Written by Richard Butrick   

As bad as the convoluted, deceptive, bribery infused Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill before congress is, the underlying narrative upon which it is based is also hopelessly outdated. The whole discussion regarding immigration is still fatally based on the same old re-energize model that has about as much relevance to today’s realities as the Dick and Jane books of the 20th century have to the realities of childhood in 21st century America.

The basic mantra of the re-energize narrative is that immigrant vitality, innovation and determination is what has been largely responsible for the industrial might, power and growth of the United States. The narrative asserts that without the social readjustment caused by the new ideas and vitality that immigrants bring to the US, the US would have become moribund and set in its ways. It is the challenge of assimilating a new immigrant population with its new ideas and new perspectives that forces the US to constantly re-invent itself.

The narrative is heard from both sides of the isle. On the conservative side here (6/13) is Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, giving his thumb-nail version of the re-energize immigration narrative:

“Immigration is what’s made us economically strong, politically strong, militarily strong, culturally cohesive and strong.”

But it is New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who does the old immigration soft-shoe about as well as anyone. Back in (6/5/11) he made a major immigration policy address before the Council of Foreign Relations and hit all the old heartstring notes about America being built by immigrants and then founded his case on the supposedly obvious inference that what worked in the past is the key to the future. The trouble is the present immigration realities are far removed form the immigration realities of the past and even recent past.

This immigration model for the continued growth and success of the US is very much like business models that select key factors that have contributed to the success of a business in the past and then project that concentrating on said factors is the key to future success.

Unfortunately, the business landscape is littered with the corpses of once successful business that hung on to their business model too long in spite of mounting evidence that the once invincible model was failing. The Focus Management Group, a business consulting firm, makes this very point by contrasting IBM with Sears and Roebuck. IBM, unlike Sears and Roebuck, just barely shifted its business model in time to reverse its decline.

The belief that past success, particularly great success, can set an organization apart from the potential negative impact of changing dynamics is one of the primary causes for business failure. Trapped in the limelight and aura of past glories, businesses tend to progress in a predictable manner, oblivious to the dangers lurking around the corner. IBM continued to fight a tsunami of strategic logic in its insular belief that its dominant mainframe computer technology was the only game in town.

For Bloomberg, the immigration narrative is still the only game in town and a model for framing new immigration policies.

We would not have become a global superpower without the contributions of immigrants who built the railroads and canals that opened up the west, who invented ground-breaking products that revolutionized global commerce, and who pioneered scientific, engineering, and medical advances that made America the most innovative country in the world.

The three key projections that Bloomberg makes as being the way to go to keep America growing and prosperous - projections that are based on the above re-energize narrative - are (1) just like in the past, the US needs to bring in immigrants with the “work, work, work” ethic for our basic industries in agriculture and manufacturing; (2) just like in the past the US needs to bring in tech-savvy immigrants with the “innovate, innovate, innovate” brains and dynamic to keep our industries cutting edge; (3) just like in the past the US needs to bring in immigrants to keep our cities vibrant.

Projection 1

As Bloomberg states, most immigrants in the past came here “with almost nothing except one thing: a desire to work – and work and work and work – to build a better life for themselves and their families.” And, just like in the past, we need the “work, work, work” ethic that immigrants have to keep our basic industries going.

The trouble with this argument is that it is rooted in 19thh century and early 20th century realities. The immigrants who came to America knew they had to work hard to survive. Immigrants today know the US is a fail-safe environment where their kids get a free education. Even undocumented immigrants get

a). Public school enrollment and free or reduced price lunches (many children are U.S. citizens)
b). Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
c). Medicaid (primarily for "non-emergency pregnancy related care and emergency care").
d). Food stamps (for U.S. born children - undocumented immigrants are ineligible to receive food stamps).

Each year, state governments spend an estimated $11 billion to $22 billion to provide welfare to immigrants. Those programs include Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Child Care and Development Fund and even meal programs in public housing.

The highest welfare use rates for immigrants are in New York (30 percent), California (28 percent), Massachusetts (25 percent), and Texas (25 percent).

Even back in 2006 half the California prison population was made up of illegals (more recent data, with Holder as head of the DOJ, is hard to come by):

The U.S. Justice Department estimated that 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time nationally in 2003. Of those, 108,000 were in California. Some estimates show illegals now make up half of California's prison population, creating a massive criminal subculture that strains state budgets and creates a nightmare for local police forces.

This is not the root-hog-or-die environment that past immigrants knew they were facing. And certainly the criminal gangs don’t seem to be driven by quite the same “work, work, work” ethic that Bloomberg had in mind.

Projection 2

Americans don’t have the engineering and scientific talent to make it on their own. Just like in the past, we must import the brightest and best.

First of all, corporations are looking for the most cost-effective talent. The talent is here, it’s just cheaper elsewhere. Check this headline from USA Today (2004)

Workers asked to train foreign replacements

This brutal practice has been going on since at least the 90ties. Let’s see. We don’t have the talent but somehow the talent we do have is good enough to train foreign workers who don’t have the talent?

The knowledge that companies will shop the world for the cheapest talent disincentivizes college students from entering into difficult scientific majors. Although data for 2013 seems difficult to ascertain, the unemployment rate for US engineers in 2009, was “sky high” according this article in Softpedia. The article further notes that laid off engineers are having trouble securing the new engineering jobs being created. Could this have anything to do with the fact that, according to the IEEE, the government has issued more than 900,000 H-1B visas in new, renewal, and exempt categories since 2000, and many of these visas are for high-tech jobs?

Moreover, the idea that, in the age of the internet and internet conferencing, talent must be physically located in the US in order to work for US corporations is ludicrous.

The “talent is not here” is not a born-in-the-USA problem but is a structural problem with complex factors at work. This is a particularly insidious and demoralizing stereotype fobbed off on Americans - especially those deciding on a college major or just entering the job market. Here is an account of a more recent study by the Center For Immigration Studies:

Indeed, the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-partisan Washington, D.C.-based research organization that favors less immigration, found that 1.8 million Americans under age 66 have engineering degrees but not an engineering job.
The study, “Is President Obama Right about Engineers?” is based on data collected by the Census Bureau from the American Community Survey. Dr. Steven Camarota, its author, found the following: 1) 101,000 U.S. engineers looking for a job can’t find any type of work at all; 2) 244,000 engineers are unemployed and have stopped looking for work and 3) 1.5 million engineers have jobs but don’t work as engineers.

Projection 3

Just like in the past, the key to keeping our cities vibrant is big time immigration. Here is Bloomberg again:

There is no greater force for economic revitalization of depressed neighborhoods than an influx of immigrants. The reason is simple: immigrants are dreamers and risk-takers who are driven to succeed, because they know that in America, hard work and talent are rewarded like nowhere else.

Cities in decline? Just throw in the immigrants. Yes. That does help the population decline. But is it a cure for financial woes? Not if Seattle or L.A. are any indication. Detroit is, of course, a disaster. Importing all those “work, work, work”, “innovate, innovate, innovate” immigrants from the Middle East just hasn’t quite worked out. But let’s take the “Baltimore success story.“ The immigrant-magnet solution was promulgated with great fanfare and high expectations. But this now from none other than the Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON -- The Baltimore city government is on a path to financial ruin and must enact major reforms to stave off bankruptcy, according to a 10-year forecast the city commissioned from an outside firm.

Seems like importing all those “work, work, work”, “innovate, innovate, innovate” immigrants is not the magic cure for sclerotic cities. Think about it. That would be like the management of Sears and Roebuck deciding the way to stop their decline is to hire more employees.

And as for what is happening in central California? Try this account by Victor Davis Hanson.

Whatever policies are adopted, they should be based on current realities and not on the three stooges of the re-energize model. Let me conclude with the quote from the Focus Management Group:

The belief that past success, particularly great success, can set an organization apart from the potential negative impact of changing dynamics is one of the primary causes for business failure. Trapped in the limelight and aura of past glories, businesses tend to progress in a predictable manner, oblivious to the dangers lurking around the corner. IBM continued to fight a tsunami of strategic logic in its insular belief that its dominant mainframe computer technology was the only game in town.

Unlike Sears and Roebuck, IBM shifted its business model just barely in time to reverse its decline. Wither the USA? Sears and Roebuck or IBM?