Immigration: Counterpoints to the Conventional Wisdom
Why would any right-thinking person oppose having a U.S. border that's as impenetrable as manpower and modern technology can make it? How can any fair-minded American deny our need for immigrants--or oppose a realistic path to citizenship for those who earnestly long to work here?
We must replace rancor with rationality in the immigration debate--by debunking the myths promulgated by both sides:
"A border fence is inhumane." By that twisted logic, all walls and fences are inhumane. Funneling U.S. entrants to a relatively few well-guarded points would vastly simplify border enforcement and dramatically attenuate the risk of illegals becoming stranded in the desert or victimized in remote areas.
"A national ID card violates our civil liberties" Anyone who's attempted to cash a check or pay with a credit card knows how specious this argument is. Drivers' licenses are defacto national ID cards and no one today can do much of anything without a government issued photo ID. Why not make it mandatory for employment?
"A path to citizenship for today’s illegals would violate American traditions." Basically, the only requirement for U.S. citizenship prior to the 1920s was arriving on our shores alive. An awaiting job was supposedly required and criminals and the seriously infirmed were to be rejected--but there was no reliable system to verify that the immigrants were meeting these criteria.
"Additional large-scale immigration will overcrowd our country." If the entire world population of 6.5 billion was transplanted to the HABITABLE land in the 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES, our population density would be the same as that of Omaha, Nebraska. Not Tokyo or Hong Kong.
"Immigration depletes U.S. resources." Instead of our country being likened to an island with limited food and potable water—where each new entrant threatens the populations’ survivability—a better metaphor for the U.S. is a gold mine. The more men and women can be put to the task of extracting that precious ore, the wealthier we all become. Given the negative impact on Social Security and Medicare of what has been a declining U.S. workforce, we should welcome the addition of the relatively young, productive immigrants who want to work here.
"Mexican immigrants and their offspring unduly burden U.S. social and education resources." It's both unfair and disingenuous to ignore how much the work of this population adds to the income and wealth of their communities--and the resulting tax revenue which funds local social services and public schools. The quickest and most efficient way to "Americanize” immigrant populations is to get their kids into our schools. The burden on hospitals in areas with large illegal immigrant populations is largely a function of disproportionate utilization of emergency rooms for routine medical care. That's not an "immigrant" problem--but a fundamental flaw in our health insurance and delivery system.
"Mexican immigrants dilute the quality of the American workforce." One would think that those who take the substantial risk of entering our country illegally would be among the heartiest, hardest working and most motivated members of the workforce. The still substantial risk of entering the U.S. illegally creates a “self-selection” barrier to those who are slovenly or incapable. On what empirical basis can it be said that the immigrants who built our nation were of a “higher caliber” than those now entering from Mexico? What's needed is a robust system for measuring and controlling the influx.
"The unique U.S. culture is threatened by masses of Mexican immigrants." The influx of nearly four million Germans and Irish over the ten year period before 1855 would be the equivalent, given today's population, of adding some 45 million immigrants to our population. The fact that most of these new Americans were Catholic alarmed many in our then largely Protestant population--and led to formation of the rabidly anti-immigrant Know Nothing Party (whose doctrine Lincoln vehemently opposed—something anti-immigrant Republicans have apparently chosen to forget). After the Treaty of 1848, those occupying the huge territory ceded to the U.S. by Mexico were all Spanish-speaking. As with previous generations of immigrants, second and third generation Hispanics almost invariably adopt English as their first language. Without question, there is a real issue as to how much "bilingual education" inhibits uptake of English.
We must replace rancor with rationality in the immigration debate--by debunking the myths promulgated by both sides:
"A border fence is inhumane." By that twisted logic, all walls and fences are inhumane. Funneling U.S. entrants to a relatively few well-guarded points would vastly simplify border enforcement and dramatically attenuate the risk of illegals becoming stranded in the desert or victimized in remote areas.
"A national ID card violates our civil liberties" Anyone who's attempted to cash a check or pay with a credit card knows how specious this argument is. Drivers' licenses are defacto national ID cards and no one today can do much of anything without a government issued photo ID. Why not make it mandatory for employment?
"A path to citizenship for today’s illegals would violate American traditions." Basically, the only requirement for U.S. citizenship prior to the 1920s was arriving on our shores alive. An awaiting job was supposedly required and criminals and the seriously infirmed were to be rejected--but there was no reliable system to verify that the immigrants were meeting these criteria.
"Additional large-scale immigration will overcrowd our country." If the entire world population of 6.5 billion was transplanted to the HABITABLE land in the 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES, our population density would be the same as that of Omaha, Nebraska. Not Tokyo or Hong Kong.
"Immigration depletes U.S. resources." Instead of our country being likened to an island with limited food and potable water—where each new entrant threatens the populations’ survivability—a better metaphor for the U.S. is a gold mine. The more men and women can be put to the task of extracting that precious ore, the wealthier we all become. Given the negative impact on Social Security and Medicare of what has been a declining U.S. workforce, we should welcome the addition of the relatively young, productive immigrants who want to work here.
"Mexican immigrants and their offspring unduly burden U.S. social and education resources." It's both unfair and disingenuous to ignore how much the work of this population adds to the income and wealth of their communities--and the resulting tax revenue which funds local social services and public schools. The quickest and most efficient way to "Americanize” immigrant populations is to get their kids into our schools. The burden on hospitals in areas with large illegal immigrant populations is largely a function of disproportionate utilization of emergency rooms for routine medical care. That's not an "immigrant" problem--but a fundamental flaw in our health insurance and delivery system.
"Mexican immigrants dilute the quality of the American workforce." One would think that those who take the substantial risk of entering our country illegally would be among the heartiest, hardest working and most motivated members of the workforce. The still substantial risk of entering the U.S. illegally creates a “self-selection” barrier to those who are slovenly or incapable. On what empirical basis can it be said that the immigrants who built our nation were of a “higher caliber” than those now entering from Mexico? What's needed is a robust system for measuring and controlling the influx.
"The unique U.S. culture is threatened by masses of Mexican immigrants." The influx of nearly four million Germans and Irish over the ten year period before 1855 would be the equivalent, given today's population, of adding some 45 million immigrants to our population. The fact that most of these new Americans were Catholic alarmed many in our then largely Protestant population--and led to formation of the rabidly anti-immigrant Know Nothing Party (whose doctrine Lincoln vehemently opposed—something anti-immigrant Republicans have apparently chosen to forget). After the Treaty of 1848, those occupying the huge territory ceded to the U.S. by Mexico were all Spanish-speaking. As with previous generations of immigrants, second and third generation Hispanics almost invariably adopt English as their first language. Without question, there is a real issue as to how much "bilingual education" inhibits uptake of English.
Labels: Immigration Politics
posted by Lee Spieckerman at
9:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home