Immigration and "irrational" voters

Thanks to my brother for pointing out this article at Cato Unbound by an economics professor on the irrationality of voters, which uses immigration as its main example (and, I should say, he sent me the link because it was provocative and not because he agreed with it). The argument is that economists agree that immigration is good for the economy, and therefore voters who disagree are irrational. If voters are wrong, politicians will pursue bad policies in order to win elections.

The Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy asks respondents to say whether "too many immigrants" is a major, minor, or non-reason why the economy is not doing better than it is. 47% of non-economists think it is a major reason; 80% of economists think it is not a reason at all. Economists have many reasons for their contrarian position: they know that specialization and trade enrich Americans and immigrants alike; there is little evidence that immigration noticeably reduces even the wages of low-skilled Americans; and, since immigrants are largely young males, and most government programs support the old, women, and children, immigrants wind up paying more in taxes than they take in benefits.

Even though I have argued many times in this blog for a more open immigration policy, I think his argument is oversimplified. First of all, since 1 out of 5 economists do think it is a reason, are they irrational too? Or just defined as bad economists and therefore not expert? His claims that “experts” find consensus and are "right" is unconvincing, since highly intelligent, capable people can make disastrous policy decisions (just read The Best and the Brightest) that others find repugnant.

But a bigger problem is that “too many immigrants” is the wrong question. A better question is whether illegal immigration has a positive or negative effect on, say, wages of low income groups. Since the recent debate on immigration is focused on the illegal side, any argument about immigration should include the perceptions of that phenomenon. Especially on that point, experts disagree far more than he gives credit for, and if experts disagree, then the public cannot be labeled “irrational” because they receive highly conflicting information (and, unfortunately, some of this information comes from suspect sources like Lou Dobbs).

Here is a possible twist on his argument. Voters are perhaps rational about illegal immigration, because it does have a number of negative effects. However, many are less rational about the optimal solution, which is to find a way to legalize them, rather than to spend money trying to eject people who will come right back anyway. On that point, I would love to see a poll asking people exactly how enforcement-only can work. Then you might point to irrationality.