by Jeb Bush
The problems only start with the initial work visas. Once here, even as they are building lives in America, highly skilled immigrants face severe numerical limits and lengthy waiting periods for green cards, the visas that provide permanent legal residency and lead to citizenship.70 As of 2007, one million skilled workers were waiting for as long as ten years for the 140,000 green cards available each year for skilled workers. Compounding the problem is that no single foreign country can account for more than 7 percent of the green cards, so that highly skilled immigrants from India—who have started more U.S. companies than immigrants from the next four countries combined—are limited to the same 9,800 annual green cards as every other country. Workers on temporary visas cannot switch jobs or even get a promotion without starting the application process all over again, and their spouses often are forbidden to work. As a result, despite their critical importance to the economy, many highly skilled immigrants are returning home or going to other countries, taking their talent and capital with them.71
One American visa quota that often is not filled is for investors—and that is because the requirements, usually including an initial investment of $1 million, are so onerous that few can meet the criteria for one of the 10,000 visas available each year. But even if it were easier to attain such visas, that may not be the best way to promote immigrant-created American businesses. A 2007 study published by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation reported that among American high-technology firms started by immigrants, only 1.6 percent were founded by foreigners who came here for the purpose of starting a business. More than half were created by foreigners who came to the United States to study, and 40 percent were started by immigrants who came here to work.72 Obviously, it is vital to open the pipeline for talented foreign students and workers, not only for the skills they bring but also for the enormous entrepreneurial potential they provide.
But current American immigration policy runs completely contrary to that crucial need. The eight-hundred-pound gorilla in immigration policy is “family reunification.” A sizable majority of visas—nearly two-thirds—are allocated every year for that purpose, with work-based visas and political asylum sharing the remainder.73 Family reunification does not extend only to parents and minor children but to aunts, uncles, cousins, and adult children, who in turn then become entitled to bring in other relatives in a never-ending spiral referred to as “chain migration.” Unlike work-based immigrants, who by definition contribute to the economy, many family-based immigrants do not enter the workforce and are net consumers of social services. Yet, for the most benevolent of reasons, family reunification has become the main driver of immigration policy, with the highly adverse effect of crowding out opportunities for working immigrants who would make a tremendous contribution to American prosperity.
“No other major developed economy gives such a low priority to work-based immigration,” observe economists Pia M. Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny, who report that the United States allocates the smallest share of permanent-resident visas to work-based immigrants.74 The Economist observes that “for more than a decade America has been choking off its supply of foreign talent, like a scuba diver squeezing his own breathing tube.”75
As a result, countries that once looked longingly at America’s economic stature now are taking advantage of its immigration policy follies. At the same time as the share of American visas for economic reasons actually fell from 18 to 13 percent of all visas between 1991 and 2011, it soared in Canada from 18 percent to 67 percent. Indeed, even though it has only one-tenth the population of the United States, Canada issues more employment-based visas than we do.76 Even traditionally insular China and Japan are liberalizing immigration rules for highly skilled professionals.77 Foreign entrepreneurs can obtain a visa in Chile in a few weeks, which has led to the creation of five hundred new companies started by immigrants from thirty-seven countries in only two years. “Many of those who flock to Chilecon Valley, as it has been dubbed, would rather have gone to America, but couldn’t face a decade of immigration humiliation,” reports the Economist.78
That conclusion does not overstate the obstacles our nation places in the path of would-be business creators. Not only are the number of work and business visas limited, but the process of waiting for green cards is long—often taking ten years—and unpredictable. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Alexandra Starr recounts the story of Argentinian entrepreneur Pablo Ambram, who spent three months at a business incubator in San Diego developing a company called Agent Piggy, which uses technology to teach children about financial management. But the process of obtaining a visa was so expensive, uncertain, and time-consuming that he took the business to Chile, where he has raised more than $300,000 and hired four employees.79 It is tragic that workers and entrepreneurs trained in the United States would have little choice but to take their skills, ideas, and capital elsewhere, but that is exactly the result of an immigration policy that squelches opportunities for the best and the brightest to become productive Americans.
Nor is it just people from other countries who are leaving to pursue opportunities outside the United States. So also are highly skilled young adults who were born or raised here by immigrants. The New York Times reported on the alarming phenomenon of children of American immigrants emigrating to their parents’ countries and elsewhere to pursue increased economic opportunities. One immigrant from Taiwan remarked to his son, “I worked so hard to bring you to America and now you want to go back to China?”80 But as more high-tech firms open facilities abroad—and as more countries ease their visa requirements—our nation will lose many of its best and brightest to our economic competitors. Producing engineers and scientists for China is hardly in America’s interest.
Meanwhile, American companies such as Microsoft are opening facilities outside the United States where they are more able to hire or import adequate numbers of skilled workers.81 At the same time as many Americans complain about companies that “outsource” their labor needs, our immigration policies are driving away companies by making it impossible for them to meet their need for talent inside our borders—at tremendous cost in the loss of highly paid jobs, tax revenues, and economic growth and dynamism.
In terms of attracting foreign talent, America’s greatest traditional competitive edge has been its colleges and universities. Giving highly promising foreign students a top-rate postsecondary education—and then keeping many of them here—has been a winning combination that no other country has been able to match. Between one-half and three-quarters of the world’s top colleges and universities are in the United States. Those schools in turn create a talent pipeline into American businesses. A 2004 study found that nearly two-thirds of foreign students receiving doctoral degrees in the United States were still here two years after graduation.82
But America is quickly losing its advantage due to the combination of U.S. immigration restrictions and competition from foreign countries that are catching on to the benefits of attracting foreign students. The number of foreign students studying in the United States fell sharply after 9/11. By 2004, the number of Chinese students in American graduate schools had fallen by 45 percent, and the number of students from the Middle East plunged by half.83 Foreign enrollment began to increase again only in 2006. Meanwhile, foreign student enrollment has been rising at double-digit rates in Europe, Australia, and Canada.84
Moreover, many of the students cannot obtain work visas after they graduate. Every year, American universities train more than a half million international students, but many are forced to return home or go to other countries because of immigration restrictions.85 The perverse by-product of our muddled immigration policy is that while we are failing to capture the enormous investment our schools have made in these students, other countries are reaping the benefit. Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Astronautics, argues that “the idea that by excluding immigrant talent from the U.S. work force we can prevent it from competing with Americans is risible. Rather, by
excluding skilled or educated foreigners, we guarantee that they will compete with American workers and businesses from other countries.”86
Foreign students studying in the United States provide another important benefit as well, for they often embrace Western values and are far less hostile toward America than those who have never spent significant time here. A 2006 survey found that foreigners who traveled here were nearly twice as likely to have a positive image of the United States than those who had not.87 Thus even students who return to their native countries after studying here often benefit the United States from positions of influence by serving as moderating, pro-Western influences. Indeed, a large number of world leaders were trained in American universities and maintain lasting ties that are essential to American diplomacy and interests. Such ties are especially valuable in the Middle East and other Muslim countries that incubate enmity toward our nation.
It is likewise important to recognize that some students come here to acquire learning that they intend to put to malevolent ends when they return home, and a rational immigration policy will seek to separate our friends from our enemies. But we simply must not allow our fear of harm from a small minority of foreign students to force us into isolation, because that isolation itself breeds hostility. The best antidote to anti-Western ideology is exposure to Western ideals. The vast benefits that derive from openness to the talented young people from other countries must be a central driver of immigration policy. We cannot afford to lose our competitive edge in attracting foreign students, but our current immigration policy places us in danger of doing exactly that.
In sum, more than ever before, immigration is our economic lifeblood. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, himself a wildly successful businessman, says that “reforming a broken immigration system is the single most important step the federal government could take to bolster the economy.”88 Among the many steps we need to take to restore American economic growth and prosperity, none offers a more immediate return than improving our immigration system. “Immigration reform has a great advantage over other changes that can increase human capital,” argues Gary Becker. “It is something that can be done almost immediately. If the federal government changed the relevant laws and admitted highly skilled people into the country, the United States would see those new immigrants contributing to the economy within a year. That’s a straightforward step toward greater prosperity, and one that will pay dividends for years to come.”89
By contrast, failure to harness the vitality of immigrants will consign our nation to a bleak future. To ensure future American prosperity means continuing to welcome ample numbers of hardworking newcomers into the American family.
3
THE RULE OF LAW
OUR CALL FOR A NATIONAL POLICY that recognizes the critical importance of immigration is emphatically not a call for open borders. We believe that market forces should be allowed to play a significant role in immigration policy. It is ironic that some of the strongest proponents of an unfettered market in other areas of public policy make an exception for immigration. The number of illegal immigrants sends a strong signal that demand for immigration—both among people who want to come here to work and those wishing to employ them—exceeds supply. Similarly, immigration levels consistently decline in times of economic distress.
But the framers of our Constitution made naturalization a matter of national policy for good reason. Control over immigration and the border is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. Although the vast majority of immigrants come here to work or for family reunification, some come to take advantage of our generosity. Others come to profit from crime. And as became painfully clear on September 11, 2001, still others come to do harm to our nation, our people, and our way of life. We have not only the right but the duty to ensure that those who come here do so for the right reasons.
Similarly, while an adequate supply of hardworking immigrants enriches our nation, we must regulate the flow so as neither to overburden our social services nor inadvertently exacerbate unemployment or depress wages. The latter concern often is overstated: few immigrants are interested in coming to the United States if no economic opportunities are available. But there are many examples of employers hiring illegal immigrants for low wages, creating a black-market economy that eliminates job opportunities for Americans and legal immigrants. Here it is essential that we have an ample supply of workers both for labor-intensive jobs that few Americans want and for highly skilled jobs for which there are inadequate numbers of Americans with the skills to fill them. But it is equally essential that strong deterrents exist to those who try to game the system.
The failure of the rule of law in American immigration policy is manifested vividly in the estimated 11–12 million illegal immigrants residing in our country.1 Unlike the benefits that flow from legal immigration, the costs of illegal immigration are substantial. Although illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare, Social Security, or most health-care benefits, they are eligible for emergency medical services, which are costly (especially given that they often are used for routine medical needs). The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates the cost of illegal immigration from educating children in primary and secondary schools, providing medical services in emergency rooms, and incarceration at $36 billion annually.2 Moreover, children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are citizens and are fully eligible for social services.3 The cost of those services is borne primarily by the states and local governments, many of whose taxpayers are understandably resentful that they must bear the financial burden for failed federal government border enforcement.
By definition, many illegal immigrants live in the shadows of society, often working in the black market, failing to pay their share of taxes, and serving as easy prey for criminals. But in many cases they would not be here were it not for employers who are willing to hire illegal aliens and in turn often exploit them because they are in no position to complain. Those employers enjoy an unfair advantage over competitors who obey the law. Yet despite the existence of strong federal sanctions dating back more than a quarter century for employers who hire illegal immigrants, little effort has been invested in enforcing them.4
That so many people have flouted our laws to unlawfully enter and remain in our nation demonstrates that both our policies and their enforcement are deeply flawed. Further, an immigration policy that is perceived as lawless undermines public support for legal immigration. That is why it is so important not to reward those who have entered our nation unlawfully. The 1986 immigration reforms, which granted amnesty to millions of people who had entered the country illegally and which never fulfilled promises to control the flow of immigration, continue to haunt the immigration debate today. As a result, comprehensive reform proposals that include anything resembling amnesty provoke widespread skepticism and opposition.
Similarly, the common perception that the federal government neither effectively polices the border nor aggressively enforces immigration laws evokes a strong popular backlash, reflected in laws enacted by several states seeking to control illegal immigration. Justice Antonin Scalia eloquently voiced that sentiment in his dissenting opinion to the U.S. Supreme Court opinion that struck down several portions of S.B. 1070. “Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration,” Scalia wrote. “Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so.”5
The backlash against perceived failures by the federal government to enforce immigration laws also manifests in popular support for elected officials who take matters into their own hands. Most prominent among them is the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Joe Arpaio, who has raised millions of dollars nationally to support his political agenda. Despite his initial position that local law enforcement
resources should be focused on serious criminals like human smugglers, Arpaio’s highly publicized immigration sweeps targeted people with broken taillights and netted few illegal immigrants with serious criminal records. At the same time as it was diverting substantial resources to the raids, the sheriff’s office failed to investigate hundreds of sex crimes and allowed tens of thousands of felony warrants to go unserved.6 Yet although Arpaio won reelection in 2012 with a much smaller majority than usual, he remains one of the most popular politicians in Arizona because voters believe he is one of the few elected officials who seriously enforces immigration laws.
States can and should be valuable partners in enforcing immigration policy—but in some circumstances, their laws and enforcement efforts can frustrate national purposes. The failure of the national government to fully engage the states as essential partners in immigration policy, to effectively enforce immigration laws, and to recognize that states bear a disproportionate share of the cost of illegal immigration, all have contributed to recent efforts by states to deal with immigration themselves. It is vitally important to the success of immigration policy that the federal government foster a cooperative rather than adversarial relationship with the states.
Immigration policies adopted unilaterally by the president also undermine the rule of law and public support for immigration reform. The Constitution vests authority over naturalization in the hands of Congress, not the president. Obviously, the president has wide latitude on how to enforce the law, but the law must be enacted by Congress, no matter how maddeningly onerous the legislative process may be.