It looks a lot like defeat for the immigration bill, according to Powerline. Good. There is no reason to believe that this is an honest piece of legislation. It is disguised amnesty and all make-believe enforcement. I am not necessarily opposed to amnesty, if it were coupled with real border enforcement. On the other hand, I don't think it necessary, and it's almost certainly opposed by the American people. If the border is brought under control, the illegals who remain here may have a more difficult time. But their children will be legal and will assimilate as fast as any other immigrant group.
I posted earlier on an article about the economic effects of immigration, arguing that immigration as a whole (legal and illegal) is clearly good for the American economy. Robert Rector at RealClearPolitics replies to the Karl Zinsmeister and Edward Lazear I mentioned. I don't think he makes much headway, but he makes one point that is clearly correct.
Immigration policy should seek to increase the number of high-skill immigrants entering the country and sharply decrease the number of low-skill, fiscally dependent immigrants.
Of course! It would probably not be a good idea to cut off the flow of low-skilled workers, or at least not at once. Some industries probably do depend on such immigrants. But a dramatic reduction would raise the wages of low-skilled workers across the board, and encourage innovation in labor-intensive industries. On the other hand, we ought to swing the gate wide open to high skilled workers. That is a win-win situation for the country and for high value immigrants. It would put pressure only on the wages of folks who can afford it. The only exception I can think of is immigrants with political science degrees. That would clearly be bad.
Recent Comments