On Saturday I posted my thoughts on Georgia state Senator Chip Rogers's legislation designed to "restrict access to schools, hospitals, jobs and highways for the state's exploding illegal immigrant population." My premise, and maybe I should have been more clear on this point, was that claiming this legislation as immigration "reform" is disingenuous when at its core it is simply the first step in closing off our borders - this isn't reform, it is Nativism. The merits of Nativism can be debated (and I'm not knocking it here), but I think it is important to recognize the legislation for what it really is.
Originally, I posted my comments on Rogers's legislation over at Southern Appeal. One reader responded by arguing thusly: "How about we deport the illegal immigrants in this country and impose a moratorium on legal immigration for a couple of decades?"
This is my rejoinder to those who would argue (click on comment section) that it is in best interest of the United States to 1) round up and deport all illegal immigrants and 2) close our borders - or set a moratorium on immigration.
Illegal immigration is a problem in this country, no doubt. However, President Bush's guest worker program is one solution to this problem - as opposed to closing the borders and deporting illegal immigrants. As Daniel Griswold of the Cato Institute has noted:
Undocumented workers should not be granted automatic permanent
residence status, and instead should be issued temporary worker visas, valid for a limited period only.
They should be assessed a one-time fine of a significant but not prohibitive amount. To gain permanent
residence status, they would then need to apply for permanent residency through existing channels.
Whether or not paleoconservatives want to acknowledge the importance of economics on other policy issues is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that immigrants (legal or no) "make our economy more productive and efficient, lowering costs for consumers and raising real wages and returns on investment for native-born Americans." The cost to the American taxpayer of finding every illegal immigrant, detaining them, and then deporting them would be extremely high. Sure, the government does a great number of things that are expensive, but generally there is a benefit to the American taxpayer. What is the benefit here? we only damage our own economy in the long run.
Closing our borders to all immigrants would deprive the United States of foreign ingenuity and hardwork. Do we really want this? What is the justification for shutting our "doors" to immigrants?
The reader went on to argue:
1. "The American people simply do not want post-1965 mass immigration to continue to transform their communities and their nation."
This is simply not true. I responded to this argument by stating:
I'm not sure that it is immigration per se that some people object to. The rise of multiculturalism is a disgrace to traditional American values - this is the objection, not immigration itself. Historically, immigrants to this country have made, or were culturally forced to make, a concerted effort to assimilate. Now we are seeing entire pockets of immigrants that are not assimilating - this is the problem the US is facing - the bifurcation of American society.
Instead of closing off the borders we should put a stop to the left-wing's institutionalization of multiculturalism. We should make sure that new immigrants embrace "the English language, the rule of law, respect for individual rights, and our industriousness and piety."
Newt Gingrich makes similar arguments in his new book, Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America. Likewise, Roger Kimball argues in an essay, Institutionalizing Our Demise (found in the book Lengthened Shadows: America And Its Institutions in the Twenty-first Century), that immigration isn't the problem so much as a lack of assimilation on the part of many new immigrants.
2. "There is simply no moral obligation to admit millions of strangers into one's country, transforming it from what it was into something else, any more than there is such an obligation to admit strangers into one's home."
This is true - we have no moral obligation to allow for immigration into this country. But it is certainly in our economic interest. What about our historical practice of allowing for immigration - the Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, etc.? Should this be taken into account? I think so, but I'm pretty sure that paleocons disagree.
3. "This is the one issue that will shatter the party if the GOP elites continue to force their immoral views on the American people." (boldface mine - SLS)
I simply cannot support the hypothesis that the immigration issue will "split" the Republican Party. There is a difference of opinion amongst Republicans on the issue, sure, but a split? No way. As to whether Pres. Bush's proposal is "immoral" - I'm not even sure where to begin... So, I'll just leave it alone.
And finally he asks, "[w]hat is the source of your hostility to average Americans who simply want to live in a distinctive nation they can recognize as their own, with its own norms, folkways and culture, not some leftist EPCOT-like mall of the world?"
Look, I've been called a lot of things, but hostile to average Americans isn't one of them. So this is a first. America is a distinctive nation with its own norms, folkways, and culture. Our culture, norms, and folkways have been shaped, in large measure, by the melting pot society in which we live. My WASP ancestors contributed immeasurably to our culture at its founding - our religion, our laws, our form of government - but to argue that American culture is solely Anglo-Saxon Protestant is absurd.