Immigration -- The Argument for Doing Nothing

I have long been, on both moral and economic grounds, a strong supporter of open borders. As I write Arlen Specter is on TV announcing a break in the deadlock over an immigration restriction bill. He just said, "the choice is between a flawed bill and no bill" and the choice is clear. I would agree. Congress should restrain its impulse to act and pass no bill. Jacob Weisberg, writing in Slate, makes the case:

The immigration fight in Congress is shaping up as an epic battle of bad ideas. On one side is the House Alamo caucus, which in December passed a bill that is principled, impractical, and gratuitously cruel. It would turn being in the United States without a valid visa into an "aggravated" felony, make it a crime for good Samaritans and even family members to help illegal immigrants, and erect a 700-mile-long fence that would turn our Southern border into a DMZ. ....

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the bipartisan bill sponsored by Sens. Ted Kennedy and John McCain, which last week passed the Senate judiciary committee. It would let the estimated 12 million illegal residents of the United States achieve full citizenship, grant an additional 400,000 green cards per year, create a program for agricultural "guest workers," and tighten border security. With the exception of the extra green cards, these are also lousy ideas. The amnesty offer would reward those who jumped the queue (as the last amnesty did) while penalizing those who have waited patiently for legal visas. As for the "guest worker" provision, a pet idea of President Bush's, it simply feels exploitative and un-American to allow migrants in without giving them a shot at becoming citizens. And stepped-up border enforcement has a terrible record as well. As the Princeton sociologist Douglas Massey has been arguing, an enormous increase in border security spending in the past two decades has been counterproductive, perversely resulting in more illegal migrants getting into the United States from Mexico, more of them dying on the journey, and fewer of them leaving once they're here. (Click here for an explanation of why this is happening.)

....

As a bold alternative, why not pass no immigration bill at all? The status quo of American immigration is certainly flawed. We are turning a blind eye to widespread lawbreaking and probably driving down low-end wages, at least to some degree. On the other hand, the system works in its way. The most motivated, tenacious, and enterprising immigrants, who are therefore the most economically desirable, find a way around the barriers we erect. Once here, they help our economy sustain a high rate of growth and subsidize our Social Security system. In return, those who choose to stay have a chance to create better lives for their children. Do we really want to put an end to this deal?

Read the whole thing here.

I would argue that Weisberg is exactly right on this, although as always unfair to Bush, who has advocated a "path to citizenship". The current "flawed but functional" system is far preferable to anything yet proposed in Congress or likely to be adopted. But the liklihood of the congresscritters recognizing that fact is somewhere between slim and none. They want to be able to say that they took action and so some misbegoten monstrosity is bound to emerge.

Faugh!

RELATED:

Larry Kudlow chimes in on the debate. He writes:

As a Reagan conservative, I believe in freedom and opportunity. Globalization is here to stay. Proper reform should combine stronger border security with higher visa levels and a path to citizenship. Yes, illegals should pay fines and go to the back of the citizenship line. Yes, employers must aggressively cooperate with the new rules. But compassion must coexist with free-economy principles and the rule of law.

Before he passed away, Pope John Paul II quoted Matthew 25:35: "I was a stranger and you welcomed me." That is precisely the spirit America should seek when it comes to immigration reform.

Well said!

Read it here.