I’ve already proffered one bet to my immigration sparring partners: i.e., that in a year’s time, we should review the immigration records of the new members of Congress to see whether they won by tacking restrictionist on immigration, as some have contended, or less restrictionist, as I contended. That bet was easy, which is why I’ve had no takers.

Here’s a bet that’s hard. In my study “Immigration and the Wealth of States,” I chronicled the superior employment stats of high-immigration states during the high-immigration years 2000-to-2007. I explained this on the basis of classical “laissez passer” theory — that states with freer labor markets, like those with lower taxes and less regulation, would generally allocate capital more efficiently, generating better numbers across a whole range of economic statistics — including income and employment.

In the midst of a severe economic downturn, some of my critics hypothesize that public policy should remove illegals to eliminate the “oversupply” of labor, and the attendant downward drag on wages. I would contend the opposite: that relative freedom in the labor flows will prove curative, certainly in comparison to the old Hoover-FDR attempts to “support” wages.

Regarding the impact of illegal aliens on unemployment during a recession: Here is what I expect, where I expect it, and an arbitrary time frame (to give Keynesians a sporting chance): In the states whose labor forces contain the highest portion of illegals as a percentage of their total work force, unemployment will spike more abruptly than in other portions of the nation, due to the “last hired, first fired” nature of much low-wage labor in construction, hospitality, and dining. But I further predict that over time, these states will heal more rapidly than those in which low-cost labor is in lower supply as a percentage of the total work force.

I specify the following set of eleven “states” — those whose illegal work force exceeds the national average of 5.4%: Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Utah.

In March 2009, the median unemployment among these 11 jurisdictions is 8.3%. Their average unemployment is 8.5%. Their population-weighted average unemployment — the most relevant measure — is 8.9%. The March national unemployment rate is 8.5%

My bet is that by March of 2010, the national unemployment rate will exceed that of this set of eleven by all three standards of measurement.

Any takers?

— Richard Nadler is president of the Americas Majority Foundation, a public-policy think tank in Overland Park, Kan.