9 International Trade and Immigration Elite–Mass Conflict

The elite model portrays public policy as a reflection of the interests and values of elites. The model does not necessarily require that elites and masses be locked in conflict—conflict in which elites inevitably prevail at the expense of masses. Rather, the model envisions elites determining the direction of public policy, with the masses largely apathetic and poorly informed and/or heavily influenced by elite views. The model also acknowledges that elites may choose to pursue “public regarding” policies that benefit masses. Nonetheless, critics of the elite model often demand proof of elite–mass conflict over public policy and the subsequent shaping of policy to reflect elite preferences over mass well-being. Indeed, critics often demand proof that elites knowingly pursue policies that benefit themselves while hurting a majority of Americans. While this is not a fair test of elite theory, there is ample evidence that on occasion elites do pursue narrow self-serving interests.

In describing immigration and international trade policy, we rely on the elite model. Arguably, U.S. policy, especially in international trade, serves the interests of the nation’s largest multinational corporations at the expense of average American workers. We will argue that global trade policies have lowered average earnings and increased inequality in America. We will also argue that masses and elites have very different policy preferences regarding immigration.

The Global Economy

International trade—the buying and selling of goods and services between individuals and firms located in different countries—has expanded very rapidly in recent decades. Today, almost one-quarter of the world’s total output is sold in a country other than the one in which it was produced. Today the United States exports about 12 percent of the value of its gross domestic product (GDP) and imports about 17 percent.1 Exports and imports were only about 10 percent of GDP in 1980 (see Figure 9–1). Global competition heavily impacts the American economy.

FIGURE 9–1 U.S. World Trade

The “trade deficit”—the difference between what Americans import from abroad and what they export—has become wider over the years.

SOURCE: Bureau of Economic Analysis, www.bea.gov .

Currently, America’s leading trading partners are Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, Germany, Taiwan, Great Britain, South Korea, France, and Italy (see Figure 9–2). Note that some of these nations (Canada, Japan, Germany, for example) are advanced industrialized economies not unlike our own. But trade with developing countries (Mexico, China, Taiwan, South Korea, for example) is growing rapidly. And, as we shall see, it is trade with these nations that raises the most serious problems for America’s labor force.

Years ago America’s principal imports were oil and agricultural products not grown in the United States, for example, coffee. Today, however, our largest dollar-value imported products are automobiles, followed by office machinery, television sets, clothing, shoes, and toys. Our largest dollar-value exports are aircraft, computers, power generators, and scientific instruments. The United States also exports wheat and corn, which can be harvested with high-tech machinery; it imports fruits, vegetables, and other agricultural products that require harvest by hand.

Changing Elite Preferences for World Trade

Historically, American business supported high tariffs, but as the U.S. economy matured and the costs of global transportation and communication declined, America’s largest corporations began to look beyond the nation’s borders.

FIGURE 9–2 America’s Leading Trading Partners

Canada is our largest trading partner, but goods imported from China and Mexico are growing rapidly; the U.S. has a trade deficit with all of its major trading partners.

SOURCE: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2008, p. 797.

Tariffs.

Tariffs are simply taxes on foreign imports. Prior to World War II, U.S. tariffs on all imported goods averaged 30 to 50 percent in various decades. This suited U.S. manufacturers very well, eliminating most foreign competition from the U.S. market. U.S. firms enjoyed sheltered markets; they could raise prices to levels just below the price of imported goods with their high tariffs attached. Not only did this improve U.S. profit margins, but it also allowed U.S. firms that were less efficient than foreign producers to survive and prosper under the protection of tariffs. The pressure to cut wages and downsize work forces was less that it would be if U.S. firms had to face foreign corporations directly. American consumers, of course, paid higher prices than they otherwise would if foreign goods could enter the country without tariffs. But the U.S. steel, automobile, and electrical appliance industries grew powerful economically and politically.

Quotas.

Trade quotas, in which foreign producers are prohibited from selling more than a specified number of units in the United States, also protect domestic manufacturers. To implement quotas, permits are granted by the U.S. State Department to favored firms in favored nations to sell specified amounts in the U.S. market. Note that quotas do not bring any revenue to the U.S. government as tariffs do; quotas allow the foreign firms exercising them to reap all of the benefits.

Protectionism.

Today supporters of open global markets refer to tariffs, quotas, and other barriers to free trade as “protectionism.” Protectionism, they argue, is inefficient: it not only raises prices for American consumers, but it also directs American capital and labor away from their best uses into aging, inefficient industries. This reduces a nation’s overall productivity and ultimately its standard of living. Moreover, they argue that protectionist policies initiated by the United States invite retaliatory actions by other nations. U.S. exporting industries may be adversely affected by the resulting trade wars.

Enter the Multinationals.

FIGURE 9–3 U.S. Tariff Policy over Time

The U.S. followed a “protectionist” policy with high tariff duties until the late 1940s when it gradually reduced tariffs, creating a virtually free market in the U.S. for foreign goods.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce.

After World War II, the American economy was the most powerful in the world. American manufacturing corporations had few international competitors in most industries. Given their dominant position in world trade, American corporations sought to lower trade barriers around the world. America’s top exporting corporations dictated U.S. trade policy. The Council on Foreign Relations (see Chapter 3) and America’s largest corporations lobbied Congress for reductions in U.S. tariffs in order to encourage other nations to reduce their own tariffs. The result was a rapid decline in average U.S. tariffs (see Figure 9–3). In effect, the United States became an open market. Inasmuch as U.S. firms largely dominated their domestic markets in the 1950s and 1960s (steel, automobiles, aircraft, computers, drugs, electronics, appliances, agriculture, and so forth), they had little fear of foreign competition. On the contrary, they expanded their own international sales, becoming multinational corporations.

Prior to 1980 the United States incurred a positive trade balance, that is, exporting more goods and services than it imported. But since 1980 the United States has incurred balance of trade deficits every year. Nonetheless, today U.S. multinational corporations receive substantial revenues from their exports. Moreover, most have manufacturing facilities as well as sales and distribution staffs worldwide. They stand to gain much more from the globalization of trade than they might lose from domestic competition from foreign firms.

Elite Gains from Trade

The classic argument for free trade is based on the principle of “comparative advantage.” If nations devote more of their resources to the production of those goods that they produce most efficiently, and trade for those goods that other nations produce more efficiently, then all trading nations benefit.

The “Comparative Advantage” Argument.

Trade between two nations can improve efficiency even when one nation is much better at producing aircraft and somewhat better at producing clothing than its trading partner. Comparative advantage focuses on what each nation does relatively better than the other. Trade shifts resources (investment capital, jobs, technology, raw materials, etc.) in each nation toward what each does best. (Imagine a lawyer who is also a faster typist than her secretary. Even though the lawyer is better than her secretary at both law and typing, it makes more sense for her to concentrate on law and leave the typing to her secretary. Their combined output of lawyering and typing will be greater than if each did some of the other’s work.) Over time our nation will shift its resources to its aircraft industry and will import clothing from the other nation, and vice versa. Each nation will benefit more from trading than from trying to produce both airplanes and clothing.

Benefits from Trade.

The efficiencies achieved by trading are said to directly benefit consumers by making available cheaper imported goods. Export industries also benefit when world markets are opened to their products. American exporters benefit directly from sales abroad and they also benefit indirectly when foreign firms are allowed to sell in the American market. This is because sales of foreign goods in America provide foreigners with U.S. dollars which they can use to purchase the goods of America’s exporting industries.

It is also argued that the pressure of competition from foreign-made goods in the American marketplace forces our domestic industries to become more efficient—cutting their costs and improving the quality of their own goods. Trade also quickens the flow of ideas and technology, allowing nations to learn from each other. Finally, trade expands the menu of goods and services available to trading countries. American consumers gain access to everything from exotic foods and foreign-language movies to Porsches, BMWs, and Jaguars.

The World Trade Organization.

A multinational General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) organization was created following World War II for the purpose of regulating international trade. Over the years GATT has been dominated by banking, business, and commercial interests in Western nations seeking multilateral tariff reductions and the relaxation of quotas. They have been especially successful over the years in opening the giant U.S. market to foreign goods. Indeed, average U.S. tariffs fell from more than 30 percent in 1947 to less than 1 percent today.

Through a series of GATT negotiations, known as rounds, a number of rules and regulations were developed that today run to some 30,000 pages. The first rounds dealt with tariffs and rules for trading in goods; later rounds dealt with services, including banking, insurance, telecommunications, hotels and transportation, and finally with the protection of intellectual property—copyrights, patents, and trademarks.

The “Uruguay Round” in 1993 resulted in the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO was given power to adjudicate trading disputes among countries and monitor and enforce the trade agreements under GATT. Countries bring disputes to the WTO if they think their rights under the agreements are being infringed. Judgments by specially appointed independent experts are based on their interpretations of the agreements.

A “Doha Round” of WTO multinational trade negotiations (2001–2008) failed to produce a workable agreement on trade in agricultural and food products.

The WTO describes itself as a “democratic” organization that seeks to “improve the welfare of peoples of member countries” through trade liberalization. But the WTO’s highest decision-making body is its Ministerial Conference, which includes member nations’ trade representatives.

Anti-globalization groups—a mix of labor, environmental, and human rights groups—have mounted demonstrations at various WTO meetings. They charge that the WTO has failed to enforce labor rights or correct labor abuses, that it has failed to protect the environment, and that it disadvantages poorer, less-developed countries.

International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

The IMF’s purpose is to facilitate international trade, allowing nations to borrow to stabilize their balance of trade payments. However, when economically weak nations incur chronic balance of trade deficits and perhaps face deferral or default on international debts, the IMF may condition its loans on changes in a nation’s economic policies. It may require a reduction in a nation’s government deficits by reduced public spending and/or higher taxes, or require a devaluation of its currency, making its exports cheaper and imports more expensive. It may also require the adoption of noninflationary monetary policies. Currently, the IMF as well as the World Bank are actively involved in assisting Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union to convert to free market economies.

The World Bank makes long-term loans, mostly to developing nations, to assist in economic development. It works closely with the IMF in investigating the economic conditions of nations applying for loans and generally imposes IMF requirements on these nations as conditions for loans.

NAFTA.

In 1993 the United States, Canada, and Mexico signed the North American Free Trade Agreement. Objections by labor unions in the United States (and 1992 and 1996 Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot) were drowned out in a torrent of support by the American corporate community, Democrats and Republicans in Congress, President Bill Clinton, and former President George H. W. Bush. NAFTA envisions the removal of tariffs on virtually all products by all three nations over a period of 10 to 15 years. It also allows banking, insurance, and other financial services to cross these borders (see Table 9–1). NAFTA has succeeded in increasing trade between all three nations. The jobs lost by the United States to Mexico have been in lower-paying industries, while the jobs gained have been in higher-paying industries.

TABLE 9–1 Major Provisions of NAFTA NAFTA is the model of U.S.-backed free trade agreements.

SOURCE: Robert Langran and Martin Schnitzer, Government, Business, and the American Economy (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001), p. 285.

Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Currently the United States and the nations of North, Central, and South America are engaged in negotiations designed to create a free trade area throughout most of the Western Hemisphere. The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) is to resemble NAFTA. Barriers to trade and investment are to be progressively eliminated. The rules of the WTO will constitute a base for the FTAA agreements.

FTAA was supposed to be completed by 2005. But the agreement met with serious opposition with the election of an anti-American government in Venezuela, as well as opposition from other South American countries. Opponents argue that FTAA will drive down wages, erode labor union protections, destroy the environment, and increase poverty and inequality. These conditions will result from multinational corporations choosing to move their operations to countries with the lowest wages, fewest regulations, weakest unions, and lowest environmental standards—“a race to the bottom.”

Anti-Dumping Policy.

Dumping—the sale of foreign goods in the U.S. market at prices below those charged in the producing nation—presents a special trade problem. Dumping is often undertaken by foreign firms to introduce new products in the U.S. market; once Americans have accepted the product, prices go up. This pattern has been regularly followed by Japanese automobile manufacturers. Dumping is also undertaken in order to destroy U.S. firms by underselling their products and forcing them out of business. Once foreign producers have driven out U.S. manufacturers, they raise their own prices. Dumping provides only temporary advantages to American consumers.

Dumping is officially illegal. The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 provides that special anti-dumping tariffs may be imposed when it is proven that a product is being sold in the United States at a price lower than that in the domestic market of a foreign producing nation. But it is a difficult and lengthy process for U.S. domestic firms to bring formal complaints to the U.S. government and obtain relief.

Trade Deficits.

For many years the United States has imported a higher dollar value of goods than it has exported. The difference is referred to as a trade deficit (the area in Figure 9–1 between the exports and imports lines). The trade deficit is made up by the transfer of American dollars, government bonds, corporate securities, and so on, to foreign firms. U.S. banks as well as the U.S. Treasury actually benefit from the deficit because it means that foreigners are accepting U.S. paper—currency, bonds, and securities—in exchange for their products. This makes it easier for the U.S. government to fund its own huge debt—selling bonds to foreign investors. U.S. interest payments on this part of the national debt flow out of the country.

Retreat from Free Trade?

The Obama Administration voices its general support for free trade and open markets. Yet its support for trade agreements appears to be contingent upon the inclusion of worker protections and environmental safeguards in future trade agreements with foreign countries. Obama advisors recommend a “major review of trade policies” to ensure that trade agreements “include enforceable labor and environmental standards … and a new focus on ensuring that trade rules help combat climate change and do not impede the essential global energy transformation.”2 They also warn against unfair trade practices and currency manipulation, especially with regard to China. These concerns promise to complicate future trade negotiations with other countries.

“Fast Track” Authority.

Like his predecessors, President Obama seeks “fast track” authority from Congress in negotiating trade agreements—a commitment from Congress to vote on negotiated trade agreements without amendments. It is argued that U.S. trade negotiators will not be taken seriously by other nations at the bargaining table unless Congress agrees to “fast track” agreements.

Mass Losses from Trade

The global economy has produced growth and profit for America’s largest corporations and amply rewarded the nation’s highest skilled workers. Indeed, global trade has raised aggregate income for the nation. But at the same time, it has worsened inequality in America. Elite gains have been accompanied by mass losses.

Stagnating Worker Earnings.

Average hourly and weekly earnings of American workers are no higher today than 30 years ago. In real dollars (controlling for the effects of inflation), average hourly earnings declined from $8.55 in 1973 to $7.40 in 1995 (see Figure 9–4). The economic expansion of the 1990s partially restored real wages. But wages today are only now approaching levels of the 1970s.

FIGURE 9–4 Real Earnings of American Workers

Real (inflation-adjusted) hourly wages for American workers declined in the 1980s and 1990s, and have yet to return to the levels of the 1970s.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov .

Is the huge supply of unskilled labor in the global economy holding down the wages of American workers? Increased trade, especially with less developed economies such as Mexico, China, and India, with their huge numbers of low-wage workers, creates competition for American workers. It is difficult to raise the wage levels of American jobs, especially in labor intensive industries, in the face of such competition. American corporations may initially respond by increasing their investment in capital and technology, making American workers more productive and hence capable of maintaining their high wages. But over time developing nations are acquiring more capital and technology themselves. And U.S. corporations can move their manufacturing plants to low-wage countries, especially to northern Mexico where the transportation costs of moving finished products back to the U.S. market are minimal.

Worsening Inequality.

U.S. export industries have thrived on international trade expansion, adding jobs to the American economy and raising the incomes of their executives and their most highly skilled workers. But the combination of effects of international trade on the American economy—lower wages for less skilled workers and higher wages for executives and highly skilled workers—worsens inequality in the nation. Inequality can worsen even though the aggregate income of the nation rises.

Inequality in America is worsening. The percentage of the nation’s total family income received by the poorest quintile (the lowest 20 percent of income earners) declined from 4.3 percent to 3.4 percent between 1975 and 2005. Meanwhile the percentage of total family income of the highest income earners increased from 43.6 percent of total income to 50.1 percent. Figure 9–5 shows the percentage of losses and gains since 1980 of families in each income class. Lowest income families have lost nearly 25 percent of their share of income over these years, while the highest income families have gained 16 percent of their share. The top 5 percent of families have gained 43 percent.

Policy Options.

Both Democratic and Republican presidents over the past half-century have supported expanded world trade. The U.S. market is the largest in the world and the most open to foreign-made goods. Our policy has been to maintain an open American market while encouraging other nations to do the same. Indeed, the United States has led international efforts to liberalize world trade and investment and to eliminate foreign market barriers to American exports. The efforts include support for the WTO multinational trade agreement; NAFTA, the Canada, Mexico, and U.S. agreement; and a number of bilateral agreements with Japan and other Asian trading partners.

The elite response to declining real wages and worsening inequality is to stress the need for American workers to improve their productivity through better education and increased training. The “solution” found in the Economic Report of the President reads as follows:

Ultimately, the only lasting solution to the increase in wage inequality that results from increased trade is the same as that for wage inequality arising from any other source: better education and increased training, to allow low-income workers to take advantage of the technological changes that raise productivity.3

FIGURE 9–5 Worsening Inequality

Change in Percent Distribution of Family Income by Quintile, 1980–2004. Inequality in income has risen in the U.S.; the highest income groups have increased their share of total family income, while lower income groups lost shares.

SOURCE: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007, p. 450; www.bls.gov .

Elite–Mass Differences over Immigration

The United States accepts more immigrants than all other nations of the world combined. Officially about 1 million legal immigrants come to the United States each year. These are people who are granted permanent residence or “green cards.” Unofficially, perhaps as many as 4 million legal and illegal immigrants cross the nation’s borders each year.4 Some cross the Mexican or Canadian borders surreptitiously or with false documentation. Others simply overstay their tourist or student visas. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) acknowledges about 33 million admissions to the United States each year. Most of these admissions are for tourists, businesspeople, and students. The government does not track visitors, nor does it systematically proceed against individuals who overstay their visas. Estimates of the number of illegal immigrants living in the United States range up to 15 million.

Most immigrants come to the United States for economic opportunity. Currently, the vast majority come from the less developed nations of Asia and Latin America (see Figure 9–6). Most personify the traits we typically think of as American: ambition, perseverance, initiative, and a willingness to work hard. As immigrants have always done, they frequently take dirty, low-paying, thankless jobs that other Americans shun. When they open their own businesses, they often do so in blighted, crime-ridden neighborhoods long since abandoned by other entrepreneurs.

FIGURE 9–6 Sources of Immigration

Currently most immigrants are coming to the United States from Mexico and other Latin American countries as well as from Asia.

SOURCE: Data from the Center for Immigration Studies from the US-Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, 2007.

The Immigration Surge.

The nation’s foreign-born or immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record high of over 38 million people in 2008 (see Figure 9–7). Immigrants now account for over 12 percent of the population. Earlier in the twentieth century, at the peak of the last great surge in immigration, there were fewer immigrants, although they accounted for almost 15 percent of the population.

The recession beginning in 2008 appears to have reduced the flow of immigration somewhat. A weak job market discourages immigration. It has also increased the numbers of immigrants returning to their home countries.

Cultural Conflict.

The politics of immigration center on both cultural and economic issues. Elites, notably the nation’s business and corporate leaders, tend to view immigration in economic terms, principally as an increase in the supply of low-wage workers in the United States. Most middle-class Americans view immigration in cultural terms, principally its impact on the ethnic composition of their communities.

FIGURE 9–7 Immigrants in the U.S., Number and Percent 1900–2008

Immigration has surged since 2000; currently 12.6 percent of the U.S. population is foreign born, almost as high a population of Americans as at the beginning of the century. * Bars represent numbers of immigrants in millions; the line represents the immigrant percentage of the U.S. population.

SOURCE: Center for Immigration Studies, www.cis.org .

While most Americans are themselves the descendants of immigrants (Native Americans constitute about 1 percent of the population), most believe that today’s immigrants are different from earlier waves. Population projections based on current immigration and fertility (birth) rates suggest that the ethnic character of the nation will shift dramatically over time (see Figure 9–8).

America has always been an ethnically pluralist society, but all were expected to adopt American political culture—including individual liberty, economic freedom, political equality, and equality of opportunity—and to learn American history and traditions, as well as the English language. The nation’s motto is “E Pluribus Unum” (from many, one), but opponents of large-scale immigration fear that it currently represents a threat to cultural and political unity.5 There were always Italian, Irish, Polish, Chinese, and other ethnic neighborhoods in big cities. But the children of immigrants, if not immigrants themselves, quickly became “Americanized.” In contrast, today policymakers are divided over whether to protect and preserve language and cultural differences, for example through bilingual education, bilingual language ballots, and “language minority” voting districts (all currently required by amendments and interpretations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965).

FIGURE 9–8 Projected Ethnic Changes in the United States over Time

As a result of both immigration and differences in birthrates, the ethnic composition of the United States will change dramatically by 2050.

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008.

Elite Support of Immigration.

Powerful industry groups that benefit from the availability of legal and illegal immigrants have led the fight in Washington to keep America’s doors open. They have fought not only to expand legal immigration but also to weaken enforcement of laws against illegal immigration.

Current U.S. immigration policy—the admission of more than 1 million legal immigrants per year and weak enforcement of laws against illegal immigration—is largely driven by industry groups seeking to lower their labor costs. Agriculture, construction, restaurants, clothing, and hospitals, for example, all lobby heavily in Washington to weaken immigration laws and their enforcement. Large agribusinesses benefit from a heavy flow of unskilled immigrants who harvest their crops at very low wages. Clothing, textile, and shoe companies that have not already moved their manufacturing overseas are anxious to hire low-paid immigrants for their assembly lines. Even high-tech companies have found that they can recruit skilled computer analysts and data processors from English-speaking developing nations (India, for example) for wages well below those paid to American citizens with similar skills. These business interests frequently operate behind the scenes in Washington, allowing pro-immigration ethnic and religious groups to capture media attention. And indeed, large numbers of Americans identify with the aspirations of people striving to come to the United States, whether legally or illegally. Many Americans still have family and relatives living abroad who may wish to immigrate. Hispanic groups have been especially concerned about immigration enforcement efforts that may lead to discrimination against all Hispanic Americans. Foreign governments, especially Mexico, have also protested U.S. enforcement policies.

National Immigration Policy

America is a nation of immigrants, from the first “boat people,” the Pilgrims, to the later Cuban “balseros” (rafters). Americans are proud of their immigrant heritage and the freedom and opportunity the nation has extended to generations of “huddled masses yearning to be free”—the words emblazoned upon the Statue of Liberty in New York’s harbor. Today about 38 million people, or over 12 percent, of the U.S. population is foreign born.

Legal Immigration.

Immigration policy is a responsibility of the national government. It was not until 1882 that Congress passed the first legislation restricting entry into the United States of persons alleged to be “undesirable” as well as virtually all Asians. Following the end of World War I, Congress passed a comprehensive Immigration Act of 1921 that established maximum numbers of new immigrants each year and set a quota for each foreign country at 3 percent (later reduced to 2 percent) of the number of that nation’s foreign born living in the United States in 1890. These restrictions reflected anti-immigration feelings that were generally directed at the large wave of southern and eastern European, Catholic, and Jewish immigrants (Poland, Russia, Hungary, Italy, Greece) that had entered the United States prior to World War I. It was not until the Immigration Act of 1965 that national-origin quotas were abolished, replaced by preference categories for relatives and family members and professional and skilled persons.

Immigration “Reform.”

Immigration “reform” was the announced goal of Congress in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. It sought to control immigration by placing principal responsibility on employers; it set fines for knowingly hiring an illegal alien. However, it allowed employers to accept many different forms of easily forged documentation and subjected them to penalties for discriminating against legal foreign-born residents. To win political support, the act granted amnesty to illegal aliens who had lived in the United States since 1982. Predictably, the act failed to reduce the flow of either legal or illegal immigrants.

Current Immigration Policy.

Today, roughly 1 million people per year are admitted legally to the United States as “lawful permanent residents” (persons who have relatives who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, or who have needed job skills); or as “refugees,” or “asylees” (persons with “a well-founded fear of persecution” in their country of origin). In addition, more than 33 million people are awarded visas each year to enter the United States for study, pleasure, or business. Federal law recognizes the following categories of noncitizens admitted into the United States:

• Legal immigrants (also “lawful permanent residents” or “permanent resident aliens”). These immigrants are admitted to the United States under a ceiling of 675,000 per year, with some admitted on the basis of job skills but most coming as family members of persons legally residing in the United States. Legal immigrants may work in the United States and apply for citizenship after five years of continuous residence.

• Refugees and asylees. These are persons admitted to the United States because of “a well-founded fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a social group.” (Refugees are persons not yet in the United States; asylees are persons who have already arrived and apply for refugee protection.) They may work in the United States and are eligible for all federal assistance programs.

• Parolees (or persons enjoying “temporary protected status”). These are persons admitted to the United States for humanitarian or medical reasons or whose countries are faced with natural or man-made disasters.

• Legalized aliens (also called “amnesty aliens”). These formerly illegal aliens were given legal status (amnesty) under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. To qualify, they must show some evidence of having resided in the United States since 1982. They may work in the United States and are eligible for all federal assistance programs after five years.

• Nonimmigrants (also “nonresident legal aliens”). Over 33 million people are awarded visas to enter the United States for pleasure and business. Time limits are placed on these visas, usually by stamping a passport. Additionally, students, temporary workers and trainees, transient aliens, and foreign officials are eligible for temporary visas.

Illegal Immigration.

The United States is a free and prosperous society with more than 5,000 miles of borders (2,000 with Mexico) and hundreds of international air- and seaports. In theory, a sovereign nation should be able to maintain secure borders, but in practice the United States has been unwilling and unable to do so. Estimates of illegal immigration vary wildly, from the official U.S. government estimate of 400,000 per year (about 45 percent of the legal immigration), to unofficial estimates ranging up to 4 million per year. The government estimates that about 4 million illegal immigrants currently reside in the United States; unofficial estimates range up to 15 million or more. Many illegal immigrants slip across U.S. borders or enter ports with false documentation, while many more overstay tourist or student visas.

As a free society, the United States is not prepared to undertake massive roundups and summary deportations of millions of illegal residents. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution require that every person (not just citizen) be afforded “due process of law.” ICE may turn back persons at the border or even hold them in detention camps. The Coast Guard may intercept boats at sea and return persons to their country of origin.6 Aliens have no constitutional right to come to the United States. However, once in the United States, whether legally or illegally, every person is entitled to due process of law and equal protection of the laws. Once immigrants set foot on U.S. soil, they are entitled to a fair hearing prior to any government attempt to deport them. Aliens are entitled to apply for asylum and present evidence at a hearing of their “well-founded fear of persecution” if returned to their country. Localized experiments in border enforcement have indicated that illegal immigration can be reduced by half or more with significant increases in Border Patrol personnel and technology.

Immigration and Federalism.

Although the federal government has exclusive power over immigration policy, its decisions have very significant effects on states and communities—on their governmental budgets, on the use of their public services, and even on their social character. Immigration is by no means uniform across the states. On the contrary, legal and illegal immigration are concentrated in a relatively few states. California, Hawaii, New York, Florida, and Texas have the highest proportions of legal immigrants among their populations. And these states, together with Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, and New Jersey, probably have the highest numbers of illegal immigrants as well. Moreover, the populations of particular cities—such as Los Angeles, Miami, El Paso, and San Antonio—may be one-third to one-half foreign born.

The U.S. Supreme Court has mandated that state and local governments may not exclude either legal or illegal immigrants from public education, and—perhaps by implication—from any other benefits or services available to citizens.7 Thus, federal immigration policy heavily impacts state and local budgets, especially in states with disproportionate numbers of immigrants. (Although family “sponsors” may have pledged support of immigrants, and immigrants who become a “public charge” may be deported legally, these provisions of the law are almost never enforced.) Indeed, some states have tried unsuccessfully to sue the federal government to recover the costs of providing services to immigrants.

Welfare Benefits for Immigrants.

California’s Proposition 187 in 1994 set off renewed national debate over immigration. Placed on the ballot by citizen initiative, Proposition 187 denied public education, nonemergency health care, and social service benefits to illegal aliens in that state. Following a highly spirited and well-publicized contest over the initiative, California voters approved it by a solid 59 to 41 percent. However, the Fourteenth Amendment declares that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Federal courts quickly overturned most of the provisions of Proposition 187.

The Fence.

The United States has attempted to stem the tide of illegal immigration by building a 700-mile security fence along portions of its border with Mexico. U.S.–Mexican border extends approximately 2,000 miles, so a 700-miles fence leaves open most of the border area. The fence, however, is directed at sectors of frequent crossing. The fence is controversial: Americans are equally divided over it (favor 49 percent, oppose 48 percent).8

Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Conflict in Washington over immigration policy is intense. To date, conflicting interests have prevented any effective action to halt illegal immigration, or to determine the status of millions of illegal immigrants already living in the United States, or to decide how many immigrants should be admitted each year and what the criteria for their admission should be. Among the diverse interests with a stake in immigration policy are employers seeking to keep immigration as open as possible, millions of illegal immigrants seeking a legal path to citizenship, and citizens seeking border security and opposed to “amnesty” for illegal aliens.

“Comprehensive” immigration reform implies compromises among these interests. In 2007 Congress considered a comprehensive 789-page bill, cosponsored by Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John McCain, that included the following major provisions: strengthening border enforcement, including funding of 700 miles of fencing; granting legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants currently living in the country; providing a path to citizenship that includs criminal background checks, paying fines and fees, and acquiring English proficiency; establishing a temporary (two-year) guest worker program; shifting the criteria for legal immigration from family-based preferences to a greater emphasis on skills and education. But opponents of one or another of these various provisions, both Democrats and Republicans, united to defeat the bill in the U.S. Senate.

It is argued that no program of immigration reform can be successful without first securing America’s borders. Yet doing so involves some controversial measures. The U.S. Border Patrol must be increased in numbers and given improved technology. The current policy of “catch and release”—releasing illegal immigrants into the general population to await a court hearing—must be replaced by expanding the capacity to detain them until their hearings are held and expediting their judicial proceedings—a policy of “catch and return.” Illegal immigrants convicted of a crime must be deported immediately after serving their prison sentences. Finally, cities that offer “sanctuary”—cities that prohibit police from informing U.S. immigration officials of the arrest of illegal immigrants—must be dissuaded from doing so.

Beyond these border enforcement efforts, additional measures could be put into place to deter businesses from hiring illegal immigrants. Social Security numbers could be checked through a national database. Social Security cards must be made more difficult to counterfeit. States could deny drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants and make licenses more difficult to counterfeit.

But immigration reform must also deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants already in the country. And it must recognize the fact that immigrant labor plays an important role in our economy. Some legal channel must be devised for persons currently living illegally in United States to win permanent residency and perhaps even the opportunity for citizenship after living and working in the country for a specified number of years. (The word amnesty is now politically unacceptable; some other term must be used to describe how current illegals can gain legitimate status.) And some sort of highly controlled temporary worker program must be devised to provide the labor that the nation seems to need. But again, these reforms cannot be put in place until the nation’s borders are controlled.

Mass Opinion.

Americans are more concerned that steps be taken to halt the flow of immigrants slipping in at the border than they are about the government developing a plan for dealing with the illegal immigrants already living here. Americans also believe that illegal immigration can be reduced by instituting tough penalties for businesses that hire illegal immigrants. But Americans also believe that undocumented immigrants currently living here should be given a path to citizenship (63 percent) as opposed to the more drastic action of deporting them (18 percent). Among those who support a path to citizenship, the most common requirements mentioned are: have a job (89 percent), learn to speak English (84 percent), pass a health screening test (83 percent), pay all taxes owed on past income earned in the United States (81 percent), and have lived in United States for at least five years (67 percent).9

SUMMARY

The elite model portrays public policy as the preferences of elites. While the model does not assert that these preferences necessarily conflict with the welfare of the masses, it does imply that the elite preferences will prevail in public policy even when opposed by the masses in a democratic society.

1. The principal beneficiaries of the emergence of a global economy and the expansion of U.S. trade have been America’s large multinational corporations.

2. Historically, American business supported high tariffs in order to disadvantage foreign competition in the U.S. market. But after World War II, American industry gained worldwide dominance and changed their policy preference. The United States led the worldwide effort to establish a global marketplace.

3. The principal instruments used to open world markets to U.S. goods were the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) later becoming the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank.

4. In 1993, elite support for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) envisioning the removal of tariffs on virtually all goods traded between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, prevailed over the opposition of American labor unions.

5. The benefits of international trade are unevenly distributed between elites and masses in America. Average real hourly wages of American workers have stagnated since 1970.

6. Global trade appears to have worsened inequality in the United States in recent years. Today, greater differences exist between well-educated and less-educated workers and high-skilled and low-skilled workers than 20 years ago. America’s less-educated, low-skilled workers must now compete against low-wage workers in less developed countries around the world.

7. The United States accepts more immigrants than all other nations of the world combined. More than 1 million legal immigrants enter the United States each year, as well as 3 to 4 million illegal immigrants.

8. Immigration today is higher than at any period in United States history. Most immigration today is from the less developed nations of Asia and Central and South America.

9. Powerful industry groups that benefit from the availability of low-wage workers lobby in Washington to maintain high levels of legal immigration and weaken efforts to reduce illegal immigration.

10. Immigration impacts the states differently, with California, Hawaii, New York, Florida, and Texas reporting the largest numbers of legal immigrants.

Dye, Thomas R. Understanding Public Policy Vitalsource eBook for Ashford University, 13th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions. VitalBook file.