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,
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
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
I believe that immigrants come here because they can, not because of demand. In other words,
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
Asia is the most populated continent by far and had a disproportionately small immigration rate to the
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
As usual, I have all the answers. If the
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
Problem solved.Stumble It!