Steve Hilton is a Trumpkin Brit, a former advisor to prior Prime Minister David Cameron, who classifies himself as a "positive populist". According to Wikipedia, he has tried to make his Conservative Party more green and progressive. He is the host of FNC's 2-year weekend show "The Next Revolution".
Hilton is the kind of guy who I instinctively dislike, like the type of schoolteacher who scratches her nails across the blackboard. Of course, I loathe populists, Trumpkins in particular. He is a passionate immigration restrictionist. Yes, I know that my views of open immigration are not popular with readers (my pro-immigration tweets and posts attract fewer impressions), but I hope that you'll be open-minded as I have my say here.
I was particularly put off by a recent panel discussion, including a black progressive lady, where all of them agreed that the truths behind immigration restriction were self-evident.
Before I go further, let me make a salient point about Trump himself and Hilton. Trump's grandfather was an immigrant, his mother was an immigrant, and two of Trump's wives have been immigrants. Not to mention that Trump (before his candidacy) publicly blamed Romney's 2012 loss on his "cruel" restrictionist "self-deportation" policy (i.e., make migrants' lives here so miserable that they'll leave on their own). Hilton's parents immigrated to Britain from Hungary. I find it offensively hypocritical and galling that they, beneficiaries of immigration policy, would take leadership in the immigration restrictionist movement.
Of course, the Democrats have postured against Trump's openly aggressive restrictionist policy, but part of that reflects a Latino identity politics constituency. However, the Big Labor constituency has ALWAYS opposed immigration on labor protectionist grounds, the same ones that Trump has seized on, arguing unfair competition by cheap foreign labor. Democrats in the 1960's closed down the bracero program, a Mexican guest worker program. The existing work permit program is arbitrarily capped: "there are backlogs for petitions for individuals born in certain countries with high annual levels, such as India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines".
The basic union argument is the idea that labor is a commodity and increased numbers of workers put downward pressure on wages. Actually much immigration labor is diversified and complementary to America's workforce (say, offsetting domestic shortages of certain skills in high tech and healthcare). Many immigrants are mobile, more willing to move where work opportunities are available. You would also think that native workers have some competitive advantages (language, local area knowledge and connections, culture, etc.) Whatever adverse effects exist shows a small/short-term effect at lower experience/skill levels; for example, do a related Internet search on Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh, e.g., this study.
If you review why the 2007 immigration reform push supported by Bush failed, you'll see the Dem-controlled Senate kicked out a concession to the GOP including a liberalization of temporary worker programs.
In fact, Bernie Sanders in 2015 made it clear he opposed "open borders" on the (mistaken) belief it would "substantially" drive down wages.
So when the token black female progressive on Hilton's panel conceded the labor protectionist argument, Hilton and his right-wing restrictionist panelists were at a palpable loss of words to explain open borders advocates exist in the face of self-evident truths and Trumpian slogans like "without borders you don't have a country".
I classify my position as "open immigration" advocacy.. There are some common defense/health/safety exceptions, but I trust the market, not the government, to decide the nature and extent of immigration. I see immigration of all types of workers (including low-skilled) as a plus for the US economy, supporting labor specialization, adding to the consumer base, the size and scope of the economy. I don't shy away from a label of "open borders".
We already live in open borders among the 50 states (I've worked in multiple states, including TX, IL, CA WI, MD, FL, SC, WV, DC, and AZ (not to mention temporary assignments in VA, GA, UT, MI, OK, and UT). We don't accept the states imposing quotas or tariffs on goods or residents among states. We don't accept other people restricting our ability to buy luxury German cars, Swiss watches or chocolates, or French wine (supporting their own domestic workers). Who are we to dictate where a supermarket sources its produce or who a local business employer hires? Your empire ends at your property line.
Restrictionists will scapegoat aliens as violent criminals, etc., when in reality, we see proportionately lower arrests, etc., for aliens. Even Ron Paul has demagogued on the alleged lure of the welfare state, which doesn't explain nineteenth century immigration without a federal social welfare system or why the two fastest growing states, TX and FL, have among the lowest per capita social spending expenditures among the states.
I see immigration as a win-win for the US and its economy. There is no support for Trump prioritizing restrictions and wasteful, ineffective spending when unauthorized immigration peaked over 10 years ago. Unauthorized immigrants amount to less than 4% of the population. They are ineligible for almost all federal benefits. They contribute to the economy as employers, workers and consumers. Trump's lies and distortions scapegoat good people whose only "crime" is having to work around a broken immigration system. All he needs to do is to liberalize the bizarre quota system instead of an unnecessary zero-sum game of merit vs family and establish a real visiting worker system. No, our relatively open immigration system in the nineteenth century did not result in being overrun by the other 96% of people on earth. Most people want to live in their native homelands. It takes sacrifices to migrate to another country, often having to liquidate property at low prices, leaving relatives behind. etc., not to mention trying to make a living in a new country with strange customs, an unfamiliar language, etc.
