A Harvard fellow’s opinion piece on “entrepreneur visas.”  I agree (from an empirical standpoint), but I would add that most immigration fosters job creation, or at least fills out the extreme ends of the labor pool (no/low-skill and very highly skilled).  Couple of points to make.  First, this opinion piece is likely based on some recent research, co-authored by another Harvard Scholar, showing differing attitudes toward high-skilled vs. low-skilled immigrants (see here, gated unfortunately).  This is not to understate the empirical evidence that immigrants are good for the economy, but just to underscore that pro-immigration supporters tend to focus on high-skilled immigrants because even if support is still weak, it’s higher than for low-skilled immigrants.

Secondly, I’m a bit pessimistic about the possibility of nationwide immigration reform anytime soon, although I’ll be the first to admit it’s necessary.  Even though my research focuses on subnational responses to immigration, the patchwork of laws and regulations is baffling (even to so-called experts, like myself), it’s certainly inefficient, and most of it is downright detrimental to state and local economies.  However, the last two major nationwide general immigration laws – the Immigration and Nationality Act (the INS Act) & the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) – were passed in 1965 & 1986 respectively.  Well, based on the timing, maybe we’re due for another major policy change.  We’ve certainly been nibbling around the edges for a while (IIRIRA in ’96 – which slammed shut the door on earned legalization, thereby causing most of the increase in permanent undocumented residents –  REAL ID & Secure Fences in ’05 & ’06, etc.), but the need for immigrant labor and capital is such that I just don’t think anything broadly negative can squeeze through the system, and anything positive (i.e. with some sort of earned legalization or expanded visas as Wilkinson argues) seems unlikely as well.

Finally, while I agree morally with the current immigration policy focus on family reunification, I have to agree with Wilkinson that a more skilled based system is necessary. And, if not to replace the current system, then applied on top of it.  For example, we educate hundreds of thousands of foreign students every year in college, grad school, etc.  It’s nice to get their money and labor for a couple of years (or the better part of a decade for some grad programs), but many would like to stay and I don’t see how that’s a bad thing economically, socially, or otherwise.  But the current system makes it hard, and, I suspect, incentivizes longer stays in grad school to remain on a student visa.

Anyway, I liked the opinion piece and though the focus on high-skilled immigrants was interesting.  Lots of states and municipalities have tailored policy responses – accepting foreign licensing, housing exemptions, etc. – to higher-educated, higher-skilled immigrants and it’s interesting to consider what the feds could do.  However, I have to wonder how the opinions of high-skilled immigrants might change (public opinion interacts with native education) if large numbers started competing for high-skilled jobs? Maybe I could run a survey experiment…

Spending my Friday at Texas A&M at the PRIEC meeting. PRIEC is a consortium of race, immigration, & ethnicity scholars who meet periodically to workshop and discuss research projects, usually in their early stages.  Long story short, it’s great so far, and we haven’t even gotten to the afternoon panels when the immigration scholars are presenting.  Had a good discussion with a UT PhD Candidate about using Inquisit & M-Turk to measure folks’ implicit attitudes.

My heart bleeds for Herman Cain (see here).  Actually, my heart goes out the his accusers, working under the assumption that where there’s smoke there’s fire. A good rule of thumb for personal determinations, not advocating it as a standard of justice, mind you.  More theoretically, this seems to be an excellent example of why “experienced” candidates in the political science literature are almost always found to out-perform newbies in elections, controlling for a host of other factors.  Campaigns, particularly Presidential ones, for all their sensationalism, are very good vetting institutions.  New candidates haven’t ever been through the wringer before.  They don’t know how to respond to attacks or scandals.  They’re unlikely to have the forethought (or funds) to do appropriate opposition research on themselves.  And, surprise, when you get into politics you can’t simply preach to the choir all the time.

Additionally, I personally think it may have to do with the psychology of people who decide to run for office with no experience.  Those folks may not be the most…self-aware people in the world.  I honestly don’t think Cain thinks he did anything wrong, which is disturbing in and off itself. His stunning lack of compassion for the accusers is informative as well.  Although, after flailing with his response, he has settled for the tried and true method of attacking the media (and to a lesser extent the victims), which at least gives him a consistent message, although it’s unlikely to be a winning one.

I think what annoys me most about the general response to this kind of scandal (see Palin, Ryan, etc.) is the “blame the media” strategy.  Seriously, it’s red meat to the right and almost guaranteed to get conservatives to give you a pass on almost anything, but it’s disingenuous and insulting, not to mention a strong indicator of a political amateur.  I understand the temptation to use (and abuse) the strategy; it just gets on my nerves. Plus, the liberal media stuff is empirically B.S., so there’s that.  Obviously, the media chasing scandal stories is only ok when they’re targeting the other guys (really missing the sarcasm punctuation mark today).

Anyway, the constant coverage of the Cain fiasco finally penetrated my self-imposed media blackout and I figured I’d comment.  My advice to Cain: if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.  Oh, and stop (allegedly) sexually harassing and groping women, then blaming the media when they report it.  Makes you look like a jackass, even more than that ridiculous 9-9-9 plan no one is covering right now because you’re an bumbling amateur without the political acumen to buy your way onto a local city council, much less run a country.  Good to get that off my chest.  Back to the dissertation.

Particularly John Sides and Joshua Tucker over at the Monkey Cage.  The permanent link to the specific article I’m referring to is here.  Basically, these guys in particular are pretty good about looking at the empirical evidence concerning whatever “trend” is being reported.   They’re both very good at catching poorly researched, knee-jerk political “news” pieces, and they address the claims by looking at the actual facts and numbers, usually demolishing the argument of the piece.  Johnathan Bernstein at “A plain blog about politics” is good on this as well, although he’s often focused on reversals of public statements by politicians (aka “flip-flopping”) which is also enjoyable but less “sciencey.” Anyway, hooray for Political Scientists!