Share This Page

On immigration, ghosts of Christmas past

| Saturday, May 11, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

WASHINGTON

Charles Dickens' “A Christmas Carol” is a gooey confection of seasonal sentiment. It also is an economic manifesto that Dickens hoped would hit with “twenty thousand times the force” of a political tract. It concerned a 19th-century debate that is pertinent to today's argument about immigration.

Last week, a disagreement between two conservative think tanks erupted when The Heritage Foundation excoriated the immigration reform proposed by a bipartisan group of eight senators. Heritage's analysis argues that making 11 million illegal immigrants eligible, more than a decade from now, for welfare state entitlements would have net costs (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $6.3 trillion over the next 50 years.

Fifty-year projections about this or that are not worth the paper they should never have been printed on — think of what 1963 did not know about 2013. Why, then, Heritage's 50-year time horizon? Because 50 years of any significant expenditure is an attention-getting number. And because for more than a decade legalized immigrants would be a net fiscal plus, paying taxes but not receiving benefits.

The libertarian Cato Institute says Heritage insufficiently acknowledges immigration's contributions to economic growth (new businesses, replenishing the workforce as baby boomers retire, etc.). This dynamism, Cato argues, will propel immigrants' upward mobility, reducing the number eligible for means-tested entitlements.

Conservatives correctly criticize those who reject “dynamic scoring” of tax cuts. Such a calculation of the revenue effects of cuts includes assumptions about the effect on economic growth from changed behavior in response to the cuts — especially increased investment and consumption. Opponents of dynamic scoring usually are opponents of tax cuts. Similarly, opponents of increased immigration downplay what Cato stresses — immigration's energizing effects.

Which brings us to Dickens' revolt against Thomas Malthus' pre-capitalist pessimism about the possibility of growth and abundance. “A Christmas Carol” expresses Dickens' modernist rejection of Malthus' theory that population always grows faster than the food supply, so the poor must always be numerous and miserable.

When told that many of the poor “would rather die” than go to the workhouse, Scrooge replies: “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.” But when Scrooge recognizes that Tiny Tim might be part of this surplus, he repents, giving Tim's father, Bob Cratchit, a raise and a Christmas turkey. This was Dickens' representation of the modern triumph of economics over fatalism about social stasis.

Sentimental? Certainly. But also expressive of the 19th century's revolution of expectations. As Sylvia Nasar says in “Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius” (2011), the second half of the 19th century saw “one of the most radical discoveries of all time,” the recognition that mankind's “circumstances were not predetermined, immutable, or utterly impervious to human intervention.” This called for “cheer and activity rather than pessimism and resignation.”

Unfortunately, today's immigration debate occurs during an uncharacteristic American mood of pessimism. Next month, the anemic recovery from the Great Recession will be four years old and many Americans seem resigned to slow growth, sluggish job creation and stalled social mobility. Hence their forebodings about immigration.

Economic facts matter. Complex and consequential, immigration policy should not be made hurriedly. But neither should it be made out of a fatalistic despair about economic dynamism that better immigration policies might foster.

George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and Newsweek.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.