Thread: An answer to illegal immigration: Let them in

Sunday, September 7, 2008
An answer to illegal immigration: Let them in
Wall Street Journal writer makes a case for open borders
By ALAN W. BOCK
Senior editorial writer

Immigration has not played a prominent role in this year's election (except early on among GOP hopefuls who were marginal from the outset), perhaps in part because Republicans saw so many immigration restrictionists go down in flames in the process of losing control of Congress in 2006, and in part because the eventual GOP candidate, John McCain, is not a restrictionist, and the party has embraced him (however clumsily) for fear of Obama. But the nativists still ply their trade on talk radio and in other venues, so the urge to limit immigration and do something punitive about the 12 million or so immigrants who are here illegally is not likely to disappear.

I have long contended that the problem is overly restrictive immigration laws. We're in an economic slump just now and unemployment is edging up, but for many years illegal immigration coexisted with historically low levels of unemployment, suggesting strongly that immigrants, legal or illegal, were not taking jobs from native-born Americans who wanted them. The notion that some bureaucrat in Washington knows better than employers in Santa Ana or San Diego how many employees some business "really needs" is sheer folly.

A mere book might not change the equation. But if any book deserves to have such an impact, it is "Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders," by Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jason Riley, writing from a strongly conservative, Reaganite free-market perspective. While occasionally impassioned and sardonic, for the most part it is a sober demolition of six of the most prominent arguments against open immigration using the most reliable studies and statistics available. It demonstrates that there is simply no intellectually coherent case for restricting immigration, and that in fact to restrict immigration would do this country serious harm.

The six arguments Riley takes on are common enough: The country is already overpopulated and letting more people in will degrade the quality of life for everyone and harm the environment. Immigrants take jobs from the native-born and especially harm those at the lower end of the social-economic spectrum. Immigrants are disproportionate users of welfare. This wave of immigrants is uniquely dangerous to American culture and will resist assimilation into ordinary American life. Immigration is a shrewd "wedge" issue that can increase Republican turnout. And finally, unrestricted immigration, especially illegal immigration, poses a serious threat to national security in this era of terrorist activity undertaken by shadowy stateless groups.

In his introduction, Riley notes that none of these arguments is new. Some of our most famous forebears fretted about immigration from our earliest days. Ben Franklin railed against "swarms" of unassimilable Germans taking over Pennsylvania 250 years ago. In the early 19th century the Irish were the bogeymen who were going to subvert Anglo-American values and prosperity. Then it was the Chinese brought over to build railroads and do other "coolie" work. During the period of heaviest immigration, from 1890-1910, Jews, Catholics and various Eastern and Southern Europeans provoked fear that they would be a permanent underclass or would outbreed complacent "natives."

But the arguments were wrong then and they are wrong now. The United States is nowhere close to being overpopulated, immigration compensates for declining birth rates, and people are the "ultimate resource." Riley argues that "immigrant workers tend to act as complements to the native workforce rather than substitutes," and backs it up with nuanced economic analysis. Immigrants (legal and illegal) of comparable economic classes use welfare and commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born Americans. Even Harvard economist George Borjas, who advocates immigration restriction for other reasons, notes that although the presumed magnetic attraction of welfare "comes up most often in the immigration debate, it is also the one for which there is no empirical support." Mexican immigrants are assimilating at about the same rate as previous waves of immigrants.

The political argument is especially devastating. Many of the most vociferous anti-immigrant GOP candidates were defeated in the Republican wipeout of 2006, but using immigration as a wedge issue drove down Hispanic votes for Republicans, which had been increasing since 1996. So far no terrorist has come across the southern border that we know of, but the best way to guard against the possibility is to liberalize immigration laws so authorities can focus on potential terrorists rather than people who want to mow your lawn.

Immigration is an emotional issue, and some people seem to be immune to reasoned debate and discussion. But for those who are still making up their minds – and despite the noise polls show that this describes the majority of Americans – this book is likely to be powerfully persuasive
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/immi ... ic-people#

Its way to early in the morning to respond to this fool.

Ok, first of all....

... in 2006 there were only two GOP members of Congress that were notoriously for border security that lost their positions in the Democratic sweep across the nation. JD Hayworth (R-AZ) and Charles Taylor (R-NC) so that claim in this article is completely jingoistic.

Two, the Wall Street Journal is known for doing anything for a buck and now we know they are willing to completely wreck the nation for money.

W