"Conservatives’ support for labor
protectionism leads them to support other big-government horribles as
well -- such as requiring every U.S. resident to carry papers proving
legal presence, should the police happen to pull you over. There is even
a proposal to make all U.S. residents carry biometric ID cards.
"This stands in sharp contrast to America’s earlier days. The U.S.
had essentially open borders until 1882. Consider it proof that liberals
are wrong if they think change is identical with progress."
Is It the Illegalityor the
Immigration?
You only have to scratch the debate to see the
degree to which legal technicalities are orthogonal to the main
issue.
A. Barton Hinkle |
March 13, 2012
“What part of ILLEGAL don’t you understand?” has become the
rallying cry -- the rallying cliché, even -- of immigration hawks across
the land. Its point is to underscore what hawks incessantly insist: that
they are not opposed to immigration per se. It’s the law-breaking that
yanks their chain.
But that veneer is wearing thin. Take a video produced by the nation’s
largest immigration advocacy group, the Federation for American
Immigration Reform (FAIR). “With 14 million Americans out of work,
attention is finally turning to the millions of illegal workers in the
country,” says a man standing amid block letters that spell the world
ILLEGAL. “It’s about time. But what about these workers?” he asks,
indicating the LEGAL. “Legal foreign workers: more than 1 million legal
immigrants and temporary foreign workers our government admits every
year. They take good jobs in places like Ohiono matter how many people
are out of work, or how ‘ILL’ our economy gets. We need to slow legal
immigration until Ohio is working again.”
You might chalk that up to opportunism in tough economic times. Just one
problem: It’s FAIR’s long-standing policy. A 2000 report by the
Anti-Defamation League noted then that FAIR’s stated aims were to “end
illegal immigration” and “to set legal immigration at the lowest feasible
levels.” Twelve years later, FAIR still describes its goals as promoting
“immigration levels consistent with the national interest” and educating
“the American people on the impacts of sustained high-volume
immigration.” Not illegal immigration, you’ll note -- any
immigration.
Last week, FAIR took out after Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and
Republican Sen. Scott Brown for seeking to grant “an additional 10,500
work visas to Irish nationals in time for St. Patrick's Day.” This is
bad, FAIR claims, because it would “increase immigrationand competition
for scarce jobs.” Besides, “the bill lacks a requirement that employers
seek legal U.S. workers before they can hire an E-3 visa
holder.”
True, FAIR doesn’t speak for every person who feels strongly about
immigration, legal or otherwise -- any more than the Brady Campaign
speaks for everyone who supports gun control. But it would hardly swing
much weight if it spoke for just three unemployed slackers sipping beer
in a garage in Perth Amboy.
Besides, you only have to scratch the debate over illegal immigration a
little to see the degree to which legal technicalities are orthogonal to
the main issue. Take the bill this year in Virginia’s General Assembly
requiring a citizenship check of everyone taken into custody. Why
citizenship? Plenty of resident aliens are present in the country
lawfully. See also the widespread campaign to have English declared the
official language -- a proposal that has nothing to do with legal entry
and everything to do with feeling there are too many Latinos around, and
people shouldn’t need to press 1 for English because...well, just
because.
The notion that immigrants, legal or otherwise, are taking “our” jobs
relies on the assumption that one person has more claim on an open
position than another. This isn’t so. The only person with a claim on the
job is the one cutting the paycheck, and he should be able to hire
whomever he wants.
On the other hand, if FAIR is right that the job situation for Ohioans
could be improved by keeping immigrants out, then why draw the line at
foreign nationals? Why not require employers to hire only people who have
lived in Ohio for at least five years? Or who were born there? For that
matter, imagine all the work Ohioans would have if only the state would
put up an electric fence along the border.
If the aim simply is to maximize employment, then Ohio could do even
more. It could outlaw technological innovation. Even President Obama
thinks ATMs are a job-killing “structural issue.” Imagine how many more
jobs could be “created or saved” if we did away with backhoes and sewing
machines.
The hypotheticals highlight the foolishness of protectionism, which is
what motivates anti-immigrant fervor when that fervor is not motivated by
ethnic hostility. Many conservatives, who know better than to fall prey
to the protectionist fallacy regarding manufactured goods, for some
reason embrace it regarding labor. If they were right, then the state
with the lowest immigrant population, a mere 1.3 percent of all
residents, should be an economic powerhouse. That state – West Virginia –
is certainly not.
Conservatives’ support for labor protectionism leads them to support
other big-government horribles as well -- such as requiring every U.S.
resident to carry papers proving legal presence, should the police happen
to pull you over. There is even a proposal to make all U.S. residents
carry biometric ID cards.
This stands in sharp contrast to America’s earlier days. The U.S. had
essentially open borders until 1882. Consider it proof that liberals are
wrong if they think change is identical with progress.
A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch,
where this column originally appeared.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/13/is-it-the-illegalityor-the-immigration
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
- Is It the Illegalityor the Immigration? MJ
- Re: Is It the Illegalityor the Immigration? THE ANNOINTED ONE
