All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore all men are Socrates.
That wild flight of illogic is from Woody Allen’s Love and Death. It resembles a fallacy of irrelevance called “the genetic fallacy”. The genetic fallacy has nothing to do with DNA but with determining whether something is true or false based on the history of the claim or its source. Those are irrelevant to whether a claim is true or false.
David Leonhardt opens his latest New York Tmes column wth an evocation of the genetic fallacy with respect to immigration policy:
The history of American opposition to immigration is to a large extent a history of racism, which was often promoted by powerful or influential people.
Calvin Coolidge wrote in 1921 that “Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend.†Henry Cabot Lodge warned, in an 1896 speech on the Senate floor, that immigrants could devastate the “mental and moral qualities which make what we call our race†— and Theodore Roosevelt praised Lodge for “an A-1 speech.†Roosevelt also told a friend he was worried about the “multiplication†of “Finnegans, Hooligans, Antonios, Mandelbaums and Rabinskis.â€
Given that history he is struggling with his own, accurate perception that circumstances have changed:
As regular readers know, I have become somewhat hawkish on immigration. I think our immigration policy should take into account the sharp rise in inequality over the last few decades. One way to do so would be to reduce, or at least hold constant, the level of immigration by people who would compete for lower- and middle-wage jobs while increasing immigration among people who would compete for higher-wage jobs.
History also makes this point. It’s not just a coincidence that the period of strongest income gains for middle-class and poor families — starting in the 1940s — followed, and overlapped with, a period of falling immigration. “Immigration restriction, by making unskilled labor more scarce, tended to shore up wage rates,†the great labor historian Irving Bernstein wrote.
The economists Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson have noted that the foreign-born share of the labor force fell to 5 percent in 1970, from 21 percent in 1915. Countries with “slower labor force growth†in the middle of 20th century, they note, “experienced deeper income inequality reductions.â€
Since the 1970s, of course, immigration has surged, as has income inequality. Many other factors play a role in rising inequality: corporate consolidation, slowing educational attainment, the decline of unions, falling tax rates on the rich and more. Some of these are substantially more important than immigration. But immigration belongs on the list.
In particular he struggles with what he considers Trump’s racism and Trump’s support for immigration laws based on skills rather than on family ties, sponsorship, or a lottery as our present system is. Whatever you think of Trump that is fallacious. You cannot evaluate the wisdom of a policy by assessing the motives of those who support it.
The sad reality is that in today’s political climate the only people who will propose the immigration reforms we need are those who don’t care that they will be called racists which means that some of them will be racists. Mr. Leonhardt’s search for a political leader who will “figure out how to make a principled case for less immigration” will be in vain because such any such figure will inevitably be called a racist whether it’s true or not.
When identifying solutions to problems you must consider the things that you can control, those you cannot control, and those for which the cost of the solution you are considering is not justified by the results you can hope to achieve. I think that income inequality and, in particular, that so many black Americans, the descendants of slaves, remain poor 150 years after slavery was abolished, are problems that need to be solved.
We cannot control that some jobs have greater value than others. The cost of compensating everyone equally regardless of the value of what they do would be too high. Our immigration policies, as Mr. Leonhardt documents in his column, have adverse consequences for income inequality, are things we can control, and the costs of the changes being proposed are acceptable. We should not be deterred from making the changes to our immigration policies needed for the 21st century because some racists would embrace them or because it requires someone who doesn’t mind if he’s called a racist even to propose them.
“You cannot evaluate the wisdom of a policy by assessing the motives (or personality or even character) of those who support it.â€
This observation has broader application. Trump may be a cad, blowhard etc. But that doesn’t address his policies. Critics cannot get past this point, I suspect due more to political views and politics-as-sport than real policy evaluation.
“Our immigration policies, as Mr. Leonhardt documents in his column, have adverse consequences for income inequality, are things we can control, and the costs of the changes being proposed are acceptable.â€
And so we arrive at the question “why such virulent opposition now?†There may be several. I suggest virtuous concerns for foreigners are at the bottom of the list. Many things for which Trump is criticized were present or started under Obama. Crickets.
No, I think it’s primarily crass and reflexive anti-Trump emotion, and the cynical politics of votes, especially in the grand prize: Texas. Trumps core immigration stance benefits US citizens, and their opportunity for prosperity. Nibble at the details if you like. The progs are plain and simply using illegals as pawns in a political tactic, poorly veiled as virtue. Why else use the tired race card and negotiate in bad faith?
So who’s the bad guy?
As Eric Hoffer said, “What starts out here as a mass movement ends up as a racket, a cult, or a corporation.” Our immigration policies have been all three for a long time. There’s good money to be made from the status quo.
Well, here’s a one minute clip. Biden on immigration. Is he sincere?
If sincere he certainly does have a a stance based on race.
https://youtu.be/bamqBJ0DkJs
His historical knowledge is poor. The know-nothings were anti-immigrant groups who were, at least in the Northern part of the country, the backbone of the anti-slavery movement. Lincoln didn’t think the combination made sense (“How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people?”) But that was the world in which he lived.
And it is also probably true that some subset of the anti-slavery group was anti-negro. They didn’t like slavery because they didn’t like negroes. And while this group emphasized colonization efforts, others favored colonization because they were pessimistic about America, not because they were anti-Negro.
Anti-slavery politicians like Lincoln sought to avoid antagonizing all of the different strands from which they could find political support by avoiding discussion of the wedge issues within. That one doesn’t see all of the divisions doesn’t mean they didn’t (and don’t) exist, but are signs of successful politics.
At risk of “whataboutism” I note that he does not subject the labor union movement to the same scrutiny he does immigration policy. That’s not a non sequitur. Anti-negro and anti-immigrant sentiments were major impetus in labor union organization.
And I wondered when someone would bring up the colonization movement. Returning to that topic seems like a natural if we’re going to revive the subject of reparations.
“There’s good money to be made from the status quo.”
Indeed. And I should have also mentioned the – as I call them – corporatists.