In a column published today in Human Events Online, Cato's Alan Reynolds heaps criticism on Robert Rector's analysis of the Senate's immigration proposal. Reynold's complaints are fairly pointless.
To begin with, Reynolds makes a few mistakes.
First, Reynolds focuses on "the larger estimate of 217 million legal immigrants by 2026." But Rector's focus was not on this number, which he clearly identified in his paper and in presenting his work, as the theoretical maximum that would be permitted to enter under the bill. Rector put forward an estimate of 103 million as a more likely estimate. While certainly debatable (as any long-term projection will be), this figure is based on solid demographic projection and a careful reading of the Senate legislation. In his column, Reynolds actually doesn't dispute the way in which Rector arrived at this figure.
Second, Reynolds seems to be unaware that for every worker who immigrates, about 1.2 dependents come over, as well. At least, this has been the historical average.
Third, Reynolds writes that "The bill's sponsors have, in fact, reduced the proposed number of temporary six-year work visas to 200,000." This is half-true. An amendment along these lines from Sen. Bingaman was successful. All of the sponsors of the Senate plan, however, voted against it. This is some evidence that the sponsors of the legislation thought that the higher numbers of the unamended legislation were important, even if Reynolds does not.
As mentioned above, for all his criticisms, Reynolds has no direct and substantive points that undermine Rector's work and cannot refute that the legislation as proposed would allow what Rector projects. His strongest point in this vein is that "Nobody could possibly believe legal immigration is suddenly going to jump from about 1 million a year to nearly 11 million." It is true--it is hard to believe. But that's what the legislation, as drafted and before amendments, would have allowed.
To be sure, as Reynolds writes, "Congress could also reduce the number," as they did with the Bingaman amendment. But if anything, this bolsters Rector's work--why would Congress reduce a number that's wrong or somehow misleading, as Reynolds implies it is?
So the bottom line is that Reynolds seems to have no corrections to make to Rector's estimates and merely notes that Congress could change the law at some point in the future to reduce the number of immigrants allowed into the country. Because that is a possibility, Rector's estimates are, to Reynolds, "inane nonsense" and "cheap tricks."
But if Congress sees fit to put caps and limits in its legislation, aren't they there for a reason? That the legislation's sponsors would not vote to lower these caps modestly is some indication that they were significant. But Reynolds would have an analyst of immigration legislation ignore what's actually in the legislation because the numbers somehow don't matter and Congress could always make future changes, anyway. Is that really convincing?
Watch for a more meaty response from Rector himself in the days ahead.
