Posted on 10/17/2005 9:44:36 AM PDT by Crackingham
The results of the recent special election in California's 48th Congressional District are a sober wakeup call to economic conservatives who believe in the free movement of goods, capital and labor. Self-appointed, vigilante immigration restrictionist Jim Gilchrist received a sizable 14.4 percent of the vote for Congress on a single-issue, immigrant bashing platform. Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, who endorsed Gilchrist, is trying, with some success, to raise immigrant-bashing to a top-tier issue in the 2008 elections.
Anti-immigration sentiment is one symptom of a larger neo-Mercantilist disease that is also threatening the globalization of trade and capital flows. Unless true free-market conservatives tame these emotional arguments with the force of logic, much of the economic progress of the past century could be reversed.
America enjoys unprecedented diversity. After decades of increasing prosperity, most Americans feel comfortable with this diversity, but some, reacting to immigrants who are increasingly bypassing traditional immigrant-friendly coastal cities to settle in traditionally white rural and suburban communities, are uncomfortable with demographic change.
Anti-immigrant groups and demagogues like Gilchrist and Tancredo have capitalized on this discomfort in newly emerging immigrant communities. They have falsely attempted to blame immigrants for everything from suburban sprawl to environmental degradation and most recently have taken advantage of the fears of the American public to blame immigrants for terrorism.
Immigration is a moral imperative and an economic necessity. Geographic location of birth is a morally arbitrary fact, and it is wrong to limit an individual's freedom to pursue his or her interests based on it, particularly in a country whose civic identity is based on providing opportunities to people from around the world.
The economic benefits of free movement of people, like the benefits of free trade and capital flows, are clear. Each immigrant who comes to the United States expands national output more than he or she personally consumes, which benefits everyone.
A landmark National Academy of Sciences report found that immigrants contribute more than $10 billion annually to the economy. Other estimates range as high as $80 billion. The NAS study examined every aspect of the issue, from job displacement, to wages, to entrepreneurship, to taxes and consumption of social services. The economic contributions of immigrants have been particularly notable in midsize to large cities, whose populations and economies have been buoyed by immigration.
Immigrants have revitalized urban economies throughout the United States and particularly improved important sectors such as small business, import/export, finance, construction and manufacturing. Immigrants also have founded many of the largest and most successful technology companies, the lifeblood of our 21st century economy.
With unemployment rates remaining near historic lows and legal immigration quotas far too low to meet the demand for labor, it is clear that reforms are needed to reconcile public policy with economic reality. President Bush has proposed a compromise approach that would create a legal guest worker program to meet this demand for workers. Included in this program would be a route to earned legalization so that undocumented workers can adjust their status and become legal permanent residents. These principles are embodied in Senate legislation sponsored by John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. Bush should endorse this legislation, and explain to the American public that the correct conservative, free-market position is pro-immigration.
A nation without borders is not a nation at all.
Nice round-up of libertarian/wage-depression platitudes. Thanks!
That would be ILLEGAL immgrant bashing. No agenda here.
I'm a total free trader, but even Adam Smith believed in secure borders and national defense.
"Earned legalization"...a specious new concept, in which the longer one breaks the law, the quicker the violation is amnestied away.
Calling all FROBLS! Here's your man, a proud exponent of wide open borders.
National sovereignty, Ptuey! Who needs that? Borders are for "nation-states," an obsolete construct!
Tancredo should sponsor a bill giving 50,000 HB-1 visas to Indians and Pakistanis who can research and write for business lobby think tanks and journalists.
We'll see this fellow says then.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.
It's a sad day when the SDU-T agrees with a 'conservative' president on immigration reform. A clear indication that Bush is on the wrong side of the illegal immigration issue.
Illegal immigration is a catastrophy of enormous proportions, Bush and the liberal media propose to make the problem worse.
No it isn't. In this century, it's largely freeloading by people who decided that it was easier than changing the hellholes they were "arbitrarily born in".
and it is wrong to limit an individual's freedom to pursue his or her interests based on it, particularly in a country whose civic identity is based on providing opportunities to people from around the world
No it isn't. Preventing billions of people from around the planet showing up and voting to confiscate your property from you or demanding special treatment for themselves based on their ethnicity is the right of any free people, who view themselves as united.
The economic benefits of free movement of people, like the benefits of free trade and capital flows, are clear. Each immigrant who comes to the United States expands national output more than he or she personally consumes, which benefits everyone
Triumphalist bunk. The millions of illiterate, violent, and irredentist Mexican illegal aliens who have invaded California are almost singularly responsible for the massive spending and accompanying deficits, the degradation of civic life in this state, and every credible national study has shown that mass immigration legal or illegal is a net cost, not a net benefit.
and explain to the American public that the correct conservative, free-market position is pro-immigration
How charming. The Leftist reveals himself: the "correct" position is this, he demands. Oh. Got it. There's a party line, and you got to toe it.
Nothing like a Trotskyite calling himself a "conservative" to show you what table pounding conformity is really about.
Totally illogical crap from a liberal theocrat. We succeed in spite of open borders because I cannot for the life of me think why importing the third world into our country and increasing our "diversity" improves upon the basic wealth. If that were the case China would be missing out and instead be regressing, and Japan would be importing everything and its economy collapsing.
Jim Gilchrist received a sizable 14.4 percent of the vote for Congress on a single-issue, immigrant bashing platform. Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, who endorsed Gilchrist, is trying, with some success, to raise immigrant-bashing to a top-tier issue in the 2008 elections.
Remember: you're a nativist and a racist if you object to paying $40,000 per person per year for illegal immigrants. You should be happy to pay $40,000 for each - it's one of the benefits of diversity.
Is Kerpen running for the Quisling presidency?
/sarc
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.