When it comes to the immigration debate in the United States, the focus is always on illegal immigration from Mexico. That's why there's a constant media frenzy about the DREAM Act, "magnets" that attract illegal immigrants and mass deportations.

But the premise that we assume to be true for illegal immigration -- that Mexicans want to live in the US, either legally or illegally -- is likely hugely flawed. I recently watched The Other Side of Immigration, a documentary built around interviews of Mexican workers who illegally entered the US for work. The film points out that enormous government subsidies granted to commercial US farmers make it nearly impossible for independent rural farmers in Mexico to compete, thus compelling many to seek work with better returns in the US. More importantly, however, is that the workers interviewed expressed no desire to stay in the US, and only immigrated here for temporary work and pay (on the contrary, virtually all preferred to live to Mexico).

Assuming the film's portrayal to be accurate, we need to reframe the immigration debate here in the US. If illegal immigrants from Mexico don't want to stay in the US, we should refocus our policymaking on temporary work visas instead of paths to citizenship. And despite over-simplistic calls from some politicians to shut off the "magnets" attracting illegal immigrants, the truth is that the magnets are a result of skimpy domestic investment from Mexico's government, wonky US policies (agriculture subsidies, for example) and a strong demand for cheap labor from domestic farmers (labor that Americans don't seem to want to take on, even in this economy). Sorry, but these aren't issues we can resolve in a matter of days or with a piece of legislation.

There won't be any substantive discussion of real immigration policy in an election year, but when we resume politicking after November, it's clear that we need to do so with a different approach to immigration.

Here's an interesting news bit about the unemployment numbers out today. According to WSJ economics reporter Sundeep Reddy (@Reddy), the jobless numbers for individuals with differing levels of education are wildly different, take a look:

Jobless rate for people 25+ with bachelor's degree drops to 4% in April (from 4.2%). High school grads: 7.9%. No high school diploma: 12.5%

— Sudeep Reddy (@Reddy) May 4, 2012

For those bachelor's degrees, unemployment is a measly 4%. Thinking macroeconomically, that's above full employment, which is typically pegged at 5% to account for structural and frictional unemployment. (In other words, those with bachelor's degrees are doing, well -- quite well). For high school grads, around 8%, and for those without high school diplomas? Nearly 13%

The numbers are pretty clear: having solid access to education is strongly correlated to employment later on. So perhaps Washington needs to refocus. Enough with the austerity measures, enough with tax cuts -- let's double down on education, the real job creator. It makes a real difference.

At first glance, the California High-Speed Rail Authority's decision to start building in the Central Valley may not seem practical. Upon closer analysis, however, the decision is sensible and well-reasoned. Here's why.

If all goes as planned, California will break ground on its proposed high-speed rail system late this year. Linking San Francisco to Los Angeles with trains traveling at speeds of up to 220 MPH is a massive undertaking--and massive undertakings don't come without its due critics.

Of course, critics are part of the democratic process; they often point out legitimate flaws and help shape a better outcome. Yet at other times, criticisms are blown up into false notions that mislead the public. Today, I will argue against the misleading "train to nowhere" mantra of California HSR critics.

A while ago, California won big. The Federal Government allocated billions for investments in HSR, and California scored a relatively generous $3.3 billion package. Combined with matching Prop 1A funds authorized by state voters in 2008 (which total $9.95 billion), California has dedicated $5.2 billion to complete the Initial Construction Section (ICS) from Fresno to Bakersfield in the Central Valley. This decision to begin construction in the Central Valley--California's agriculture heartland--is attracting harsh derision from critics. Perhaps the CHSRA's decision to start building in the Central Valley doesn't seem practical at first. But with a closer analysis, the decision makes a lot of sense.

Let's take a look.

Many critics have lambasted the plan to start construction in the Central Valley. While some want the project stopped altogether, others advocate starting construction in urban areas, such as the San Francisco-San Jose corridor. They reason that, should the state run out of resources to finish the project, the completed portion will be able to attract enough ridership on its own. However, this argument ignores existing rail systems and the basic idea behind HSR. The largest metropolitan areas served by the the proposed system, the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles, already sport developed rail networks. The San Francisco Bay Area is served by ACE, BART and Caltrain, while Los Angeles enjoys the LA Metro and MetroLink. The purpose of HSR is to shuttle passengers between regions of the state quickly and with few stops in between; local transit systems can shuttle commuters from place to place within regions. What California lacks right now is not intra-region transit (although BART, LA Metro can be vastly improved, they do already provide a fundamental service). Rather, California lacks a fast, reliable link between the two largest metropolitan areas of the state.* The proposed ICS begins to fill this missing link by laying the groundwork for high-speed service in the Central Valley which will ultimately connect San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Perhaps just as important, I strongly disagree with the basic notion behind the "train to nowhere" argument. HSR critics consistently suggest that the Central Valley is a poor choice for the ICS because no one lives there. It's easy to see where that argument comes from: oranges and pistachios come to mind sooner than bustling cities when we think of the Central Valley. But the ICS will link Fresno and Bakersfield: Fresno is fifth largest city in California with over 500,000 residents, placing ahead of Sacramento or Oakland in terms of population. (Metro Fresno has over 1 million inhabitants). Bakersfield isn't far behind with 350,000 residents, making it the tenth largest city in California. To top it off, the Central Valley is the fastest growing region in the state. Perhaps it's just me, but the evidence doesn't support the "nowhere" argument. Conversely, the Central Valley was among the hit hardest regions during the recession; jobs provided by the construction of a high-speed line will prove beneficial to the area's economy. (It's also worth noting that the construction industry was one of the hardest hit industries during the recession).

And there are also several technical reasons to begin construction in the Central Valley. First, it gives planners the flexibility to continue building either north to San Jose or south to Los Angeles when the final environmental review and resources are secured for the next construction segment. Second, the Central Valley is the only segment of the proposed HSR system that will enable train testing at 220 MPH. (For safety, speeds in urban areas will be reduced to 125 MPH). Third, should the state abandon the project, the constructed tracks could be easily used for improved rail service on Amtrak's San Joaquin Line instead.

At the end of the day, starting construction of California's HSR system in the Central Valley is just one step of a lengthy process. The Central Valley lies between San Francisco and Los Angeles; if we're going to connect those two regions, we will have to build something in the Central Valley at some point. Nonetheless, given the reasons outlined above, the Central Valley turns out to be a great place to start construction of California's HSR system.

Seems like we're starting "somewhere" after all. Signing off.

*Amtrak service currently connects San Jose and Los Angeles, but service is infrequent and limited to 79 MPH.

Thanks to daveparker for the photo (cc)

In his State of the State Address, Governor Jerry Brown urged lawmakers to authorize the use of state bonds to kick off construction on California's high-speed rail project. The proposed train system, stretching from San Francisco to Los Angeles, would feature speeds of up to 220 mph, enabling commuters to zip from SF to LA in under 3 hours. California voters approved a $9.95 billion bond measure for the project in 2008, and the Federal Government has set aside an additional $3.3 billion for the project. Despite some mishaps and political opposition to the initiative, California should press ahead with the construction of a state-of-the-art HSR system.

With California's population projected to explode to 60 million by 2050, there's no question that we will need an expanded transportation network. We can broaden our transportation choices by investing $98 billion to connect the Bay Area to the Los Angeles Basin with HSR, or we can spend over $170 billion on expanded highways and runways to match the transportation capacity HSR would have provided. From a simply financial standpoint, HSR is undoubtedly less expensive. But tax dollars aside, HSR provides an alternative to the sub-par transportation infrastructure Californians put up with today. Building more roads will not alleviate traffic congestion, and will leave us tied to volatile gasoline prices. (Expanding highways does not reduce congestion. Note that LA's 12-lane freeways are among the most congested in the country). Air travel has deteriorated drastically in the past decade, and there is little reason that would change in the next 30 years. Sticking to the status quo would be an impediment to California's development: standing still is the fastest way to move backwards. HSR provides a service that is competitive with air travel in terms of speed, not susceptible to unpredictable traffic conditions and not tied to fluctuating oil prices. Ultimately, HSR is not a billion-dollar luxury, but a necessary and comparatively inexpensive investment that will support growing transportation needs.

And there's plenty of reason to believe that HSR would work--and work well--in California. For starters, the SF to LA air corridor is already the second most-traveled route in the the United States. Commuters looking for a transit alternative that offers direct service to the city center could very well opt for rails over runways. Furthermore, Americans have already proven that they like fast, reliable train service; Amtrak's Acela Express, which connects Boston, New York and Washington, has already snapped up 55% of the air-rail travel market between Boston and New York. The Acela is so popular that Amtrak earns a profit from its operations despite an average speed of around 80 mph--hardly considered “high-speed” by our Asian and European counterparts.