|
Fox
News personality Greta Van Susteren recently sat
down with Republican presidential hopeful Mitt
Romney and his wife, Ann, for a chat. In the
course of the interview, Van Susteren asked,
"What do you see, when you go out there and
campaign, let me ask you, Mrs. Romney, what do you
see as, like, the single most important issue for
Middle America. When they sit down at the dinner
table at night.?”
Without
missing a beat, Mrs. Romney replied, "Well, I
know that the issue that gets the most response
where we are, even in Iowa, is immigration right
now."
Not
the economy. Not the Iraq War. Not even ethanol
subsidies (probably a first for Iowa). Immigration
is at the top of Middle America’s agenda and the
political class is determined to do something
about it.
But
what?
Since
the founding of the Republic, immigration has been
a hot topic – not surprising for a nation of
immigrants. Initially, the focus was on the
process for becoming a citizen. But that changed
almost immediately. Waves of immigration from
Ireland, China, Southern Europe and elsewhere gave
rise to a new belief that immigration was
something to be controlled, or even (in the case
of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882) banned
entirely.
What’s
interesting about today’s immigration debate is
not its focus – generally, controlling illegal
immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border -- but
what it says about the drift in feelings toward
immigration among those who generally also support
free markets.
In
a radio address in 1977, Ronald Reagan noted that
apples were rotting on trees in New England
because no Americans were willing to pick them.
"It makes one wonder about the illegal alien
fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really
victims of the illegal alien invasion or are those
illegal tourists actually doing work our own
people won't do?"
Reagan
carried this same, general fealty for immigration
throughout his lifetime. Even in 1986, when he
signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act that
pumped more money into border security as well as
introducing sanctions for employers who knowingly
hired illegals, he also insisted on a provision
for legalizing immigrants already in the U.S.
In
other words, he supported "amnesty,” a
concept that his self-described political heirs
look upon as a grave heresy today. One can only
imagine the reaction from Lou Dobbs if Reagan had
uttered the same words he did 21 years ago, today:
"We
have consistently supported a legalization program
which is both generous to the alien and fair to
the countless thousands of people throughout the
world who seek legally to come to America. The
legalization provisions in this act will go far to
improve the lives of a class of individuals who
now must hide in the shadows, without access to
many of the benefits of a free and open society.
Very soon many of these men and women will be able
to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they
choose, they may become Americans."
Granted,
Reagan, an optimist, might have changed his own
views in light of the current immigration problem.
And
yes, illegal immigration is a big problem. But
largely, it’s a problem not with illegal
immigration itself so much as it is the incentives
for someone to enter the country illegally. Milton
Friedman put it best. When asked whether illegal
immigration was good or bad for the economy, he
replied:
"It's
neither one nor the other," Mr. Friedman
replied. "But it's good for freedom. In
principle, you ought to have completely open
immigration. But with the welfare state it's
really not possible to do that. . . .
She's an immigrant," he added, pointing to
his wife. "She came in just before World War
I." (Rose -- smiling gently: "I
was two years old.") "If there were no
welfare state," he continued, "you could
have open immigration, because everybody would be
responsible for himself." Was he suggesting
that one can't have immigration reform without
welfare reform? "No, you can have
immigration reform, but you can't have open
immigration without largely the elimination of
welfare.
"At
the moment I oppose unlimited immigration I
think much of the opposition to immigration is of
that kind--because it's a fundamental tenet of the
American view that immigration is good, that there
would be no United States if there had not been
immigration.”
So
at least part of the problem is the welfare state.
That makes sense. The benefits for illegals are
much better here than in their home countries. So,
really, drastically reducing the welfare state
will help solve the illegal immigration problem.
Everyone is welcome. But you’re on your own.
Well,
that’s probably not going to happen. Ever. So
what about the slightly less sticky matter of
immigration reform?
That’s
where the action is. But like so much in political
life, the public seems to be ahead of the pols on
the matter. A recent USA Today/Gallup Poll showed
78 percent of respondents believe that people now
in the country illegally should be given a chance
at citizenship. It’s not quite amnesty, but it
certainly isn’t a clarion call for a border
fence, either. If anything, the public seems to
still be closer to Reagan. And for a brief time,
it seemed that at least one Republican
presidential candidate was close to him as well.
Not long ago, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback said
in defense of the Senate’s pending immigration
reform bill:
“At
the turn-of-the-century, critics said that
Italians and East Europeans would never become
Americans. Today, the same arguments are made
against Latinos, Asians, and other immigrants.
Behind the rhetoric, the critics' arguments boil
down to this: Immigrants aren't good enough to
join us and America is not strong enough to absorb
them. History teaches us nothing could be more
wrong.
When
the Pilgrims set out for America they sought a
land where they could work hard, pray in peace,
and enjoy the fruits of their labor. Nearly 400
years later, the same can be said of today's
immigrants.”
Just
a few days ago, Brownback abandoned this
position. Must have been that trip to
Iowa.
There
is no question that Congress will act on illegal
immigration. And if it doesn’t, the states have
shown a distinct willingness to do something.
The
question is what?
A
purely punitive approach will change very little
– except to place increasingly intrusive power
into government hands. If anything, the government
has proven that when it seeks to interfere in the
free movement of anything – be it capital,
information or people – the results are
horrific. More restrictions on illegals, then,
will probably only lead to… more illegals. Which
will, in time, lead to calls for even more
restrictions, and so on.
Instead,
the federal government ought to take a close look
at reforming the way it “manages” legal
immigration. The limits placed on the number of
people who can become citizens legally are
obviously too low and the barriers they face too
high. Rationalizing this process, whether it’s
shortening the time required to become a citizen
or simple raising the limits on how many can enter
the nation legally each year might help increase
the incentive for illegals to consider the legal
alternative.
But
even that might not change matters much,
especially in the short run. But what could alter
our predicament is the economic incentive to
choose illegal immigration.
A
recent study by BCP Securities of Greenwich,
Conn., of the aggregate remittances immigrants
make to their homes in Latin America found that:
Monthly
remittances from the U.S. to Mexico have dropped
every month since their peak of $2.6 billion in
May 2006 -- shortly before new-home construction
in the U.S. plunged. In February 2007, the latest
month for which data are available, remittances to
Mexico had slowed to $1.7 billion.
The
housing slowdown is hitting more than the guy next
door. It’s hitting Oaxaca, too. Why would that
be? Because unskilled illegals make up a good
portion of the construction workforce. And when
new home aren’t built, the jobs dry up. And so
does at least some of the illegal immigration.
Other
data seem to confirm this. Federal numbers show
that the number of people caught trying to cross
the border illegally has fallen about 10 percent
during the first quarter of this year over last
year. It could be due to increased enforcement –
including the deployment of National Guard troops
to certain areas. But Mexican officials see it in
much simpler terms: There just aren’t as many
jobs waiting to be filled across the border.
So,
is that the answer to immigration -– widespread
recession? Its' certainly not a desirable one.
These figures show that the problem really may be
one of prosperity -– a lot for us, not much at
all for folks elsewhere. Prosperity and
opportunity have always been big draws for
immigrants to this country. And with any luck, it
always will be. But if we wish to stem the tide of
illegal immigration, perhaps we shouldn’t be so
eager to close our own borders as we should be
willing to encourage – or even demand, if
possible – greater economic opportunity in other
countries.
For
Mexico, that would mean demolishing the crony
capitalism and overweening state control that has
infantilized its economy. That’s a tall order,
even for the most daring of neocons. But it’s
also essential if we’re to find a lasting
solution to ending mass illegal immigration.
Short-term pseudo-fixes like more border patrols,
harsher penalties, and a big fence might make us
feel good for a while. And they might actually
work. For a while. But they do nothing to change
the incentives to immigrate illegally. Once people
discover a way to get around the new controls,
they will do so. And we will end up right back
where we started...
In
Middle America, wondering what to do about the
tide of illegals crossing the border.
--
April 30, 2007
|
