and Ryan’s.
Christina
01/03/2009 at 9:43 pm
“Why can’t we just shoot them?”
Yikes. Sadly, it’s not just 8th graders who feel that way. I know actual, living, breathing, adult humans who share similar feelings.
Scott
01/03/2009 at 11:03 pm
I agree with the basic premise, that open borders are generally preferrable to closed borders, and that it is delusional to think that government decisions regarding which are the “right” type of people to allow in will have any greater chance of success than self-selection by those coming to this country.
I must take issue, however, with the general tone of many of those posting here, because it mirrors a tone which I think turns many off of libertarian ideals. Too many want to lump all those who have qualms about open borders in with the reprehensible statements of the anti-immigration activist:
“But let’s be a bit more specific: let Elaine Proko , an anti-immigration activist speak for the nays:”
I’m sorry, Dan, but it is just as bad for you to tag every person who is opposed to illegal immigration and open borders with the words of Ms. Proko, so shame on you for that particular piece, even if I agree with your distaste of Ms. Proko and others like her.
My own personal belief is that most people who have serious doubts about immigration aren’t racist. They are more culturalist than anything else, in that they are concerned about the impact on the culture which they know and are comfortable with. All waves of immigration have changed the culture, and that is why you had opposition to European culture earlier in our history. Any new immigration will shift cultural norms, and people get nervous about that. I personally love latino culture, food, etc., having spent time in Latin America, so I’m very much in favor of a cultural shift, but not everyone is as comfortable with it as I am, and there will always be some resistance.
Now, that doesn’t mean that those people can’t be persuaded to the benefits of immigration, if those of us who believe in open borders spend our time educating and persuading, instead of calling them all racists. Funny how that rarely accomplishes the goal of changing hearts and minds…
On the topic of immigration generally, I have a couple of thoughts. I am in favor of much higher numbers of immigrants allowed, and I am in favor of making it much more of a first-come, first-serve process, so that the government isn’t trying to pick who will make the “best” Americans. I am not in favor of simply granting amnesty to those who came illegally, however, because the one part of latino culture that I am a little wary of is that respect for the rule of law is not nearly as strong in Latin America as it is here, and I think that forgiving lawlessness on the part of those who immigrated illegally will allow the rule of law to be further degraded in our country. That is troublesome to me because I think that an efficient market requires a respect for the rule of law. I also think that a country has a legitimate reason to want to conduct a basic screening on those who want to enter (very basic, I might add).
So, here’s my proposal. Declare that we will soon be increasing the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country every year ten-fold, one hundred-fold, or even higher, and that the process will be simplified so that the hoops to jump through will be far less onerous (I’m thinking that a four month wait for approval should be possible). Declare also that anyone currently in the country illegally can leave right now and get in line to be re-admitted as legal immigrants, without any penalty for having come illegally in the first place, but only if they leave and return to their country or origin prior to a date certain. Anyone remaining in the country after that date certain will be unable to ever obtain citizenship. Declare also that a high-tech fence will be built along the entire southern border of the Country, thus making crossing illegally much more difficult.
Under such a program, everyone would have the proper incentives to jump through the hoops to enter, thus increasing respect for the rule of law. Increase negative incentives (higher costs of sneaking in) and decrease costs of entering legally (MUCH higher limits on legal immigration and reduced complexity of the application process). We would also know who is entering, which would calm those who have legitimate national security concerns.
justkidding
01/10/2009 at 6:06 pm
@ Just Kidding
Great response. You should re-publish the comment as a regular post on the main site page.
Scott
01/10/2009 at 10:44 pm