I have written previously about immigration, and cannot understand how smart politicians and commentators let themselves get fouled up in that debate. It is not that hard to keep things straight.
As I noted before, some three years ago, in fact,
I do not hear discussion about whether we need none, little, some, or a lot of immigration, and if we do, what type of immigration we should seek. Do we need millions more of semi and unskilled people from Mexico and other poor countries? Absent widespread elimination or reduction in minimum wage, taxation, public assistance, and zoning laws, how will these people contribute to the economic growth of our country? This is not nineteenth century America with small factories and workshops on every street corner, and belching smokestack industries eager for cheap workers. This is the America of EPA regulations, OSHA bureaucrats, job killing minimum wage and health insurance laws, outsourcing, and of a growing ethos that sees single parents living on the public dole as an honorable existence. It is also the America of multiculturalism whereby immigrants are encouraged never to become Americans.And, again,
[W]e need a good discussion of how much immigration WE NEED. Not how many people want to come here, but how many and what sort WE need. I see nothing wrong with a bit of selfishness when it comes to protecting our national defense, our cultural values, our jobs, and our tax resources. Do WE need one million legal immigrants? Off the top of my head, I would say, no. What types of immigrants are they? By far, today, the majority are of the low-skill "family reunification" type. Do WE need that? I, for example, find it absurd that an adult immigrant can file for his or her adult siblings and their family members. That sets up an endless cascade of "family reunification." We no longer enforce the "public charge" provisions of our immigration law; that needs to restart ASAP. Do WE need hundreds-of-thousands of unskilled and low wage-earning immigrants? Do WE need immigrants who adhere to a totalitarian murderous cult that passes as a religion? Do WE want to replicate the German, French, and Scandinavian experience with bogus refugees?Once we establish what type and how much--if any--immigration our nation needs, then we can move on.
To have that debate, however, we have to be able to conduct it without waves of immigrants and "refugees" pouring in.
-- Temporarily suspending all immigration;
-- Securing the border, including a wall which can be paid for by a tax on remittances and fees on certain consular and border services;
-- Enforcing our existing laws, which would include deporting people caught here illegally--especially felons; and,
-- Having a system of verification in place that ensures illegals do not work, vote, or draw public benefits.
In other words, make the environment hostile for illegal migration. That would lead to large numbers of those illegally here departing on their own. Combined with the deportation laws already on the books, we should see a dramatic reduction in illegal aliens pretty quickly--even if we do not deport 12 million people. It would, above all, make it less likely that illegals would continue to come here.
There is no Constitutional or internationally recognized right to immigrate to the United States (or anywhere else). We have in the past excluded fascists, Nazis, Communists, anybody adhering to a philosophy advocating the violent overthrow of our way of life, sexual deviants, criminals, etc. We can do it again.
Bottom line: Our nation has the right to have whatever immigration system we want.
Not hard to keep straight.
Don't let the progs get away with their usual fog of confusion.