诺贝尔经济学奖得主克鲁格曼曾这样谈移民问题

陌上美国

这是2006年《纽约时报》发表的诺贝尔经济学奖得主保罗·克鲁格曼(Paul Krugman)谈（非法）移民问题的观点文章，按现在的标准，他们还能登吗？这大概是左派右派在非法移民问题上有基本共识的最后一个阶段了。

政治正确对常识的改变，连一代人的时间都不需要。

最重要的，当时左派还在乎那些低收入的美国工人，要争取他们的选票支持。十年以后，这些人已经被嫌弃成“受教育程度低”、“乡下人”、“白人至上”，诸如此类了。如果你是他们中的一员，是何等的自恨精神才能让自己继续喜欢已经移情别恋的“主流”媒体。

其实不管支持非法移民、合法移民还是美国本土穷工人，都是法制允许的言论和观点自由。但是不要忘记，政治问题往往是一个分饼的事情，一些人的利益是建立在妥协甚至牺牲另一些人的利益之上的。不去多思考如何把饼做大，而只是在已有的资源下做文章的话，其实谁也别抢占道德制高点，因为你并不比你反对的声音更高尚。

Telegram channel，欢迎订阅:

https://t.me/MoshangUS

Telegram加群(下载app修改privacy设置；拷贝群地址用浏览器打开（微信打开无效）；点击“join/进入”)：

https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAE-W0yNiS6DIlGHsKA

中文翻译

“给我你渴望呼吸自由的、疲倦的、贫穷的、拥挤的人群”，艾玛·拉扎鲁斯(Emma Lazarus)写的诗，仍然让我动容。我为美国的移民历史感到骄傲，并感谢美国曾经向我逃离俄罗斯的祖父母敞开大门。

换句话说，我从本能的、感性的角度，支持移民。但是，在关于现代移民，尤其是来自墨西哥的移民现象上，严肃的、中立立场的经济学研究，回顾并揭示了一些令人不安的事实。像我这样对煽动反移民者积极反击的人，也必须承认这些事实。

首先，除了给移民本身带来巨大收益外，移民给美国经济带来的净收益还很小。现实估计表明，自1980年以来，移民带给本土出生的美国人的总收入增加不超过1％。

其次，虽然移民可能会略微提高整体收入，但许多境况最差的土生土长的美国人却是移民问题的受害者，尤其受到那些来自墨西哥的（非法）移民的冲击。由于墨西哥移民的教育程度比美国普通工人低得多，他们增加了技术水平较低的劳动力的供应，从而压低了低收入美国人的工资。哈佛大学的乔治·博尔哈斯(George Borjas)和劳伦斯·卡茨(Lawrence Katz)对这种影响进行的权威的研究估计显示，如果不是墨西哥移民，美国高中辍学的人将多赚8％。

这就是为什么，像小布什总统说的，移民肯做“美国人不会做的工作”，从理论上来说是不对的。美国人做一份工作的意愿，取决于该份工作的薪水，而某些工作薪水太少以致于无法吸引到本土出生的美国人，原因是来自低薪移民的竞争。

最后，现代的美国还是一个福利国家，即使我们的社会保障网仍然存在着许多不该有的漏洞。低技能移民将撼动社保福利体系。

基本的文明礼节要求我们，为移民（一旦他们在这里）提供基础医疗保健，子女教育等。正如瑞士作家马克斯·弗里希(Max Frisch)讲述自己国家的移民经历时，“我们想要劳动力，但来的是有血有肉的人。” 不幸的是，低技能移民无法缴纳足够的税款，来支付清他们享受的福利。

更糟糕的是，对于越讲人道的政府，移民问题越造成更多的压力。加利福尼亚州的（非法）移民问题比德克萨斯州的（非法）移民问题更为严重，德克萨斯州对穷人和不幸者一样严苛，不管他们来自哪里。

但是我们也不应该夸大这些问题。博尔哈斯-卡茨的研究说，在美国日益加剧的不平等中，墨西哥移民影响不是主要的。而且，低技能移民对福利国家在政治上的冲击比财政方面更为严重：光是灾难性的Medicare医疗保险药物法案，对我们社保体系在财务方面的破坏性，就远远超过与非法移民打交道的全部负担。

但是不能因为问题不是最严重就认为不是个事，移民问题正在成为一个主要的政治问题。我们要怎么做？

实际上，我们需要减少低技能移民的流入。主要是指更好地治理非法移民涌入的问题。但是，众议院通过的严厉的反移民立法简直是不道德的，引发了大规模的抗议活动——除其他问题，该法案甚至将向非法移民提供医疗服务定义为犯罪行为。

同时，布什总统的“宾客工人”计划，显然是为公司利益服务的，他们希望拥有一支无法投票的低薪劳动力。它不仅严重违背美国价值观，而且无法解决非法移民对行业工资负面影响的问题。除此之外，由于宾客工人几年后将面临被驱逐出境的际遇，他们不会有动力融入我们的社会。

那么，为宾客工人提供清晰的通往公民途径的计划将如何呢？我依然持谨慎态度，无论该法案的意图是什么，可能最终与布什的计划产生相同的效果——也就是说，它可能会形成一个被永久地剥夺权利的二等公民工人阶级。

我们需要尽快在移民问题上出台方案。但是，我宁愿看到国会在今年未能就任何事情达成共识，也不愿匆忙制定出考虑不周的、背叛我们的道德和民主原则的立法。

英文原文

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," wrote Emma Lazarus, in a poem that still puts a lump in my throat. I'm proud of America's immigrant history, and grateful that the door was open when my grandparents fled Russia.

In other words, I'm instinctively, emotionally pro-immigration. But a review of serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in particular. If people like me are going to respond effectively to anti-immigrant demagogues, we have to acknowledge those facts.

First, the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small. Realistic estimates suggest that immigration since 1980 has raised the total income of native-born Americans by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.

Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration -- especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.

That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays -- and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.

Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should -- and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.

Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, "We wanted a labor force, but human beings came." Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.

Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely. Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of where they were born.

We shouldn't exaggerate these problems. Mexican immigration, says the Borjas-Katz study, has played only a "modest role" in growing U.S. inequality. And the political threat that low-skill immigration poses to the welfare state is more serious than the fiscal threat: the disastrous Medicare drug bill alone does far more to undermine the finances of our social insurance system than the whole burden of dealing with illegal immigrants.

But modest problems are still real problems, and immigration is becoming a major political issue. What are we going to do about it?

Realistically, we'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration. But the harsh anti-immigration legislation passed by the House, which has led to huge protests -- legislation that would, among other things, make it a criminal act to provide an illegal immigrant with medical care -- is simply immoral.

Meanwhile, Mr. Bush's plan for a "guest worker" program is clearly designed by and for corporate interests, who'd love to have a low-wage work force that couldn't vote. Not only is it deeply un-American; it does nothing to reduce the adverse effect of immigration on wages. And because guest workers would face the prospect of deportation after a few years, they would have no incentive to become integrated into our society.

What about a guest-worker program that includes a clearer route to citizenship? I'd still be careful. Whatever the bill's intentions, it could all too easily end up having the same effect as the Bush plan in practice -- that is, it could create a permanent underclass of disenfranchised workers.

We need to do something about immigration, and soon. But I'd rather see Congress fail to agree on anything this year than have it rush into ill-considered legislation that betrays our moral and democratic principles.

原文：

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/opinion/north-of-the-border.html

前文导读

 陌上美国 客观快捷的时评，和美国生活资讯。欢迎扫码或者点击开头蓝字关注。如何联系我们？

工作号微信ID: moshangUS

Email：[e-mail]

Telegram加群(下载app修改privacy设置；拷贝群地址用浏览器打开（微信打开无效）；点击“join/进入”)：

https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAE-W0yNiS6DIlGHsKA

点击左下角“阅读原文”