Mar 01

Yes, Let’s Cut Legal Too

More Misinformation from the Media:

For years, immigration hard-liners have argued that they have no complaint about legal immigration. It’s the law-breakers who get under their skin. Some no doubt still feel that way. But its’ becoming apparent that for many, legal immigration needs shrinking too. . . .

That’s unfortunate. Immigrants represent a net gain for America—they’re far more likely to start businesses than native-born residents, for instance, and immigration helps sustain economic growth by adding to the population of both producers and consumers.

Most of all, immigration is something to be celebrated in a liberty-loving country. The effort to stifle immigration is, at bottom, nothing but a big-government attempt to control both the hiring decisions of business managers and the free movement of people across political boundaries. America needs at least one party to argue that isn’t a government job. – Editorial: It’s Immigration, Not Just Illegal Immigration, After All, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Our Opinion, 1/13/18 [Link]

Fact Check: The national organizations promoting immigration control have always advocated cuts to legal immigration as well as steps to stop illegal immigration. Legal immigration has “needed shrinking” for quite some time. For the past 25 years it has averaged more than one million a year, the highest sustained level in our history. Mass immigration made some sense in the 19th century when our country was undeveloped, but it makes little sense today in a country which is full and developed.

Immigration pushers never tire of claiming that immigrants are more likely to start businesses than natives. But statistics from the Census Bureau show that natives and immigrants are in business for themselves at about the same rate. Adding more people to our population may increase the size of the economy, but it does not necessarily increase per capita income—the most pertinent measure of economic benefit. If lots of people alone make a country rich, then Bangladesh would be a very wealthy country.

Many people don’t like “big government,” but it’s hard to fault government for carrying out its proper functions, one of which is to secure our border. Without a border we don’t have a country. What the editors of the Times-Dispatch propose as the “free movement of people” is simple anarchy. Such “free movement” would deny the freedom of liberty-loving American citizens to decide what kind of country they want to have. And if we are to have a country, it is not unreasonable for Americans to insist that business managers hire legal residents.

If the Times-Dispatch editors really believe what they claim, they should be honest enough to admit that the concepts of nation and patriotism have no meaning for them. Sadly, it seems they’ve been sniffing the fumes of libertarian lunacy.

Permanent link to this article:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.