USA invitation to Iraqis

By Andrew J. Bacevich, Wed Jun 27, 4:00 AM ET

Boston - Americans, wrote Robert Kagan and William Kristol in September 2004, "have a profound moral obligation to the Iraqi people." In this one instance, the two well-known neoconservatives got it exactly right. Today we confront the question of how best to acquit that obligation.

For the war's supporters, even as their numbers dwindle, the answer remains self-evident: our moral obligation requires us to persevere until peace is restored and justice guaranteed for all Iraqis. To withdraw prematurely would be tantamount to betrayal. Morally speaking, we have no alternative but to persist. For those keen to stay the course in Iraq, moral reasoning and policy preferences neatly coincide.

For the war's opponents, the issue is more complicated. Those complications include a growing awareness that however great the US responsibility for the situation in Iraq, that responsibility is not one that Americans collectively are shouldering. Instead, "we" have off-loaded our responsibility onto the backs of a relative handful of US troops, many currently serving their second or third combat tour.

While a few bear the burden of the nation's horrific moral obligation, the many carry on as if the Iraq war did not exist. Day by day, as the fighting drags on, "we" are accruing an ever-increasing moral debt not only to the Iraqis whose lives we have upended but also to the soldiers acting as our agents in this enterprise.

How, if at all, can the US discharge its obligations not only to the people of Iraq but to our own soldiers as well?

For the war's supporters, confident that that the "surge" is working, the answer is clear: fight on, winning the victory that Iraqis and the troops both deserve.

For those opposing the war, it's not so easy. However much they may want out of Iraq, few are willing simply to disregard the moral quagmire into which the nation has waded. Leaving Iraqis in the lurch certainly qualifies as problematic. Yet for those who see the war as wrong or ill-advised or merely lost, continuing to send American soldiers to fight and die in such a cause is equally untenable.

A morally acceptable approach to closing down the war will resolve this conundrum, ending the conflict in a way that keeps faith with ordinary Iraqis and with our own troops. In short, the war's opponents must align their moral concerns, which are complex, with their seemingly straightforward policy prescription.

That alignment becomes possible if we recognize that America's obligation is not to Iraq but to Iraqis. As a nation-state, Iraq – awash with sectarian violence and lacking legitimate institutions – can hardly be said to exist. We owe Iraq nothing.

In contrast, we owe the Iraqis whose lives we have blighted quite a lot. We should repay that debt much as we (partially at least) repaid our debt to the people of South Vietnam after 1975: by offering them sanctuary. In the decade after the fall of Saigon, some half-million Vietnamese refugees settled in the United States. Here, they found what they were unable to find in their own country: safety, liberty, and the opportunity for a decent life. It was the least we could do.

The least we can do for Iraqis today is to extend a similar invitation.

At various times, the Bush administration has described US strategy in Iraq this way: As they stand up, we will stand down. At present, a more apt formulation is this one: As we depart, they can come along. To Iraqis seeking to escape the brutality and chaos that we have helped create, the "golden door" into the New World should open. Call it Operation Iraqi Freedom II.

How many Iraqis will accept this invitation is impossible to say. In all probability, they will number in the millions. Accommodating this influx will be an expensive proposition, not least of all because we will have to identify and deny entry to radicals or other potential mischiefmakers. Yet given that the war currently costs $2 billion a week along with 100 or so American deaths each month, Operation Iraqi Freedom II might turn out to be a bargain – it will permit us to cut our losses while doing right by Iraqis and right by American soldiers.

Getting out of Iraq with clean hands is not in the cards. Yet getting out has become an imperative. By tending seriously to the moral issues involved, we may yet end this disastrous war while salvaging some semblance of honor.

• Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, is editor of "The Long War: A New History of US National Security Policy Since World War II."

Monday's column from the Administration's Karl Zinsmeister and Edward Lazear ("Lead Weight or Gold Mine: What are the True Costs of Immigration?" June 25, RCP) is a study in misdirection and misstatement. Since they devote much of their piece to attacking my research, I'd like to set the record straight.
ADVERTISEMENT

Let's start with a brief review of what my research into the fiscal cost of low-skill households has actually found:

* Low-skill individuals (i.e., those without a high school degree) receive far more in benefits and services than they pay in taxes.

* The net fiscal cost of the families headed by low-skill immigrants is not markedly different from the cost of families headed by low-skill non-immigrants.

* Low-skill immigrants receive, on average, three dollars in government benefits for each dollar of taxes paid. This imbalance generates a net cost of $89 billion per year on U.S. taxpayers. Over a lifetime the typical low-skill immigrant household costs taxpayers $1.2 million dollars.

* Immigrants are disproportionately low-skilled. One-third of all immigrants and more than half (50 to 60 percent) of illegal immigrants lack a high school degree.

* In contrast to low- and moderate-skill immigrants, immigrants with college education will pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.

My conclusion: Immigration policy should seek to increase the number of high-skill immigrants entering the country and sharply decrease the number of low-skill, fiscally dependent immigrants.

Future taxpayer costs will only rise under policies that increase the number of low-skill immigrants entering the U.S., their length of stay in the country, or their access to government benefits and services. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the Senate immigration bill does. The cost of amnesty alone will reach $2.6 trillion once the recipients reach retirement age.

To defend this exorbitantly expensive legislation, Zinsmeister and Lazear must resort to inaccurate or misleading assertions. For example, they claim that, under the Senate immigration bill, amnesty recipients will receive little or no welfare.

While the Senate bill would delay most amnesty recipients' access to welfare until some 10 to 13 years after enactment, any of their children born here would have immediate access to all welfare programs, guaranteed for a lifetime.

Moreover, the initial limitation on receipt of means-tested welfare will have only a small effect on governmental costs. The average adult amnesty recipient can be expected to live more than 50 years after receiving his Z visa. Most, then will be fully eligible for welfare during the last 35 to 40 years of their lives. And use of welfare during these years will be heavy.

Zinsmeister and Lazear argue that amnesty recipients must earn access to welfare "the old fashioned way," as if that creates some great protection for taxpayers. Unfortunately, low-skill immigrant families who access the welfare system "the old fashioned way" receive, on average, $10, 500 per year in means-tested welfare benefits, a half-million dollars over a lifetime.

Suggesting that amnesty recipients will be net tax contributors, Zinsmeister and Lazear go so far as to claim they will actually increase the revenue available to support Social Security and Medicare. But this is true for high-skill immigrants only. The majority of those who would receive amnesty are low-skill workers, and another 25 percent have only a high school degree. Experience shows that these immigrant groups will be a net burden to taxpayers over the entire course of their lives.

That reality destroys the authors' suggestion that amnesty will help keep Social Security afloat. In the not too distant future, the Social Security trust fund will be in deficit. Government will have to use general revenues to help pay promised benefits. Since amnesty recipients and their families will consume more government revenues that they contribute, they will undermine the financial support for U.S. retirees even before they reach retirement age themselves.

Zinsmeister and Lazear claim the Senate bill will "sharply improve" the fiscal balance sheet by switching to a merit-based system that will increase the proportion of high-skilled workers among future immigrants.

But the merit system is actually designed to confer citizenship on low-skill "temporary guest workers" rather than bring professionals from abroad. The point system for selecting green card holders is far from merit-based. For example, green card applicants get lots of points if they are working in "high demand" occupations, which include janitor, waitress, sales clerk, fast food worker, freight handler, laborer, grounds keeper, food preparation worker, maid, and house cleaner. With a recommendation from her employer, a high school dropout working in a McDonald's will outscore an applicant with a Ph.D. trying to enter the country from abroad.

Nor do the authors mention that the bill will triple the annual rate of family-chain migration to 440,000 annually, bringing in up to 5.9 million over the next decade. Family-chain immigrants are predominately low-skilled: 60 percent have only a high school degree or less; 38 percent lack a high school degree.

The column falsely asserts that "low-skill immigrants are actually comparatively self-sufficient compared to low skill native households." Actually, wages, tax payments, and reliance on welfare are quite similar for the two groups. Low-skill non-immigrants differ from immigrants primarily because they are more likely to be elderly and therefore less likely to be employed.

The authors accurately note that the children of low-skill immigrants do better than their parents. With higher education levels, they will receive fewer welfare benefits and pay more in taxes. But despite this progress, the children of immigrant dropouts will remain a net drain on taxpayers.

Why so? Because the educational attainments of low-skill immigrants' offspring aren't as elevated as Zinsmeister and Lazear imply. They correctly trumpet that the "children of immigrant parents are 12 percent more likely to obtain a college degree than other natives." They fail to note that the relevant group, children of low-skill immigrants, have below average educational attainments. For example, the children of Hispanic dropout parents are three times more likely to drop out of high school, and 75 percent less likely to have a college degree, than the general population.

The descendents of immigrant dropouts do not become net tax contributors until the third generation. This means that the net fiscal impact of low-skill immigrants will remain negative for 50 to 60 years after their arrival in the U.S.

The main fiscal impact of S.1348 occurs through (1) the grant of amnesty, which gives 12 million predominantly low-skilled, illegal immigrants access to Social Security, Medicare and welfare benefits, and (2) a dramatic increase in chain immigration, also dominated by the low-skilled. Zinsmeister's and Lazear's talk about tax-generating, college-educated immigrants is a red herring, designed to obscure the obvious fiscal consequences of the legislation. Touting "merit-based" provisions that assure only a steady flow of "high tech" waitresses, janitors and fast food workers reveals how indefensible the bill actually is.

High-school dropouts are extremely expensive. It doesn't matter whether they come from Ohio, Tennessee or Mexico. It does matter that the Senate immigration bill would increase the flow of poorly educated immigrants into the U.S. and give millions of poorly educated aliens already here access to government benefits. The bill for U.S. taxpayers will be gargantuan.