Posted on 05/01/2015 9:32:28 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Many people who take a hard line on immigration will be quick to tell you that it's only illegal immigration they oppose. The rule of law must be upheld, they argue, and amnesty only rewards lawbreakers. Immigration boosters, including me, have always suspected that this professed concern for the law masks a deeper opposition to all immigration.
Now Wisconsin Governor and potential presidential candidate Scott Walker has given ammo to the skeptics. In an interview with Glenn Beck, he strongly implied that he wants to limit legal immigration, in order to protect American jobs:
In terms of legal immigration…the next president and the next congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that's based on, first and foremost, protecting American workers and American wages, because the more I've talked to folks, I've talked to Senator Sessions and others out there — but it is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today — is what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages, and we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.
In other words, Walker may have accidentally given away the game — many immigration opponents are simply labor protectionists. They're not going to stop at enforcing the rule of law — they want to reduce the inflow of legal immigrants as well.
This is a bad idea.
The first reason it's a bad idea is that limiting the inflow of immigrants won't actually do much to protect American jobs or wages. Yes, if you look, you can find here and a new study out in which they find that immigrants boost native-born people's wages by allowing them to go into higher-skilled positions. Essentially, the native-born become managers for the immigrants.
But none of these studies are able to take into account the long-term effects that result from capital mobility. We live in a world in which it's very easy for capital to move across borders — an American company can fairly easily set up a factory, or a call center or even a research center in India. If we restrict immigration, the Indian people whom Microsoft wants to hire in Seattle will instead be hired in India. Those workers, instead of spending their paychecks in Seattle restaurants and Seattle gas stations, will spend their paychecks in India.
This is called the idea of local multipliers. It basically means that companies are going to hire those Indian people one way or another. Either they get hired in the U.S., or they get hired in some other country. Yes, some American workers will be competing with those workers. But in today's globalized world, Americans are going to be competing with them whether they're over here or over there. And it's better to hire them here, and compete with them here.
But this might not even be the biggest reason to want more immigration. Over time, we want the U.S. to stay at the center of the world economy. As China develops, its large population combined with its new wealth will make companies from all over the world want to relocate there, in order to be close to the vast Chinese market. In order to keep economic activity in the U.S., we will need to maintain a large market of our own. In the past, the U.S. did that by being a lot richer than China. In the future, the wealth gap will narrow, so the U.S. will need more people in order to remain the place where companies want to invest.
If you want to see a country that has long gone down the Scott Walker path, take a look at Japan. Japan has remained mostly closed to legal immigration in the modern age. As a result, it is aging dramatically and its population is elsewhere — given the shrinking Japanese market, they have no choice if they want to thrive. Nor has protectionism shielded Japanese wages, which have fallen for decades, propelled by the drought of investment.
Of course, Japan isn't the U.S. It isn't as good as the U.S. is at assimilating new immigrants. The U.S. ability to absorb newcomers is unique, and it gives America a chance to escape Japan's fate. If we listen to Scott Walker and other immigration restrictionists, however, the U.S. will be throwing away one of its biggest advantages. Don't fall for it.
ABSOLUTELY !
You're presumably speaking about Gov Scott Walker, the guy who has (rightfully so it seems) staked a claim to the right (and it WAS right) of Cruz?
You make those who like Cruz into groupies and morons.
The current hands-off illegal immigration policy preferred by liberals and the GOP Elite is the catch all for all those US businesses that for some reason must still operate in the US as opposed to outsourcing or moving their businesses off-shore. That policy helps the tourism industry as well as those businesses whose product is costly from a shipping perspective- furniture, autos, bulky items, food, etc. That is ABSOLUTELY UNFAIR to American workers whose lives are impacted by these policies. Economic time scales for businesses are measured in months. Economic time scales for American workers are measured in generations since language, education, culture, citizenship, etc. are all extremely difficult to change in time scales less than that. I understand economics quite well. What’s your excuse?
I am in favor of mass incarceration of illegals. I believe in zero amnesty. Am I not hardline enough for you when it comes to illegals? Why are you attacking me for my stance on illegals?
You should be attacking my stance on legal immigration since I want more of it.
Please get your arguments together in a coherent manner.
ABSOLUTELY!
I can't decide if you're Sen. Cruz's biggest fan or his worst advertisement.
I did and you just didn't get it.
What do you mean about drastically limiting legal immigration? We admit over one million legal immigrants per year, most of which are natural Democrats by the way. We have unending extended family chain migration. We have Ted Kennedy’s absurd Diversity Lottery visas. We have refugees. We have asylum seekers. We have H1B visas. We have all sort of ‘temporary’ worker permits.
We are limiting legal immigration in the sense that with open borders the 1 million or so we admit each year would be many times that, but with all we allow it’s hard to say we aren’t very generous.
There is too much illegal immigration, and there is too much legal immigration.
Illegal immigration is a huge problem, but it’s unending mass legal immigration that is altering the nation’s demography in the Left/Democrat’s favor.
You want to increase legal immigration above the million or so we already admit each year? Considering that this million or so already consists mostly of natural Democrats, wanting to increase that influx is like saying you want to hasten the demographic destruction of conservatism.
Unless of course you think an increase can happen that somehow changes the current natural Democrat makeup? How so? What category could be increased and not increase the number of future Democrats? H1Bs?
If there are categories you think should be increased, then why necessarily call for an increase in overall legal immigration? Why not call for an increase in a desirable category set against a decrease in others? Why not abolish the ridiculous Diversity Lottery visas Ted Kennedy came up with? Why not severely restrict refugee and asylum slots? Why not limit family migration to spouses and minor children?
I wish Walker had gone all the way and called for a reduction in legal immigration. But you’re right, just by saying that the interests of Americans should be considered, and that the reflex/default position shouldn’t necessarily be ever-more legal immigration, that put Walker to the right of Cruz on legal immigration. And it put him firmly in the mainstream of the views held by Republican voters and Americans overall.
To be fair, Cruz has been mostly good and consistent on illegal immigration. And to be fair, he’s been consistent on legal immigration, but he’s been consistently bad because he apparently supports unending and increasing mass legal immigration.
Also to be fair, Walker has not been consistent on illgal immigration, and I don’t trust him on it. And he hasn’t always taken a more populist tone on legal immigration. He has made comments in the past suggesting he too would support huge increases in legal immigration. But from he’s saying now it seems as though he has actually thought about the issue and changed his mind, and that should be commended.
I like Cruz. I’ll vote for him if he wins the nomination. But it seems some of his supporters take any criticism of him very personally. I mean, are we not supposed to notice that he’s so liberal on legal immigration?
Walker got ZERO help from the GOPe for his recall and his reelection campaign. Zero.
He only got support from that obvious establishment shill Sarah Palin when she alone braved it there and took on the union thugs with her speech.
Are you really this dumb?
You don't have to answer, it's obvious, you deal from emotion only.
Like I said, you make those of us, like myself, who prefer Cruz look bad just knowing you are here lying and foaming at the mouth.
Good post, shows your thoughtfulness.
Yes.
I support reducing immigration for reasons that have nothing to do with protectionism.
He did everything he said he would. He fought the unions, broke them, balanced the Wisconsin budget, and now has a surplus, while turning a negative job growth rate to highly positive.
Sell out.
You really need to understand something: If Cruz wins, he's likely to pick this "sell out" to be his running mate.
Stop emoting, there is good reason to like Cruz better, but little reason to come on these threads calling him a sell out, or pretend he's some creation of the GOPE.
By saying these things you make Cruz supporters seem petty and stupid.
He sounds good to me. I’m leaning towards Scott Walker as the nominee at this point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.