On Nov. 7th, the CATO Institute held a workshop on innovative approaches to both legal and illegal immigration, and invited me to speak on market-based visas (MBVs).

I would like to reflect on my takeaways from that event.

Before that, though, let me express my gratitude to Alex Nowrasteh of CATO for giving me the opportunity to speak. Also, please note that the comments here reflect only the views of Princeton Policy and not necessarily those of CATO or any other participant at the workshop.

The Approaches to Immigration
During a full day of presentations, experts presented on a variety of approaches to immigration, but overall their proposals could be categorized into three groups: incrementalists, utopians and radicals.

The Incrementalists
Incrementalists typically had sensible, limited proposals which are easily understood and derive from international or historical precedent. For example, one proposal called to increase work visas in line with population growth and GDP; another, to look at rural sponsorship of migrant workers. These can pass if the political winds are properly aligned and can improve policy at the margins. They also have the enviable advantage of simplicity. On the other hand, none of these approaches addresses root causes of illegal immigration. They offer no solution for the plight of millions of undocumented workers and hundreds of thousands of migrants coming across the border (nor were they necessarily intended to).

The Utopians
The utopian proposals typically called for unlimited immigration in return for low, fixed-price visas. Unlimited proposals have lacked adequate analytical elaboration and, in particular, convincing stakeholder analysis. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, Princeton Policy is the only one to have prepared a formal analysis of such a proposal, the 'Strengthening America's Workforce Act' which was recently under consideration in the House.

Utopians face two deal killers. First, unlimited immigration will be categorically rejected on the right as a matter of principle. Second, while such policy will close the unsecured southwest border and end undocumented migrant labor, it is anti-Hispanic in practice. Undocumented immigrants will be prevented from participating in the program under Title 8 Sec 1182, and incoming Mexican and Central American migrants will lose out to larger numbers arriving from South and East Asia. Further, unlimited proposals will be opposed by unions because they expose US labor to large scale, low wage competition from immigrants. As a result, Democrats will not support it. Thus, unlimited immigration, low fixed-price visa proposals will fail to gain traction on either left or right. They are a non-starter.

At the same time, unlimited approaches tend to suck the oxygen out of the room, because they present a universal vision well aligned with libertarian values. Because they are priced-based models -- as are market-based visas (MBVs) -- they tend to have a negative impact on the MBV approach because they look superficially similar. From our perspective, it is high time for proponents of unlimited immigration solutions to clarify how these proposals will find political acceptance or move on to more pragmatic approaches. On a typical day at the border, up to three migrants will die, a few dozen women will be sexually assaulted and a similar number of migrants will be kidnapped and extorted in Mexico; and 1,500 migrants will be arrested by Border Patrol, of which 100 may serve real prison time. And that is not the complete list of pathologies of just another day at the border. I am unable to fathom why we continue to discuss options which fail any reasonable stakeholder analysis when one of the world's worst humanitarian crises unfolds on our border every day. Why is there no sense of urgency and a greater focus on pragmatism?

The Radicals
Market-based visas count as a radical proposal in terms of immigration policy. In terms of traditional black markets, MBVs are nothing more than the application of basic economic theory and a proven track record of legalize-and-tax solutions operating under a kind of Pigouvian tax to try to keep the migrant headcount in a range acceptable to conservatives. They are not radical at all, except in terms of migrant policy.

MBVs are crafted to solve major political issues: closing the unsecured border to illegal immigration and ending the domestic black market in undocumented Hispanic labor. They are Pareto optimal for every major stakeholder group, and they have received enthusiastic, if anecdotal, support from members of the public. There is a very long way to go, but we are systematically working down the checklist-- a key item of which is creating greater understanding and comfort on the conservative side.

MBVs were the only option presented at the CATO workshop which met all the criteria for managing illegal immigration.

The Real World Choices

Therefore, if you are interested in fixing illegal immigration, you must choose one of three options:

First, like the political right, you may pin your hopes on stricter enforcement: "Try harder." If only we try harder, we can close the border. This approach has categorically failed for the last half century for every black market, including the market in migrant labor. Moreover, this approach precipitated the asylum crisis of 2019, an absolute debacle in terms of conservative goals. Enforcement is a failure, and has been for a very long time--something which any competent economist could have easily predicted in 1965. If you're pinning your hopes on enforcement, you should expect 2040 to look a lot like 2020.

On the left, you may pin your hopes on amnesty. Senators Durbin and Hatch proposed the Dream Act in 2001, nearly twenty years ago. The only amnesty which has passed in any form since is Obama's 2012 Executive Order for DACA, and even that hangs by a Trumpian thread. And that was eight years ago. And even if DACA and the Dreamers were passed, it would not close the unsecured southwest border. If fact, it would likely do the opposite. DACA participants will probably obtain some sort of legal status, and some additional amnesty in the 2020s is possible. But maybe not. Amnesty does not address more than a small portion of illegal immigration challenges and has no systemic implications. Counting on amnesty is largely banking on the status quo for another twenty years -- if the last twenty years are to be our guide.

That leaves market-based visas. And that is all it leaves. There was no other suitable proposal at the CATO workshop. And the team at CATO -- Alex Nowrasteh and David Bier -- are very good at their jobs. If there were some Plan B, or C, or D -- they would have given it a hearing. They didn't, because there isn't. Consequently, if you are interested in actually fixing illegal immigration, then you're left with MBVs. It is the only option with the potential to meet the full spectrum of political and policy requirements.

That's my key takeaway from the CATO workshop.