By Joshua W. Weir - 5/8/2013
The writer, of Omaha, is a lawyer.
As immigration reform is debated, I hear many fellow conservatives supporting enforcement-only policies. Concerns that amnesty would set bad precedent are valid and consistent with one principle of conservatism — respect for law and order.
However, many other core principles of conservatism — promoting free markets, economic prosperity and personal accountability — should also inform this debate. Throwing money at a law that violates these fundamental principles is not conservative.
First, immigration policy must be market-based. If supply does not meet demand, black markets emerge to fill the void. When our economy demands labor that cannot be supplied lawfully, illegal immigration fills the void. And it has — to the tune of 11 million people.
Markets always find a way. Presently, an arbitrary quota of visas is made available annually, regardless of actual demand for labor. We also have an inflexible per-country percentage limit.
At critical periods in our history, this arbitrary system would have stifled economic growth or resulted in millions of illegal immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Italy, etc. During the economic boom of the 1990s, demand for labor was great, but the system did not supply immigrant labor sufficient to meet the demand of American businesses. It was an open secret that companies, including Nebraska companies, were actively “recruiting” in Mexico in the 1990s.
As a result, approximately 60 percent of aliens lacking status currently in the United States are from Mexico, many of whom are “waiting in line” in a 20-year-plus visa backlog.
Second, restrictive immigration policy stifles economic growth. Jobs are not a zero-sum game. Jobs beget jobs. Each job filled does not cost someone else that job. Instead, each job filled contributes to economic growth by “expanding the pie.”
A majority of the 11 million people arrived during the 1990s and contributed to the economic boom of that decade. Ill-considered immigration regulations can slow economic growth like any other government regulations.
Capitalism relies upon free markets to channel the power of people acting in their self-interests. The failure of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War demonstrated that the most heavily armed walls and fences cannot stop resourceful and desperate people.
Hundreds of people die annually while crossing our border seeking freedom (economic or otherwise), security and family reunification. We deplete our resources fighting against that spirit instead of harnessing that economic power.
Third, the status quo costs everyone. We as a country have neither the political will nor the resources to uproot 11 million people. Order and personal accountability would actually increase if these people had liability insurance for the cars they are already driving, paid taxes for the jobs they are already working and obtained health insurance for the doctor visits they are already making. Additionally, taxpayers foot the bill each time we deport the parent of a U.S. citizen-child, thereby disrupting intact families and further burdening the social safety net.
The desire for border security is as old as the nation-state. There was a time in the 1930s when California attempted to blockade its borders from “Okies” who were no more popular than today’s “illegals.” Mass migration from poorer to more prosperous regions is a phenomenon taking place across the developed world. Mass migration is not new, it is not unique to America and it is not going away.
“Tall fences and wide gates” lead to more secure borders. Limited visa availability pushes otherwise law-abiding immigrants to the border, where drug traffickers, terrorists and dangerous criminals can easily blend in.
The failure of Prohibition demonstrates that channeling behavior can be more effective than banning behavior. People will enter lawfully if given the option. Law enforcement could then focus its resources on the real threats to our national security and better secure our borders.
We as conservatives must fully engage in the immigration debate and ensure this problem has market-based and common-sense solutions going forward. Any immigration reform must include indexing visas to demand for labor and allocating more visas for the countries that supply the majority of immigrants.
We also must acknowledge that 11 million people are here to stay, with or without immigration reform. Conservatives must work to improve on the Gang of Eight’s proposal rather than killing the bill.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20130508/NEWS0802/705089928/1677
As immigration reform is debated, I hear many fellow conservatives supporting enforcement-only policies. Concerns that amnesty would set bad precedent are valid and consistent with one principle of conservatism — respect for law and order.
However, many other core principles of conservatism — promoting free markets, economic prosperity and personal accountability — should also inform this debate. Throwing money at a law that violates these fundamental principles is not conservative.
First, immigration policy must be market-based. If supply does not meet demand, black markets emerge to fill the void. When our economy demands labor that cannot be supplied lawfully, illegal immigration fills the void. And it has — to the tune of 11 million people.
Markets always find a way. Presently, an arbitrary quota of visas is made available annually, regardless of actual demand for labor. We also have an inflexible per-country percentage limit.
At critical periods in our history, this arbitrary system would have stifled economic growth or resulted in millions of illegal immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Italy, etc. During the economic boom of the 1990s, demand for labor was great, but the system did not supply immigrant labor sufficient to meet the demand of American businesses. It was an open secret that companies, including Nebraska companies, were actively “recruiting” in Mexico in the 1990s.
As a result, approximately 60 percent of aliens lacking status currently in the United States are from Mexico, many of whom are “waiting in line” in a 20-year-plus visa backlog.
Second, restrictive immigration policy stifles economic growth. Jobs are not a zero-sum game. Jobs beget jobs. Each job filled does not cost someone else that job. Instead, each job filled contributes to economic growth by “expanding the pie.”
A majority of the 11 million people arrived during the 1990s and contributed to the economic boom of that decade. Ill-considered immigration regulations can slow economic growth like any other government regulations.
Capitalism relies upon free markets to channel the power of people acting in their self-interests. The failure of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War demonstrated that the most heavily armed walls and fences cannot stop resourceful and desperate people.
Hundreds of people die annually while crossing our border seeking freedom (economic or otherwise), security and family reunification. We deplete our resources fighting against that spirit instead of harnessing that economic power.
Third, the status quo costs everyone. We as a country have neither the political will nor the resources to uproot 11 million people. Order and personal accountability would actually increase if these people had liability insurance for the cars they are already driving, paid taxes for the jobs they are already working and obtained health insurance for the doctor visits they are already making. Additionally, taxpayers foot the bill each time we deport the parent of a U.S. citizen-child, thereby disrupting intact families and further burdening the social safety net.
The desire for border security is as old as the nation-state. There was a time in the 1930s when California attempted to blockade its borders from “Okies” who were no more popular than today’s “illegals.” Mass migration from poorer to more prosperous regions is a phenomenon taking place across the developed world. Mass migration is not new, it is not unique to America and it is not going away.
“Tall fences and wide gates” lead to more secure borders. Limited visa availability pushes otherwise law-abiding immigrants to the border, where drug traffickers, terrorists and dangerous criminals can easily blend in.
The failure of Prohibition demonstrates that channeling behavior can be more effective than banning behavior. People will enter lawfully if given the option. Law enforcement could then focus its resources on the real threats to our national security and better secure our borders.
We as conservatives must fully engage in the immigration debate and ensure this problem has market-based and common-sense solutions going forward. Any immigration reform must include indexing visas to demand for labor and allocating more visas for the countries that supply the majority of immigrants.
We also must acknowledge that 11 million people are here to stay, with or without immigration reform. Conservatives must work to improve on the Gang of Eight’s proposal rather than killing the bill.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20130508/NEWS0802/705089928/1677
No comments:
Post a Comment