My position in favor of open immigration is fairly well-established in the blog. I believe that one's authority to control others ends at one's property line; I do not have a right to tell a businessman who he must or should hire; I do not have a right to keep my neighbor from reuniting with his family, currently outside the country. I do not have a right to stop others from visiting or deciding to stay here, whether from another state or even another country. I don't fear the immigration of prospective consumers, workers and/or producers; they help diversify, expand and grow the economy, enable specialization of labor, improve our standard of living. It is a logical consequence of the same principles underlying free trade; why is it we can import resources or components we need in value-added manufacturing, but not the labor we need for goods and services?
Familiar readers know that since 2007 the number of undocumented aliens are down. There are a number of issues to resolve--a massive national debt, insufficiently funded entitlements, an overextended foreign footprint. Donald Trump was pushing on a string; in part, net emigration to Mexico reflected worsening job prospects and a higher cost of leaving. Although the disingenuous xenophobes adopted a fig leaf of unfairness to those waiting in lines for up to 15 years or more, none of these suggested widening the pipeline or liberalizing temporary worker problems. In fact, Trump, Cotton et al. were talking about lowering legal immigration overall--an anti-business proposal which even the US Chamber opposes. We need productive immigrants earlier, e.g., when they are starting their careers, not just when they are middle-aged.
As for the talking points of chain migration and the lottery system, keep in mind the majority of immigrants in the former category are in nuclear family, not extended family, and wait times are unreasonable. The lottery system is the only opportunity for those from countries without an existing quota system. It's economic illiterate to be using a quota system in the first place. It's an intervention between supply and demand, an artificial scarcity. Why would someone go through the time and expense of moving to a new, distant place without a job or house, a welcoming culture waiting for them? The idea that we would be swamped with immigrants is a fantasy that ignores recent reverse migration to Mexico. In fact, Trump's threats to undo NAFTA aggravates the conditions contributing to economically-motivated migration.
I was hopeful that a recent Hill piece on the 14 GOP senators who bucked a GOP package meant to reflect the Trump immigration plan reflected a more traditional pro-immigration standpoint, include Reagan, the Bushes, and McCain. (I am well-aware that immigration restrictions (beyond contemptible racist exclusions of Chinese) started under Wilson and especially the Harding and Coolidge Administrations, but Lincoln had distanced himself from the Know Nothings and in fact in 1864 signed the Act To Encourage Immigration.
But, alas no. Whereas some of the opponents were more moderate and or supporters of other immigration fixes (typically aimed at funding Trump's infamous wall and buying some time to defer Trump's threatened deportation of DACA recipients), some in fact are trying to out-flank Trump on the right, for instance, noting that DACA was a constitution overreach by the Obama Administration. (There's a grain of truth in that, and in fact Obama and the Congress waited until after the 2010 mid-terms before suddenly rediscovering the issue in the lame duck period.) But deporting kids who have been brought up American is fundamentally unjust.
I think I'm most disheartened by the comments of 3 of my favorite Senators, and I'll finish this essay responding to relevant excerpts:
Paul voted against each of the Senate’s immigration proposals, including the White House plan.First of all, E-Verify is an invasion of government on business and could pose a risk to individual privacy (think hacking of government databases) and/or unconstitutional warrantless searches (think Snowden); Rand's own father calls it a threat against us all.
His votes came after he told Fox News host Laura Ingraham this week that he was debating offering a conservative House plan crafted by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) as an amendment.
“We’re discussing that in our office, whether or not we ought to put that forward as an alternative,” he said.
Goodlatte’s plan would provide DACA recipients with a temporary, renewable legal status — rather than citizenship — in exchange for authorizing funding for Trump’s border wall, ending family-based migration and scrapping the diversity visa lottery program.
It would also crack down on so-called sanctuary cities, boost penalties for deported criminals who try to re-enter the U.S. and require that employers use an electronic verification system known as E-Verify to make sure they hire legal workers.
As mentioned above, given a net emigration from the US, this wall boondoggle is simply an exacerbation we can't afford: and Rand Paul has to know this. Ending family-based migration basically means that an immigrant has to choose between his dreams and his family; that is unconscionable for a "family-values conservative". Scrapping the diversity visa lottery program without a viable alternative unfairly exclude opportunities from countries without an existing quota program.
There nothing "conservative" about Trump's wall boondoggle. I suspect that the "left of center proposals" refer to paths for citizenship. So much for that concept of taxation without representation. Protect the human rights of kids who grew up American is not "left of center"-- restraining Big INS is quite consistent with federalist principles.
Sen. Ben Sasse (Neb.)
Sasse told the Lincoln Journal Star that he opposed “left-of-center proposals” taken up by the Senate on Thursday.
“I ran as a conservative and I’ll vote as a conservative,” he said.
Sasse added there could still be a path toward a “much simpler legislative package” that pairs protections for DACA recipients and secures the border.
I understand it might be politically impossible for the Congress to get DACA reform without boondoggle money for a veto-threatening Trump, but the GOP will pay a stiff price if Trump actually starts deporting Dreamers. I think Trump is bluffing; Trump will declare victory in forcing Congress to legalize Dreamers vs. Obama's' DHS DACA memo.
Sen. Mike Lee (Utah)
Lee said after the Senate’s votes that Congress needs a “balanced approach to the DACA program.”
“One that discourages future illegal immigration while also offering a compassionate solution to current DACA recipients. None of the plans that addressed DACA today achieved that balance,” he added.Do I need to remind Lee about reverse migration since 2007? Why isn't he talking out liberalizing temporary foreign workers? Why isn't he talking about the counterproductive War on Drugs?
And these 3 are among the most reasonable Senators in either party. The only thing saving the Republicans is that the Dems are even more corrupt.
