Conservative Bastion
The only blog that can factually claim to shift the Bell Curve, along with the hearts & minds of America, to the right.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Response to WSJ Op-Ed on Immigration

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published an editorial making the case for a guest worker program. The article talks about the free movement of labor, Americas demand for more labor, the humane treatment of poor people, and the answer to reducing the burden economic of immigration.

The article made some good points, but all of these particular points are unsatisfactory, and here is why.

The idea that the free movement of labor should exist is very idealistic. No country in the world allows it, and it would be foolish to do so. If every laborer that wanted to migrate to America were allowed to, there would be chaos. Therefore, no matter what we do as a country, we will not have a truly free movement of labor.

The WSJ also says this:

Our own view is that a philosophy of "free markets and free people" includes flexible labor markets. At a fundamental level, this is a matter of freedom and human dignity. These migrants are freely contracting for their labor, which is a basic human right.

I do not know how the WSJ could actually believe this. This would make sense in the context of a single country, but that is not the topic at hand. We are talking about millions of people moving from one country to another. If they want a world without borders, they have a long way to go.

The WSJ also mentions that the demand for labor is there, and America needs immigration to meet this demand. This is a tough issue. On one hand, there are states like New Hampshire with virtually no illegal immigration presence that seem to be doing fine. Their houses are clean, the lawns are mowed, they have places to live and work.

I believe that immigrants come here because they can, not because of demand. In other words, America is absorbing these people rather than demanding them. There is a difference. Most any give big business could add an extra worker here or there, but it would not necessarily make them more efficient, and that is what America needs, efficiency.

America needs to let people in based on what we need. Last time I checked, we did not need more unskilled labor. In fact, last time I checked we had a math and science deficit. US immigration policy should target more engineers, scientists, and medical researchers, and less nannies, house cleaners, and construction workers.

The WSJ also plays the humanity card. The idea, it seems, is that we should let in poor people because it is morally right. If this was about morals, then we should be letting in far less people from Mexico and South America, and more people from Africa and Asia.

Asia is the most populated continent by far and had a disproportionately small immigration rate to the US. It is not fair to let someone in from Mexico, and turn someone away from the Philippines. After all, the Philippines is far worse off economically than Mexico. Africa, on the other hand, is in ruin. It is the only place on earth that is worse off when compared to 30 years ago. We should be letting people in from there by the millions. The point is that this is not about morals or being humane. This is about cheap and easily accessible labor or a desire for a change in demographics (depending on which party you belong to).

More from the WSJ:

The real claims that illegals make on public services are education, which can't be withheld because of a 1982 Supreme Court ruling (Plyer v. Doe), and health care, especially emergency rooms. Since denying urgent medical treatment is immoral, the answer again is to legalize cross-border labor flows and remove government obstacles to affordable health insurance. As for education, even illegals pay for public schools through the indirect property taxes they pay in rent. Overall, immigrants contribute far more to our economy than they extract in public benefits.

Essentially, immigration would be far less burdensome if we lived in a different world.

According to their one line argument regarding education, there should be no more burden on the education system in Arizona than in Montana due to illegals. Maybe the writers at the WSJ should send their kids to the schools in the southwest if they feel so confident about it.

My Plan:

As usual, I have all the answers. If the US wants a solid immigration policy, they have to keep three things in mind.

  1. border security
  2. labor needs
  3. financial burdens of new immigrants
  4. assimilation

Border security should be our main objective at this time. The idea that we have been fighting a war on drugs for 25 years and our borders still are not secure is unbelievable. The fact that we have been fighting a war on terror under the same circumstances is an outrage. Build a fence on both borders and monitor them 24/7 with the National Guard and high-tech surveillance. It keeps terrorists, the unwanted, and drugs out.

We cannot just let people in and hope they can do the jobs that we need. We have to let in people with specific skills we are looking for. This will probably mean letting in less people who are destined for poverty and letting in more doctors, scientists, etc. This makes some people mad. They cite the line, “give me your tired, poor and huddled masses”…as if that was in the constitution and we were bound by it. It is a poem, get over it.

The financial burden of immigration will cease to exist if we let in the right people. They will either be extremely hard working, or high educated. Either case will help them avoid poverty and welfare check lines.

For many people, the greatest fear of immigration is assimilation. Many believe that the US is going to turn into Mexico-lite. It is a legitimate fear that is easily fixed. Under my immigration policy, only limited amounts of immigrants from a given country will be allowed at a time. Since Mexico has had 20 years of unbridled illegal immigration, there would be no new immigrants from there for about 10 years. Limiting the number of immigrants would do a lot to help assimilate people. If new immigrants are allowed to live in neighborhoods where everyone speaks the old language and practices the old ways, it is much harder to adapt. The US government could even take a step of making immigrants sign contracts stating they will live in a given place for a given amount of time. Spreading immigrants out could help absorb more if we wanted to.

Problem solved.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Blogger she said: said...
I agree, close down the borders, let people in who are willing to work. We let every other country's people in on work visa's. Why should Mexico be different than Canada for example?

It would not only be a boon to the economy, but would be better for national security overall. Since they could be background checked. Just like every other country who sends their workers to work in the high tech field. Or any other.

Maybe sometime I will get around to making a blog entry for my experience with multicultural contractor roulette.

Links to this post:
Create a Link