I consider we should always all try to carry some inconvenient views. That’s, we should always maintain views about how the world works which may weaken assist for our coverage preferences. For example, I consider that drug legalization would enhance using narcotics. That view is considerably inconvenient, as I assist drug legalization (for all kinds of causes).

A current remark jogs my memory of one other inconvenient view that I maintain. Mark Barbieri instructed:

After I recommend that we may remedy the unlawful immigration coverage by growing the quantity of authorized immigration to accommodate most the those who wish to come right here, instantly there may be one other objection.

[I believe he meant, “solve the illegal immigration problem”.]

I’d prefer to consider that Mark is right, as I assist his coverage suggestion. Sadly, I don’t consider this might remedy the unlawful immigration drawback, for a number of causes:

1. A a lot increased fee of authorized immigration would trigger the US financial system to increase. This may have quite a few results, together with a pointy enhance in housing building in locations like Texas, Arizona and Florida. This building would attract extra immigrants, a few of them unlawful.

2. Authorized immigrants have a lot better alternatives than unlawful immigrants. Thus if we legalized all of the illegals, a brand new wave of illegals would are available in to do the roles that Individuals don’t want to do, equivalent to choosing vegetables and fruit within the sweltering warmth.

To be clear, I consider a coverage of permitting extra authorized immigration would considerably scale back unlawful immigration, and I favor such a coverage for all kinds of causes. However I additionally consider that restrictionists is likely to be a bit dissatisfied within the final results. Thus if there are presently 500,000 unlawful immigrants every year, then even a coverage of permitting an additional 500,000 authorized immigrants wouldn’t drop that quantity to zero. There may nonetheless be one other 200,000 or 300,000 illegals migrating right here every year. In different phrases, whole immigration would enhance, as the consequences would go nicely past simply substitution of 1 kind of immigrant for an additional.

In the long term, it’s higher to keep away from biased reasoning, even when it weakens your argument within the quick run.  Honesty will make your views appear extra credible.  Search the reality and let the chips fall the place they might.

PS.  David Henderson has a current submit discussing the problem of whether or not immigration can scale back inflation.  I don’t consider it might have a lot impression on inflation, because of the Fed’s 2% inflation goal. (It is dependent upon how the Fed reacts.)  Nonetheless, it might need a number of the constructive results that individuals affiliate with inflation discount.  Thus many individuals consider a decrease inflation fee would increase their actual earnings by making their procuring finances go additional.  That’s not essentially true, as lower cost inflation attributable to financial coverage is commonly related to decrease nominal wage inflation.  However immigration really can increase the buying energy of the common client by lowering worth inflation relative to nominal wage inflation.  Thus, whereas immigration could not scale back inflation, it would seemingly produce lots of the advantages that the common particular person associates with much less inflation.  It might not scale back inflation, however it would increase actual incomes.

Immigration does damage some American staff.  However for my part, most staff profit.  That’s overwhelmingly true right here in Orange County, the place immigration has considerably boosted dwelling requirements.