Immigration: Policy

Two of the salient issues which divide both parties are immigration and trade. While on the latter issue it appears that there is an emerging consensus on the left, on the former we are still nowhere. And the issue is climbing the charts. It's not just Lou Dobbs on Moneyline: laws dealing with the issue are being proposed at the state and local level. There is the amnesty/guest worker bill introduced by McCain and Kennedy, and there are punitive laws being proposed in various border states like Arizona.

The politics of immigration are a little strange. The desire to win Latino votes has lured Bush & Co. into courting them with favorable migration policies, but much of his own party rejects such a stance. On the other hand, the left is generally pro-immigrant, but there is some belief that moving in a nativist direction could pick up some of those precious white working class votes.

So there are two real questions here: the politics and the substance. I'll focus on the substance of the question today, and the politics tomorrow.

The basic arguments of the anti-immigration position are that 1) immigrants are taking away American jobs and depressing wages by glutting the labor market, 2) immigrants are not assimilating - we are creating a balkanized society.

These two arguments have serious problems. First, immigration per se is really just a way of expanding the size of the labor force. Theoretically there is no difference between a population that is growing by way of childbirth and one that is importing new workers. Second, most of the evidence indicates that today's immigrant are assimilating just as rapidly as previous populations.

The pro-immigrant arguments are that 1) immigrants do jobs that Americans don't want, and 2) we are a nation of immigrants and it is hypocritical to deny them a chance. These positions are problematic too: 1) we have a large underemployed indegenous labor force (African-American males), while immigrants have been used by sweatshops as a way to hold down wages and break up unions; and 2) previous waves of migration were legal rather than illegal.

I want to dwell on the last point for a minute, because I believe it is crucial for understanding this debate. There is a profound difference between legal and illegal immigration. Every country has a right to regulate its own migration policy - I don't have any more right to move to France than my next-door neighbor has to live in my house. So no country is required to accept any and all comers. They decide who and how many to accept based on prudence and humanity.

Some immigration advocates attempt to annihilate this distinction by suggesting that there be a policy of completely open borders, a policy which no nation on the face of the earth has ever embraced. Granting an amnesty to illegal immigrants is effectively rewarding law-breaking behavior, and is an insult to those who have been waiting years to get their citizenship legally.

None of this is to say that illegal immigrants should be denied medical treatment or persecuted. It simply means that they should be returned home. And I also am not in favor of closing the border entirely - a moderate amount of immigration is a positive good for the country.

I have been in the uncomfortable position of being caught between two extremes. On the one hand are those in favor of open borders, a policy which would be both unprecendented and disastrous, and on the other hand xenophobes who don't want any immigration. There is, I believe, a middle ground on this issue: moderate, regulated amounts of immigration with more effective border control and a more efficient visa process. Illegals should be dealt with kindly but firmly. Call it the Goldilocks policy.

Tomorrow I'll talk about why it has been difficult to reach a sensible middle ground on this issue, and where we might go from here.