I’m largely in agreement with George Borjas’s views on U. S. immigration reform, as expressed in this op-ed at the New York Times. For example
The only way to truly curtail illegal immigration may require that all employers use an electronic system like E-Verify to certify the legal status of newly hired workers, accompanied by sizable penalties for employers who break the law.
and
A sensible immigration policy that generates economic benefits for Americans and for immigrants already here ensures that we can better adapt to the economic shocks that will visit us in the next few decades. And the best way to maximize those benefits is to filter the pool of persons who want to migrate.
Before jumping in to claim that such “filtering†is un-American, it’s worth remembering that anything short of open borders inevitably involves filtering. Between the 1920s and 1965, the filtering was done through national origin, giving preference to immigrants born in Western European countries. Since 1965, we have preferred immigrants who have relatives already living here. Filtering on the basis of economic potential ensures that immigration generates the largest possible economic gain for our country.
Right now the extreme positions dominate the national conversation. At this point the Democratic leadership won’t accept any form of “filtering”, as Dr. Borjas puts it, and, as he points out, that is de facto an “open borders” policy. The most vocal opponents of open borders want to eject all illegal immigrants (and some even all immigrants full stop).
Polling data suggest that the greatest number of the American people don’t support either of those extreme positions. They think that legal immigration of between 500,000 and 1 million per year is acceptable, that illegal immigration is not acceptable, and that some accommodation should be made for illegal immigrants who were brought here as children by their parents.
It would seem that there’s room for a compromise there but, frankly, I doubt it. As Josh Billings put it more than a century ago,
The wheel that squeaks the loudest
Is the one that gets the grease.
Borjas writes that there is ‘widespread dissatisfaction’ with immigration, and yet that Gallup poll suggests the opposite–38% think immigration should be kept at its present level and 24% think it should be increased.
And over the course of several decades, it’s not hard to spot an obvious trend: those who want to decrease immigration are becoming fewer in number. In 1995 Gallup has 62% of Americans wanting to decrease immigration. Now it’s 35%.
The problem being is that you can’t make Americans believe it’s 1995 rather than 2018. I think it’s apparent that a minority of anti-immigrations wishes it were 1995, and their refusal to cut a deal earlier was a tantrum about it not being so.
Except that President Trump didn’t win the election in 1995, did he?
Look, as it stands we make the poor in third world countries run a very dangerous gauntlet through deserts, in the closed up backs of rental trucks, ect. telling those who survive they can apply for refugee status with an appearance date so far off they just disappear into the cities.
As of now this IS our immigration policy. If they knew they would be immediately returned, they wouldn’t take this gamble.
I know it’s dangerous in EL Salvador and so it is in parts of Chicago.
I think the answer to your question is no. The Senate actually came up with a plan, but then the House shot it down. There might be hope yet for individual parts, like DACA.
Steve
Where does this immigration polling originate? Most of the polling I’ve read indicate a substantial majority wants immigration in all forms to be restricted….thus POTUS Trump, new Italian Prezzie, Merkel’s troubles, etc.
RE: immig restriction, see ‘The Audacious Epigone’ blog for more polling.