¡Descarga 5th Article Englis y más Apuntes en PDF de Idioma Inglés solo en Docsity!
THE CRUMBLING CASE FOR A MEXICAN BORDER
WALL
Eduardo Porter (6 Sept. 2016) The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/ business/ economy/the-crumbling-case-for-a-mexican-border-wall.html
Is there actually a case for the Wall?
Donald Trump’s boast to build a “big, beautiful” wall along the southern border clearly provided a lift to his candidacy, arguably delivering him the Republican presidential nomination. Along with his promise to deport millions of immigrants who are living in the United States without legal authorization, it remains the leitmotif of his campaign, despite occasional bursts of softer rhetoric.
Mr. Trump is not wrong that immigration from Mexico and other countries in the poorer south over the last quarter-century has injured some American workers who competed with immigrants in the job market. It is not his concern alone; similar fears are shared by organized labor and others on the left of the political spectrum. Improbable as this may sound, the question he raises is legitimate.
But even looking at a best-case situation, the answer is still straightforward : No. Even if you care only about the workers most hurt by new immigrant labor, Mr. Trump’s proposals simply aren’t worth the cost.
In an article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives scheduled to be published this fall, Gordon H. Hanson and Craig McIntosh of the University of California, San Diego, lay out the most obvious reason walling off Mexico would be pointless: Mexicans aren’t coming anymore.
Those arriving in the 1980s and 1990s were born in the 1960s and 1970s, when Mexico’s fertility rate was as high as seven children per woman. Mexico was hit by repeated macroeconomic crises. To Mexicans growing up at the time, the prospect of a job in the prosperous American economy of that era was worth braving the Arizona desert and the Border Patrol.
Mexico is a different country today. It is older. Since 1970, fertility rates have declined to just above the replacement rate of 2.1. Its labor supply is growing at about the same pace as that in the United States. And though Mexico is still much poorer, it is no longer prone to crises and unemployment spikes every couple of years.
“The completion of the demographic transition in most of the Western Hemisphere leaves one to wonder whether the benefits of continued U.S. enforcement spending will justify its costs,” Professors Hanson and McIntosh concluded.
Of course, this won’t settle the argument to the satisfaction of Mr. Trump’s angry base of white working-class men. And perhaps the demographic analysis has blind spots. What about unauthorized immigrants from Africa and the Middle East, where fertility rates remain high, conflicts frequent and job prospects poor?
They might not be stopped with a literal wall — they are more likely to arrive legally and overstay their visa. But don’t they justify spending more on immigration enforcement?
I can’t think of anybody among the ranks of top immigration experts who would make for a better adviser to the Trump campaign than George J. Borjas. Over a long and prolific career, Mr. Borjas, a prominent Harvard economist, has written innumerable papers and books making a case for fewer immigrants and more restrictive immigration policies.
He has advocated a points system to favor more highly skilled migrants, arguing that the quality of immigrants deteriorated since national quotas were abolished in 1965. That opened the door to Mexicans and others of less schooling and skill, more likely to rely on public benefits. Perhaps most uncomfortably for those on the left, he forcefully makes the case that immigration hurts less-skilled Americans, those in most direct competition against low-wage immigrants from south of the border.
But even Mr. Borjas’s dire conclusions about the damage inflicted by immigration on American-born workers makes a weak case for tougher border controls.
Mr. Borjas is not advising Mr. Trump. But he has waded into the political arena, once advising Pete Wilson, a Republican governor of California who ran a successful uphill battle for re-election in 1994 by proposing to bar illegal immigrants from schools and other government services.
Mr. Borjas acknowledges that the immigration surge to the United States from 1990 to 2010 produced a net benefit to the economy — $50 billion a year, according to a report to be published one of these days by the National Academies of Science. Still, he notes, none of this went to workers. Workers who dropped out of high school, he states, lost big.
Professor Borjas’s economic research, outlined in his 2014 book “Immigration Economics” (Harvard University Press) and reiterated in his coming “We Wanted Workers” (W. W. Norton), concluded that the two-decade immigration binge cut the wages of American-born high school dropouts over the long term by 3.1 percent. This penalty, which takes into account how businesses would react by investing more in enterprises that could profit from the new immigrant labor, amounts to about $900 a year.
This analysis has been criticized by other scholars for making assumptions that make the picture look bleaker than it really is. For instance, it assumes that undocumented immigrants without a high school diploma are perfect substitutes for American workers without a high school diploma, an implausible proposition on language grounds alone.
But my argument is blunter: 3.1 percent, so what?
This is not to be callous. Of course $900 makes a difference to a worker making less than $30,000 a year. Nonetheless, a pay cut of 3.1 percent for 10 percent of the American work force seems modest compared with the price tag of ramping up immigration enforcement. What’s more, there are probably cheaper and more effective policies available than walls and police officers on the border.
Today immigration enforcement costs $30 billion a year and, by Mr. Trump’s own account, the border still feels like Swiss cheese. Should that be doubled? Quadrupled? What about the cost of finding and deporting 11 million people who have made their lives in the United States, in many cases having children who have a legal right to stay?
More significantly, perhaps, is the immense cost to the immigrants themselves — measured in lost opportunities to achieve a better life. This may be of no concern to Mr. Trump’s supporters. But it is worth pondering the cost to Mexican stability — and its knock-on effect on the United States — had Mexico suffered through the many crises of the 1980s and 1990s without the escape valve of migration.
And for all Mr. Trump’s charges about immigrants becoming public charges, living at taxpayers ’ expense, noncitizens are barred by law from most means-tested federal programs. While their children benefit from public education, most of those children are United States citizens , and their education is an investment that will pay off down the road, when they grow up to pay their share of taxes.
ORGANIZED LABOR : workers who are organized in trade unions.
PRONE TO: likely to experience something unpleasant
PROLIFIC: productive
RAMP UP: increase in intensity
SAFETY VALVE: a way for excessive pressure or emotion to be freed, in order to avoid an explosion
SCHEDULED: planned; programmed on the calendar
SKILLED: (person): having skills, abilities, training
STRAIGHTFORWARD: unambiguous; easy-to-understand
SURGE : a strong, forward and upward movement, like a wave
TAYPAYER : one who pays a tax or taxes or is subject to taxation; often refers to law- abiding citizens.
UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT : a foreign-born person who doesn’t have a legal right to be or remain in the United States
UPHILL : (1)very difficult (2)up a slope
WADE: (1)to walk while partly immersed in water (2)to get involved in
WAGES: pay per hour, day, week, etc.; earnings
BE WORTH IT : be good enough or have enough importance to be justified
1. Crossword Puzzle : Write the word corresponding to each definition in the
spaces provided. (14 x 2 pts = 28 points)
ACROSS
4.Person who never finishes high school.
6.Disorganized, complicated situation.
8.Value; importance.
- Mechanism that allows liquid or gas through to pass under certain circumstances.
11.Unfeeling and mean.
12.Money earned from working.
13.Set up on a calendar.
14.Document allowing foreigners to live and work in the U.S.A.
DOWN
1.Speak about (something) in a proud, exaggerated way.
2.Big, sudden increase.
3.Send immigrants back to their country of origin
5.Number (of a specific type of immigrants) allowed to enter a country.
7.Person who is contributing tax money and doesn’t want the government to waste their money.
- [talking about a person] Having training and qualifications to work.
3 B S
4 D R O P O U T
E A R
5 P S G
q O T 6 M E S S
u R 7
8 o T t
t 9 10 w a d e
11 c a l L o u S y
K p
I 12 w a g e s
13 S C H E D U L E D y
L e
14 G r e E n c a r d
d
2. TRUE OR FALSE : Read the text and determine if the statements are true or
false according to what is written in the article. If a statement is false or not
clear, then explain why it is not true. (10 x 5 pts = 50 points)
a. __TRUE _ Trump’s promise to construct a border wall helped him win the
presidency.
b. FALSE_ Trump said he would deport millions of illegal immigrants—but
only Mexicans. because this is the leitmotif of his campaign
c. _TRUE __ The number of Mexican immigrants going to the U.S. has been
fairly stable over time.
d. TRUE Mexico’s demographic situation hasn’t changed much in the last
few decades.
e. __FALSE ___ Mr. Borjas is working with Trump on his immigration policies.
Mr. Borjas, a prominent Harvard economist, has written innumerable papers
and books making a case for fewer immigrants and more restrictive
immigration policies
f. false_ Mr. Borjas does not recognize any benefits of immigration
Because the increase in immigration was a benefit for the economy
g. TRUE_ It’s worth spending twice as much money on border control,
because American workers will have better salaries.
- Valve: line
- Callous: line
- Bursh: line
- Uphill: line
- Leitmotif: line
- Bleanker: line
- Ramping: line
- Skilled: line
- Waded: line
- Wages: line
- Mess: line
- Prone: line
- Scheduled: line
- Binge: line
