Another story in the Houston Chronicle on Sunday made the same old points about immigration.
- they are good people who pay taxes and obey the non-immigration laws
- they are vital to the economy
- the recent bill made immigrants pay hefty fines
- the recent bill required years of waiting before citizenship
- the recent bill made security much better
- A tiny outspoken minority of xenophobes overwhelmed the good-hearted majority and
- that minority just doesn’t get it
I work in the non-profit industry and I am frequently on the bleeding heart side of issues, but this one cuts the other direction. The first argument against most of the above facts is that they were all equally true in 1986. The problem is NOT the illegal immigrants that were here in 1986 and it is not the immigrants here now; the big problem is the horde of immigrants that FOLLOW this type of legislation.
Most of these immigrants want a job. If they are legally allowed to have a job, they don’t care about the other stuff they can get or might get years down the road. And this bill would have given them immediate permission to get and keep a job. Millions more would try to get in and fake their way into one of those jobs, once again overwhelming whatever we can put on the border. It is ending the easy access to the labor market that will stop the flood.
Furthermore, that argument that it is a vocal minority shouting down a righteous minority has been killed in the polls. Witness McCain’s implosion while Elizabeth Dole soared higher than it had been in years. Lindsey Graham also went down as he supported the bill, and hey, Mitt Romney continues to climb in presidential polls after taking a firm stance against the bill. The immigration bill was attacked as bad legislation by lefties, righties and moderates. It’s final death blow was BIPARTISAN with many Democrats joining Republicans to kill it despite White House support.
There is also the economics of labor. When the labor market is tight (because immigration is limited and immigration laws are enforced), wages rise, including those at the lower skill level of the market. That was the model of economic growth during the Clinton years. During much of the Bush years, we have seen wages rise only at the upper rungs. That coincidentally matches Bush’s more relaxed enforcement of immigration law than Clinton. I still cannot understand why a Democrat would try so hard to reduce the wages of the low-skilled Americans that usually vote for them. (Actually, I do know why. They think they will get a bigger share of the Latino vote than Republicans will if they go this way. So, it’s about selling out a shrinking constituency to get a bigger one. That’s definitely not a noble reason …)
