New laptop + Windows 8 = I have very little understanding of how to use the computer I\u2019m writing on.\u00a0 No menu, no tabs \u2014 I feel very blind and, among other things, unable to bop around and link to other articles on the blogosphere.\u00a0 Heck, I\u2019m even writing this without having fully read and digested the comments from earlier today.\u00a0 But here are my thoughts:<\/p>\n
1)\u00a0 the Republican leadership is focused on gaining Hispanic voters (and\/or in the thrall of cheap-labor-seeking tech companies and the Chamber of Commerce), on the premise that, if only they support a legalization measure, they\u2019ll be able to compete on an even playing field with the Democrats \u2014 all based on the theory that Mexicans are \u201cnatural conservatives\u201d due to their \u201cfamily values\u201d and work ethic.\u00a0 Of course, this is a bit fanciful, since, if they\u2019re \u201cnaturally\u201d anything, they\u2019re natural welfare-state supporters.<\/p>\n
What seems a bit crazy is that this same leadership has no interest in \u201coutreach\u201d to the party mainstream, who want no part of a legalization endeavor.\u00a0 We are filling up comment sections or blog posts or (those who have the more elevated status of \u201cpundit\u201d or columnist) online or print publication columns about our mistrust of the leadership, our worries that they\u2019ll cave and agree to meaningless rather than meaningful enforcement triggers, or no triggers at all, that they\u2019ll effectively agree to the sort of open immigration that\u2019ll drive down wages, that they\u2019ll lose more conservative voters than any number of new voters they could ever hope to draw due to a legalization program.\u00a0 <\/p>\n
Why isn\u2019t Boehner, or Ryan, or Cantor, or why aren\u2019t the others making efforts to reassure their base that they won\u2019t sell them out?\u00a0\u00a0 At any rate, I haven\u2019t read about any such outreach, just reports of mysterious meetings and plans and principles and agendas.<\/p>\n
2)\u00a0 Open immigration \u2014 whether with full open borders or in the more de facto manner of guest worker programs, large numbers of visas, family reunification programs including adult siblings and other relations, and, most significantly, disinterest in enforcement of immigration law \u2014 is not dissimilar from globalization\/free trade\/offshoring.\u00a0 If tech jobs are offshored, or if they\u2019re given to low-paid H1-B holders in the United States, it\u2019s the same impact, right?\u00a0 Or if poultry is processed by illegal workers with fake IDs in the U.S., vs. by workers at a plant in Mexico, there\u2019s no difference, right?\u00a0\u00a0 One might make the argument that if you support free trade, you should support open immigration, because the same principle is at stake \u2014 the work goes to the worker willing to do the work for the lowest wage, to the overall benefit of the world economy.\u00a0 <\/p>\n
And there are various reasons and rationales on way or the other but ultimately I tend to think that, while globalization benefits the globe as a whole, and it\u2019s a good thing for millions upon millions of people the world over, there are significant numbers of people who have been left behind in the United States \u2014 people who, like it or not, will be unable to lift themselves up from their minimum wage jobs by going to trade school, for instance.\u00a0 So if we import millions of unskilled immigrants to do all the low-wage jobs, especially immigrants who are willing to accept low wages, and crowd together in apartments to send money back home, we will displace Americans. And we are simply not a wealthy enough country to become a Saudi Arabia or U.A.E. where the native citizenry lives off welfare while imported workers, well, work.\u00a0 <\/p>\n
Restricting immigration, then, is a way to mitigate the worst of the impacts of globalization on the poor.<\/p>\n
3)\u00a0 How much immigration is the right amount of immigration, then, anyway?\u00a0 <\/p>\n
Actually, it\u2019s kind of ironic that progressives tend to support large-scale immigration and simultaneously worry about population growth \u2014 when, of course, it is exactly large-scale immigration that drives population growth.<\/p>\n
In a perfect world, people would be able to migrate from one country to another, to experience a new culture, perhaps one that they enjoy more than their home country.\u00a0 Certainly,\u00a0I\u2019m not one to\u00a0oppose someone moving from one\u00a0developed country to another.\u00a0 \u00a0 <\/p>\n
In the real world, open immigration becomes a foreign aid program, offering a safety valve to Mexico by serving as an outlet for a significant percentage of their poor, and injecting money into their economy via remittances.\u00a0 <\/p>\n
Emma Lazarus\u2019s poem is not law, is not written into our constitution, is nothing more than the expression of\u00a0a particular time.\u00a0 Immigration is a part of our heritage \u2013 but so are pioneers, and covered wagons, and children working in the factories.\u00a0 How much should our population grow?\u00a0 Can we talk about this openly?\u00a0 Not that I\u2019m prescribing a \u201cright\u201d answer, but surely the right answer isn\u2019t to jump on anyone who raises the issue and call them prejudiced.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
New laptop + Windows 8 = I have very little understanding of how to use the computer I\u2019m writing on.\u00a0 No menu, no tabs \u2014 I feel very blind and, among other things, unable to bop around and link to other articles on the blogosphere.\u00a0 Heck, I\u2019m even writing this without having fully read and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2209,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-633","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n