Immigration: Six Theses
By Mitch Berg
The GOP has been schizphrenic on immigration for as long as I can remember.
Which is understandable – because I think most of us Republicans, as individuals, are schizophrenic about it. Or, to pick a less loaded term, we believe things that seem, on their surface, to be contradictory; we support immigration – we just want people to follow the rules and come to this country legally.
So I’m going to try to state the case, contradictions and all.
- I think it was Fred Thompson who really stated the true conservative case; we support a high, impermeable fence, but a wide, well-lit gate.
- As to that “wide, well-lit gate” bit – when I was at Dan Severson’s campaign launch, I heard a Latino minister talk about one of the dynamics behind illegal immigration; it takes someone 10-15 years for a Mexican citizen to legally come to this country. Of course, there’s a chicken and egg dynamic here; we have plenty of Central American immigrants in this country – it’s just that many of them are here illegally. It’s time to revamp how we handle legal immigration. Indeed…
- ….we have to have a rational legal immigration policy. Immigration – the legal variety – has always been one of this nation’s big strengths. It’s more important than ever, as Europe’s demographics stagnate, China deals with the long term demographic fallout of the “one child policy”, and the developing world remains vastly younger than the Western world. The US has been lucky – both Europe’s and America’s populations are ageing, as birth rates drop. It’s immigration that’s prevented our society from ageing into obsolescence. We’ll need more of that.
- OK, now to the high wall – when not only immigrants seeking jobs, but every zeta and narcotraficante that wants to drive a Hummer full of firearms across the border can do it with relative impunity, then talk about “do we need a border fence”, or at least something that forces people to come to this country via the legal route, is simply ridiculous. This nation not only has a right to to protect its sovereignty – it is one of its few genuine obligations. If the government can’t secure our borders, there is truly no reason for it to exist.
- Perhaps the real high wall we need is to keep out liberals and the media (pardon the redundancy) out of the US. They both adopted a meme years ago – whenever conservatives refer to wanting to crack down on illegal immigration, painstakingly leave out the”illegal” bit. The media and left (ptr) have been enaged in a decades-long effort to misrepresent the mainstream right’s approach to immigration.
- That being said – misrepresentation aside, what is the conservative approach to immigration reform and curbing illegal immigration? Rounding ’em up and sending ’em back is certainly not practical, even if there were the political will to do it, which there is not. OK – so what is a realistic approach? You don’t want amnesty, fine – what is your answer?
For my purposes? High fence, wide gate, deport all illegals that run afoul other laws (ban the “sanctuary city” – that’s the prerogative of churches, not municipal government).
November 29th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
I came to this country legally and here is my plan:
#1 – Shut the gate to open immigration and build a fence. #1a – revoke anchor baby provision.
#2 – While building a fence, give all illegal immigrants a chance to either leave outright, or apply for permanent residence status. Review each and every application and grant green cards based on refugee status, contribution to US economy and society and criminal record. Immediate deportation for anybody who does not have a clean record. Illegal immigrants do not have the same rights as US citizens. As long as it takes to clear out all cases. Any illegal immigrant that does not come forward is subject to immediate deportation, zero tolerance.
#3 – Reopen the gate and maintaining a fence.
November 29th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
“For my purposes? High fence, wide gate, deport all illegals that run afoul other laws (ban the “sanctuary city” – that’s the prerogative of churches, not municipal government).”
I agree that sounds reasonable, but wonder about its long term effects on continuing illegal immigration. The tendency to “reward” illegals who are able to escape deportation has as one of its unintended (?) consequences a tendency to give other potential illegals a motive for crossing, hoping that eventually the US will grant further amnesty. This would be mitigated, somewhat by a “wide gate,” but those who would not fit through that wide gate (e.g. felons), would still have reason to try.
Alternatives? Yeah, I really don’t think there are any. Despite what a few on the right say, I think there is almost NO support, let alone any broad support for a wholesale deportation of 10 million or so, may of whom have lived dect lives and established roots here. Unfair to those who have not come illegally, and were waiting for their legitimate chance. That is the central rule of almost everything political, however: It is always better to be the one who is seen (i.e. illegals who have made here and won’t likely be deported) than the one who is unseen (the ones who followed the rules, and never made it here). The “seen” ones get the press, sympathy and support. La Raza does not support the folks who never came here.
If I were running the show at INS, I’d move an awful lot of the resources from rounding up illegals to better border enforcement, and hope that Congress comes up with less restrictive entry criteria.
November 29th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
What would FDR do?
November 29th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
A little honesty from open borders “conservative” business groups and a little economic reasoning from open borders liberals would go a long way.
Every businessman wants to buy labor in a market where labor is an undifferentiated commodity with low or no barriers to entry because it means they can buy labor at cost.
No businessman wants to do business selling an undifferentiated commodity in a market with low or no barriers to entry because you cannot make more than cost.
November 29th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
“What would FDR do?” – Whatever that worthless SOB would do, we should do the opposite.
Like just plain angry, I also came to this country legally and I have little patience or sympathy for those that didn’t. I’m fine with the impermeable fence, wide gate concept if we exercise a bit of intelligence about who gets through the gate. We don’t need any more illiterate manual laborers, or rich leftist imbecile actors/artists/artistes etc. but every STEM graduate degree should have a green card stapled to it, etc. etc.
As to the folks who are here, I agree that there is neither the will nor the funding to round ’em up and deport ’em, and if the R’s tried it, they will turn the Hispanic/Latino population into as solid a Democrat bloc as the blacks, and given the demographic direction of this country, that will ensure that the R’s are an unelectable and politically irrelevant rump in 50 years or less.
So PJKelly is on the right track. Have the illegals come forward and give ’em green cards if they’ve got clean records. Kick out any that don’t or don’t (respectively). Make ’em pay some kind of fine or some other fairly significant penalty so it’s not a “get out of jail free” card and an incentive for future illegal entry. Their US-born kids are citizens… they can’t be (don’t allow for adjustment of status).
And as to the war on drugs (which I think drives a lot of this) let’s declare victory and end it.
November 29th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
mnbubba, FDR deported over 300,000 illegals during the Depression.
On left wing sites they usually say “America” deported them, just like “America” interned the Japanese during WW2. No cloud may appear on the sunny countenance of progressivism.
November 29th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Terry – Yeah, and Carter deregulated trucking and the airlines. OK, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. He’s still an SOB.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:35 am
Any of the 10 million illegal aliens in this country should have a background check (done by a non-government entity) done on them. Clean records should pay a 5-10K fine (they did break the law) and be given a conditional green card (long term VISA), with an unconditional one given after 7 or so years of no serious run ins with the law. Any illegal with a criminal record gets deported back to whatever country they are from no questions asked. If said person was a student who over stayed his/her VISA and they have lived on the up and up a green card is to be issued ASAP after a 5-10K fine (good way to fund this program). I have literally put 10 minutes into this thought so there is still plenty of thought to be put into it. Plus it seems better than most proposals put on paper recently.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:07 am
Ben I cannot believe that the establishment republicans will do anything at all, ever, that might slow the influx of illegal alien labor into the US.
Back when Bush tried and failed to reform immigration, there was a serious proposal to grant visas to guest workers limited to about 400K/year.
I can remember reading pundits & watching talking heads discuss & debate this and I knew they were all fools because it did not occur to any of them that the idea of a “limit” was a joke. After decades of virtually unlimited illegal immigration they seriously believed that the feds would draw the line and keep people out because some arbitrary number had been reached? Seriously?
November 30th, 2011 at 7:54 am
1. We’ve shut the door before, we can do it again. Build the fence to slow the stream of new immigrants and the illegal immigrant problem will solve itself in one generation.
2. Legal immigration is for OUR benefit. Revise policy – no family reunification or refugees, only skilled people: scientists, engineers, doctors.
3. Cheap immigrant labor hurts American low skilled workers. Any employer caught with illegal employees forfeits the company and all officers go to prison. We already know Illegals who can’t find work will migrate home — encourage them. Yes, it will raise prices of American made goods making them less competetive against imports. Impose a small tarriff to level the playing field. Yes, that will start a trade war with China. We’re already in one and we’re losing because their government subsidizes their industries but ours only subsidizes cronies and political contributors.
Hard times, hard choices. Man up.
November 30th, 2011 at 8:19 am
A couple of points. Does anyone remember all of the H1-B visas that were issued back in the 90’s when there was a shortage of IT workers (or, companies found cheaper programmers in India and Pakistan) that brought over 100,000 workers into the US? They were supposed to be in effect for only one year and I believe that there was a caveat that they had to be on a specific project. When said project was over, they were supposed to leave. Well, shenanigans were played, primarily by temporary staffing houses owned by Indians or Pakistanis and most of those workers never left! In fact, any Indian or Pakistani in an IT organization today, is probably not a citizen.
Second, as I have pointed out before, even the most hardened liberal that opposes immigration reform, will have a big change of heart and mind if they are ever involved in a car accident with one of them. They buy beater cars with cash and do not insure them. If they get in an accident, they normally flee and if they stay, they get cited for not carrying insurance and only face justice if the victim dies. Even if the accident is minor, the victim is screwed- their insurance pays for repairing their car and any of their injuries, but then their rates are subject to increase.
November 30th, 2011 at 10:16 am
Nate, hard to see how “manning up” could involve a protective tariff. Unless you want to capitulate to the Joe Bidens of the US who are constantly yammering for tariffs, you ought to reconsider. If you want to make a principled case against easy immigration, that’s certainly a reasonable position, even if I don’t agree. Trying to soften if up with a tariff is neither good policy, nor “manning up.” More like bellying up to the government trough. Low skilled US workers can’t compete with cheap labor in China or India, and most on the right wouldn’t support tariffs. Why change that based upon an immigration policy?
November 30th, 2011 at 10:18 am
“So PJKelly is on the right track.”
MNBubba, would you mind telling that to my wife?
November 30th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Low skill American workers can’t compete with low skilled Mexican workers on American soil, PJ, and their lies the problem.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:48 am
Simple solution: Force self-deportation by making it illegal to hire anyone not a legal resident, using Social Security and the federal e-Verify system and huge fines on employers that violate it. No job, no reason to be here unless you are a criminal. As soon as they all leave, we open the “wide gate” and let anybody in, especially those with a job waiting (no questions asked). This way there is NO amnesty for anybody, and everybody that is here will be here legally. Those who don’t self-deport declare themselves criminals and get booted.
The only catch is how quickly we can let those 11 million people (or the desirable fraction thereof) back through the gate.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:57 am
Terry, I certainly agree that is a problem. I disagree that tariffs are a good solution. Developing skills to compete would be a good solution for those who can’t compete with low wage labor. It’s not easy, it’s not fun, but it beats government distortion in labor markets. Those low skill jobs should be filled by people on their way up, or those who are in temporary straits. No one is guaranteed or should be guaranteed a “livable wage” for a low skilled job.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
PJ, you raise a valid point – tariffs do distort the price mechanism by government action, which generally is a bad thing. But it may be the fastest and easiest way to address “The Dummy Problem.”
Every generation has a bell-shaped curve distribution of abilities. In olden times,those on the far left of the curve made a living shoveling out stables; more recently, by carrying sheetrock or on assembly lines. Today, factories are in China and low-skill jobs in meat packing houses and lawn care are filled by immigrants so dummies sit on welfare. Teaching our dummies to compete globally may be impossible. Tariffs might be necessary.
.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
“FDR deported over 300,000 illegals during the Depression.”
Ten times that would be a big goal, in the spirit of FDR, since we are in the Obama Great Recession. (Not to mention the message it would send illegals.)
November 30th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
2. Legal immigration is for OUR benefit. Revise policy – no family reunification or refugees, only skilled people: scientists, engineers, doctors.
Look up SS St Louis, nate-the-hate. You want more blood on your hands?
November 30th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
PJ, The way I look at tariffs is that we now have a system where we export jobs to China (bear with me, here), and in turn buy their manufactured goods cheaply with money we borrow from them. Classical economics says that a growing economy is good for every body, the people at the top, the people at the bottom, and the people in the middle. In the last 13 years the real GDP per capita in the US increased by almost 50%, yet wages are stagnant and show no signs of increasing. This is what “free trade” looks like in 2011. It is a very difficult thing to defend if your assets are illiquid (your labor), and a very easy thing to defend to defend if your assets are liquid (money in the bank).
I have been increasingly attracted to the idea of “tariff for revenue only”, a high tarriff, universally and evenly imposed on imports, as a replacement for the income tax.
Obviously there are problems with a tariff in place of an tax on wages, but the system we have now works against economic and political instability. If we do not form our own industrial policy it does not mean that we will not have an industrial policy, it means that our industrial policy will be the product of people and institutions not responsible to the sovereign people of the United States.