Today I find myself somewhat uncomfortably in at least partial agreement with Thomas Friedman. His most recent New York Times column is about immigration policy and the factors underpinning mass immigration. Here’s the part with which I agree:
The first is a way to think about the border and the second is a way to think about all the issues beyond the border — issues that are pushing migrants our way. You cannot think seriously about the first without thinking seriously about the second, and if you don’t, this week’s scenes of Customs and Border Protection officers firing tear gas to keep out desperate migrants near Tijuana will get a lot worse.
Regarding the border, the right place for Democrats to be is for a high wall with a big gate.
I also agree with something else he implies in his column. The Democratic leadership should make their views on the border and on immigration clear. For years they’ve been engaging in strategic ambiguity, willing neither to embrace or reject open borders because they know that either position will lose votes. Their apologists are engaging in sophistry, saying in effect that if they don’t say right out in so many words that they are opposed to open borders it’s terribly unfair to suggest they are. The opposite is the case. If they don’t say they’re against open borders, won’t support enforcing our laws, and have suggested that they are at least uncomfortable with enforcing our laws, e.g. “I don’t believe in borders” or “we should abolish ICE”, deducing that they quietly support open borders is completely reasonable.
I disagree with this:
But the country won’t do as well as it can in the 21st century unless it remains committed to a very generous legal immigration policy — and a realistic pathway to citizenship for illegals already here — to attract both high-energy, low-skilled workers and high-I.Q. risk takers.
The emphasis is mine. I think that Mr. Friedman is living in the past. Wages for unskilled workers have been stagnant or declining for decades. Here in Chicago a family of four (two adults, two children) must earn at least the median income for a family four or they will be a net burden. That translates to both adults working full-time and earning at least $15/hour. Many unskilled workers, regardless of energy, will not receive that income. They are not assets. They are liabilities and drive down the wages of other unskilled workers.
In today’s American economy unskilled workers are not a necessity but a luxury. I think we should continue to admit a certain number of unskilled immigrants—those who are legitimate refugees. Those are a very small minority of the total number of unskilled workers that enter the U. S. annually. In short we need an immigration policy that much more closely resembles those of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, other “nations of immigrants”, than they do our present policies.
He also dwells at considerable length on Venezuela and on climate change. While I think that lack of resources, inadequate capital investment, disease, and overpopulation are all significant problems for developing countries, their most serious and challenging problem is bad government. Venezuelans brought their present circumstances on themselves. Mr. Friedman can’t bring himself to draw the unavoidable and terrible conclusion. Either Venezuelans have no right of emigration (something recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) or there are limits to their sovereignty and the other countries of their region should have stepped in long ago in self-defense.
I agree with the principle of high wall with a big gate. I think the basic issue is that Mexican immigrants to the U.S. disproportionately have the lowest skills and average incomes. (This is not true of Mexican immigrants to other countries, like the U.K., so its not an ethnic issue, but one of proximity to a country with a lot of relative poverty) Those are legal immigrants, so one would expect illegal immigrants to be worse, and it might very well be the incomes of legal Mexican immigrants that are most impacted.
We aren’t the only country that experiences something like this. Libyans who go to Italy tend to be poorer and less skilled than the Libyans who come here.
That is very much what the studies have found.
Where the problem comes is in whom you are willing to exclude. It’s blithe to say “criminals”. It presumes that you know who the criminals are. But who else?
If you aren’t willing to exclude anyone but criminals, that is a de facto open borders policy.
Make a clear statement of what they want vs strategic ambiguity that keeps the flow of donor dollars and outrage meter pegged is a big ask.
For Democrats to speak of “undocumented workers, dreamers, family reunification, etc., is cynical and downright evil. They paint themselves as humanitarians with big hearts but send a message south that is a despicable lie. If you can just give up your life, and your home and walk or hitch hike to the border, you’re all but in!
There was a picture and interview on Axios today about a woman with five children who traveled from Honduras to Tijuana hoping to cross because the children’s father was in North Carolina. Who separated THAT family? If they make it across, that’s six more on welfare, if they don’t, they beg in Tijuana. When dad deserted them, he made it somebody else’s problem. Should’ve stayed home, dad too.
Probably the best way to see what Democrats really believe is to look at the immigration reform bills for which they voted. They had, by report, reached an agreement with McConnell earlier this year that would let trump have his wall if the Dreamers were protected. Steven Miller vetoed that.
That said, I agree that the Dem leadership avoids making public statements on the topic. They dont want to alienate the small group of Democrats who really do believe in open borders.
Steve
It doesn’t matter what Democrats believe. What matters is what the leadership believes. We’ll know what the leadership believes when the House Democratic caucus votes on something they know will pass the Senate. Until then every vote will be political posturing and political posturing alone.
The Democrats aren’t alone in that, by the way. That is the way our present political system works. The leadership has too much power. Add to that the erosion of the middle and you arrive at our present situation: Posturefest 2018 (soon to be Posturefest 2019).