Replies

Myth:

"Immigration must be reduced because Americans say so in polls. When polled within the appropriate context, Every poll I've ever seen where the question is directly asked shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose increasing immigration levels into the United States. Most of the same polls show that a majority also want legal immigration levels decreased."

Truth:

"Americans favor immigration. Republican pollster Vince Breglio found that by a two-to-one margin, voters support allowing U.S. citizens to continue sponsoring their adult children and brothers and sisters. And a national poll just released by the independent Grass Roots Research firm found that 61 percent of Americans agree with the statement that, "Anyone, from any country in the world, should be free to come to America if they are financially able to provide for themselves and their family." -- Source

First of all I'm not saying that immigration must be reduced simply because the majority wants it to be reduced. Majority sentiment does not automatically mean its right, though in this case I think it is. There are many reasons I think it should be reduced, and while the fact that most Americans want it is one reason, there are many more.

I bring up the the majority sentiment for several reasons. One is to show that it could be a political winner if handled correctly. Another is to simply point out the disconnect between what Americans consistently say is their preference versus what their elected leaders give them.

Now as to the polling data you cite: First of all, isn't it nearly 7 yrs old? But even if so, that's fine. Let's assume a poll released today showed the exact same thing. You would still have to square it with all the other polls on the matter. Secondly, the question of Americans' preference as it relates to numbers was apparently never asked. So, perhaps 61% did favor letting anyone with the means to support their family immigrate, but if in doing so it meant increasing imm levels was apparently never asked.

I agree that the wording of the poll makes a big difference. Perhaps its true that Americans support the specific examples presented in the poll. But the fact remains when Americans are asked the general question of whether they want immigration levels to stay the same, be increased, or be decreased; the percentage wanting an increase is always small. 'Stay the same' and 'decreased' almost always fight it out for majority or plurality status. Many other polls show a clear majority in favor of reduction. Go to numbersusa.com, and look on their polls section. This site may not cite polls unfavorable to their agenda, but that doesn't impugn the validity of those they do cite. ( Also: For all I know this site's creator may be a wacky environmentalist. I honestly don't know. It is useful to me for the stats and the collection of polls. Period.)

It would be very interesting if a extensive poll was done on this matter. Ask people if they want immigration reduced. If they say yes, then ask if they still think so if it means sponsored family members must wait longer to immigrate. On the other hand, ask people if they think anyone with the financial means to support themselves and their families should be able to immigrate. If they say yes, then ask them if they still think so if it means massive increases in already mass levels of immigration resulting in a population of India/China proportions. Ask them if they think family reunification should be fit into their desire for reduced numbers.

You could go on and on asking detailed questions trying to determine the purest public opinion on this complex issue. I hope someone does it, but in the meantime I'm not going to ignore the numerous polls I've seen backing up what I've said because of one seven yr old poll that might suggest otherwise.

As to other areas of this Cato article:

Cost/Benefits: As with polls, different studies show different things. Many examining the costs, for example, don't consider the cost of educating immigrants and their children based on the assumption it will pay for itself. Some consider the National Academy of Sciences study in the mid-late 90s to be most exaustive, and it showed imm was a net positive; to the whopping tune of less than one tenth of one percent of GDP, or in other words--nothing in an economy our size.

Also, they conclude this part with the oft stated desire to cut welfare, not the immigrants who use it. Again, the more people likely to use a program means it is that much harder to get rid of it.

Wages: Perhaps Borjas said that then, but since he has attributed at least some wage depression to mass immigration.

They conclude by saying; "Legal immigration has been one of the few constants throughout American history that has consistently served the nation well, both culturally and economically. "

Again, the US does not have a legacy of constant mass immigration. The last wave was drastically reduced by Congress. For the next 40+ yrs immigration averaged around a modest annual level of 200,000.

They also say; "In the immigration debate, the burden of proof should be on those who suggest shutting the golden gates tighter. So far, they have not made that case."

I disagree. The burden should be on those wanting to keep in place an unwanted policy that has probably brought no significant net benefit to native born Americans, and that will transform this nation into something its never been if levels are not reduced.