I’ve been peppered with all sorts of questions about immigration this week. Many of them deal with the Heritage Foundation study, including the “dynamic scoring” issue and Jason Richwine’s resignation.
I’m also getting asked about other aspects of this debate, ranging from the desirability of a border fence to what I think about skills-based immigration vs. family-reunification immigration.
The short answer to just about every question is that I don’t know. I’ve never studied the issue and I’m not knowledgeable enough to give competent answers. As I remarked in my one interview on the subject, I like immigration but want people coming to America for opportunity rather than welfare.
Not exactly bold stuff, I realize. Heck, everyone from John McCain to Jeff Sessions presumably would be willing to publicly endorse those sentiments.
But I don’t want to dodge the issue completely, and one reader posed a question that got me thinking. She asked me to name the strongest arguments for and against amnesty.
I won’t pretend that these are the strongest arguments, but I will tell you the arguments that I find most compelling.
The most compelling argument for amnesty is that it’s a recognition of reality. Simply stated, the illegals are already here, any kids born in the US already are citizens, and there’s no practical way of getting any of them to leave. What’s the point of pretending otherwise?
I realize that’s a very practical argument, which distinguishes me from some fellow libertarians who make the moral case that people shouldn’t be constrained by government-imposed borders. But that argument doesn’t sweep me off my feet since it implies that everybody in the world has a right to come to the United States.
The most compelling argument against amnesty is that it will make America more statist. I’m not an expert on voting patterns, but I think it’s safe to assume that immigrants will have below-average incomes for the foreseeable future and that they generally will be likely – once they get voting rights – to support politicians who want to make America more like Europe. I’m 99.99 percent confident that this thought has crossed Chuck Schumer’s mind.
Once again, I realize I’m making a practical argument. And you can probably tell that my real concern is with redistributionism and majoritarianism, not immigration. But the bottom line is still the same. We desperately need to scale back the welfare state and I fear amnesty will make that an even bigger challenge.
But to close an a humorous note, perhaps this concern about amnesty can be allayed if we can encourage this type of emigration.
And since we’re sharing some humor, here’s a funny video about Americans sneaking into Peru.
Dan, Most of UR column R right on with “my” viewpoint – this one fell way short! I’m not say my way or no way but this article didn’t persuade me to Open Borders.Libertarian may like open borders BUT I’m not with U on that one! Our inner cities R being hit hard with Gangs and this diversity isn’t working out. It didn’t work out in Europe either. The WHOLE country is being FLOODED with DRUGS, I’m talking hard addicting drugs for all the KIDS! Our schools, hospitals, welfare programs & police force is over run. You need to know WHO is coming into your country & if they want to stay then follow our current immigration laws. Biggest problem is the Gov’t is the biggest LAW BREAKERS of those laws. So we suffer the consequences. UNTIL OUR GOV’T ENFORCES R CURRENT LAWS their is NO HOPE for any new laws. Looks like Politicians & this Gov’t is the biggest problem – so don’t expect them to Fix the problem!
amnesty… with a long term path to citizenship… is the only way to go… as a particle matter there is nothing else to be done… and I do not blame foreign nationals for the problem… the real rats here are democrat and republican politicians…
illegal immigration is viewed differently in different parts of the country… the argument against amnesty could be crafted based on total costs… and related to demographic and sociological data of the target audience… let’s hope that racism either overt or covert is not a part of the equation…
the real solution to the problem of illegal immigration is free trade… and economic development… if people can make a living in their country of origin… marry… have a job and a family… the likelihood that they will immigrate… is greatly reduced… we can do a lot to improve economic conditions and the security situation in developing nations to our south simply by shifting our priorities… exploring mutually advantageous trade arrangements and discontinuing failed policies…
Here’s my simple proposal: Allow anyone who wants to come to the US to come here, with four caveats:
1. We exclude anyone who is coming with the intent to harm the United States. i.e. we will not admit spies, terrorists, etc. (I don’t suppose any serious person proposes that “open borders” means we welcome members of an invading army!) Likewise we will not admit thieves, murderers, etc. People who were considered criminals in their home countries because they committed crimes like opposing the government or having unpopular religious beliefs would, of course, be welcomed.
2. Any immigrant who commits a non-trivial crime will be deported upon conviction. (I presume we wouldn’t want to deport someone for illegal parking, but certainly for murder, assault, etc.)
3. Some sharp limits on the ability of immigrants to collect welfare or other government benefits. Like, “can’t collect government benefits until they’ve been here at least 10 years”, or “can’t collect more in government benefits than they’ve paid in taxes”.
4. Can’t vote until they’ve been here for some suitably long period of time. i.e. you can easily become a permanent resident, but becoming a citizen requires a long waiting period.
From a moral point of view, I think people should have the right to travel wherever they want. Why not open our doors to the world?
Point 1 should satisfy liberal calls for compassion for immigrants. Points 2 thru 4 should satisfy conservative concerns.
I suppose some will say that under a rule like this, immigrants could come and “steal jobs” from Americans. But that’s economic nonsense. It’s not like there’s a finite number of jobs and every immigrant who gets a job puts an existing American out of work. Does anyone seriously believe that if tomorrow 10 million employed people all suddenly died or were kidnapped by aliens or some such that unemployment would then instantly and automatically drop by 10 million? That’s not how it works in real life. An immigrant may take a job, but he also consumes, and thus creates jobs.
Granted, there’s a practical issue of how, if we opened the doors like this, we could actually identify the spies and terrorists and criminals among all those who might want to come. But in one sense it might be easier than it is now, as ICE wouldn’t have to be verifying all the family relationships and work status and the like that they do now.
I’m guessing Democrats would violently oppose point 4. I suspect most immigrants wouldn’t care very much about this point.
Why else would someone oppose this plan?
[…] but not least, you may recall my concern about the downside of amnesty. Well, this poster shows why I’m a bit […]
http://www.moneynews.com/Rahn/Prosperity-immigrants-Krieble-economists/2013/05/15/id/504630
[…] can understand why immigration reform is so contentious since it touches on all sorts of hot-button issues, such as jobs, politics, national identity, and […]
[…] can understand why immigration reform is so contentious since it touches on all sorts of hot-button issues, such as jobs, politics, national identity, and […]
[…] amnesty, for instance. Opponents make reasonable points about the downside of rewarding folks who cut in […]
[…] most cases, I can understand why immigration is a controversial issue. Take amnesty, for instance. Opponents make reasonable points about the downside of rewarding folks who cut in […]