"Let Them In - the Case for Open Borders" is written by Jason L. Riley, maember of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board and on the Fox News Editorial Report. It seems that he has established his conservative credentials solidly. So why is he so openly vocal about illegal immigration, saying that most of our conventional wisdom isn't so?
Illegal immigrants are common straw men political opponents these days. One can almost plot the ups and downs of their popularity. Right now in any batch of 10 political spams I receive, I can count on one of two of them being anti-immigrants, legal or otherwise. They make good opponents, too. They rarely speak for themselves. Being illegal or undocumented, the statistics are lousy. Statistics pulled out of the air will be believed even if they're unbelievable, maybe since they're unbelievable.
Riley recounts six of the more popular arguments for closing the borders and sending all the immigrants (sometimes just the illegal ones) home.
1. America is overpopulated but wouldn't be without the immigrants.
2. (Illegal) immigrants steal jobs.
3. Illegal immigrants consume more services than their taxes pay for.
4. There will soon be more of "them" than "us"; we'll lose our national identity.
5. Immigrants vote a straight Democrat ticket
6. Immigrants are a threat to our national security.
To give you some idea of some of the "common knowledge" that Riley takes apart and puts back together consider #5 Immigrants vote a straight Democrat ticket. (Note here that this point is blatantly racist as we aren't talking about illegal aliens because they can't vote.) President Bush (43) showed that was patently false. As a very successful governor of a border state and one who can converse in Spanish, he was able to get a significant portion of the Spanish vote in Texas. When the national Republican organization emphasized "family values" this also resonated with the immigrant population.
Another example is number 4, the loss of our national identity. Studies have shown that indeed first generation immigrants have a difficult time learning English although if it is necessary for work, they do learn it. Second generation (who are technically no longer immigrants) are usually bi-lingual and often very capable in both languages as they have had to translate for their parents. The third and later generations have as much or as little capabilities with the foreign tongue as you or I. There is certainly no threat of losing our national identity. None of the immigrants sees any advantage in not learning English.
Naturally I can't respond at length to each of these statements or my review would look more like Riley's book than a review. I'll just say that Riley answers each point completely. While a little sparse in footnotes as they tend to scare away the average public reader, Riley has included a good bibliography and index. After reading his book one is left with the question, Why don't we advertise for more foreign workers to come here rather than be in a total reactive state?
This is an excellent source book for those interested in this topic. You'll love it if you agree with Riley and even if you're sure your opinion won't be changed, this is a good book to read to see where your arguments might be vulnerable.
Well then who would be our whipping boy. I really do often wonder if the right (and possibly both parties) don't prefer to leave this one un"solved". Allowing imigration alienates those who feel their jobs are taken or their wages lowered as well as those who think "family values" means no interracial marriage, or who think the US national identity is white anglo saxon protestant. Lowering immigation alienates those who rely on the cheap unregulated labor. (Actually, legalizing it could drive their costs up too.) Both of those are important parts of some political coalitions.
ReplyDeleteI think points 3 & 6 are the ones that have been most prosletized in the recent past - meaning post 9/11 and the recession
ReplyDelete