The WSJ Position on Immigration

The editors of the Wall Street Journal who have long supported an open borders policy either de facto or in jure, have come out as opposed to the president’s announced policy change:

The polls show the American people are uneasy about Mr. Obama’s unilateral law-making, and liberals should be too. Mr. Obama is setting a precedent that Republican Presidents could also use to overcome a Democratic majority. How about an order to the IRS not to collect capital-gains taxes on inflated gains from property held for more than a decade? That policy would be broadly popular and also address a basic lack of fairness.

Mr. Obama’s rule-by-regulation has already been rebuked more than once by the Supreme Court. His “I, Barack” immigration decree is another abuse that will roil American politics and erode public confidence in the basic precepts of self-government.

I think there are only two likely explanations for their reaction:

  1. Either they think he’s done the right thing in the wrong way or
  2. They’re opposed to it because he’s doing it.

Just as a reminder, I’m in favor of increasing the number of work visas given to Mexican workers by a factor of ten or even a hundred, serious workplace enforcement with serious penalties, and increased H1B visas providing the jobs are advertised in a central clearing house well before the visa is received with draconian penalties for abusing the system. I also would not oppose some version of the DREAM Act as long as it were systematically and consistently applied and enforced.

That’s neither a conservative nor a progressive position but I think it comports with the realities of life in today’s United States rather than riding somebody’s political hobby. It’s a lot more liberal than the view of a majority of Americans but based on the polls it’s closer than what either Republicans or Democrats support.

2 comments… add one
  • TastyBits Link

    There should be a public database for the H1B visa holders. It would include their resume and pay rate. This would allow other employers to poach them. The large IT companies may agree not to poach, but this would give access to any US company.

    This would put upward pressure on these pay rates, and each visa holder is taking up a one spot. The big IT companies will have a harder time keeping indentured servants.

  • jan Link

    I think the many people, disgusted by this latest EO of the president, feel this way because of the incoherently controversial manner in which it was exercised, not because they oppose immigration reform. Much like health care reform should have been reconciled in a collaborative fashion, so too should immigration reform be worked out among all branches of government — not by executive fiat alone. Also, the comparisons between Lincoln’s Emancipation Order, and Reagan/Bush’s EO edicts — clarifying/updating a prior Congressionally-passed immigration bill — dishonestly conflates these past acts so as to pathetically rationalize this current stand-alone unilateral one.

    Furthermore, the excuse of presidential “impatience” just doesn’t wash as a good reason to push such a divisive decree that’s opposed by so many. Not only does it set an unfortunate abuse of power precedent, applicable to “impatient” goals/mind sets of future presidents, but it also employs no purposeful remedies, such as mending political fences or addressing the myriad of economic, social, or foreign problems already belaboring this nation. All it does is either muddy or compound current issues, by increasing the possibility of even more illegal border crossings, worsen uneasy feelings between legal and illegal populations, along with increasing financial and employment strains when implementation comes into play.

    When is enough, enough?

Leave a Comment