barry chiswick

Barry R. Chiswick

Economics professor formerly of University of Illinois and now with George Washington University. An American Enterprise Institute Adjunct Scholar who at least supports massive skilled immigration (aei.org/scholar/barry-r-chiswick).

Last modified Mar 22, 2012
Discussed in (click each link for the full post):

Cato immigration conference April 26, 2012: let's discredit them (CFR, Lofgren, Jacoby, Federal Reserve, NIF, NFAP) - 03/22/12

On April 26, 2012, the Cato Institute will be conducting an all-day conference ("Is Immigration Good for America?") supporting massive immigration. I urge anyone who'll be in the Washington DC area to attend with the goal of discrediting them as will be described below.

Hilda Solis to prefer labor enforcement to immigration enforcement? (Tyche Hendricks) - 02/04/09

Tyche Hendricks of the San Francisco Chronicle offers "Obama's labor secretary pick backs enforcement" (link); the title isn't as misleading as one might first think since Hendricks is referring to Hilda Solis's position on labor enforcement and not on immigration enforcement; Solis is especially weak on the latter. However, the goal of the article seems to be to try to sell us a new way for the Democrats to have their cake and eat it too:

President Obama's pick for secretary of labor, Rep. Hilda Solis, could help shape a new approach to immigration control that emphasizes the robust enforcement of labor laws... Immigrant advocates hope that strengthening compliance with workplace health and safety laws and wage and hour standards - which Solis promised in her hearing before the labor committee in January - will protect workers in general and could reduce the likelihood that some employers will seek to profit by hiring undocumented workers...

And, that probably wouldn't work. As I said over three years ago:

Of course, all the millions of illegal aliens who'd come here to take advantage of this would then either: reduce many more jobs to near minimum wage, or they'd end up unemployed and obtaining welfare benefits, or they'd end up working illegally. Or, all three at various stages.

The only way to reduce illegal immigration and its impacts is to actually enforce the immigration laws. Anything else is just a scam.

On the bright side, Randel Johnson of the US Chamber of Commerce is quoted opposing any scheme like this, and if it were pushed that might cause a rift in the sleazy alliance between far-left illegal immigration supporters and business interests. University of Illinois economics Professor Barry Chiswick says the scheme probably won't work to reduce illegal immigration, instead suggesting the use of eVerify.

Hendricks quotes Don Kerwin from the Migration Policy Institute as supportive of such a scheme, and also quotes Nathan Newman of the Progressive States Network as saying:

"Hilda Solis understands these issues... Most complaints come from workers. If you want employers afraid to exploit workers, you don't want the kind of ICE enforcement that keeps workers scared to come forward. ... Labor law enforcement is the one (approach) that can make sure people aren't being pulled into this country by low wages."

With the lax control over immigration that Newman et al want, it's difficult to see how their plan wouldn't end in a disaster of most low-skill jobs falling to the minimum wage. Whose interests would such a plan serve?