Thomas Sowell: Guests or Gate Crashers?

Creator's Syndicate ^ | March 28, 2006 | Dr. Thomas Sowell

[RWR8189]

Immigration is yet another issue which we seem unable to discuss rationally -- in part because words have been twisted beyond recognition in political rhetoric.

We can't even call illegal immigrants "illegal immigrants." The politically correct evasion is "undocumented workers."

Do American citizens go around carrying documents with them when they work or apply for work? Most Americans are undocumented workers but they are not illegal immigrants. There is a difference.

The Bush administration is pushing a program to legalize "guest workers." But what is a guest? Someone you have invited. People who force their way into your home without your permission are called gate crashers.

If truth-in-packaging laws applied to politics, the Bush guest worker program would have to be called a "gate-crasher worker" program. The President's proposal would solve the problem of illegal immigration by legalizing it after the fact.

We could solve the problem of all illegal activity anywhere by legalizing it. Why use this approach only with immigration? Why should any of us pay a speeding ticket if immigration scofflaws are legalized after the fact for committing a federal crime?

Most of the arguments for not enforcing our immigration laws are exercises in frivolous rhetoric and slippery sophistry, rather than serious arguments that will stand up under scrutiny.

How often have we heard that illegal immigrants "take jobs that Americans will not do"? What is missing in this argument is what is crucial in any economic argument: price.

Americans will not take many jobs at their current pay levels -- and those pay levels will not rise so long as poverty-stricken immigrants are willing to take those jobs.

If Mexican journalists were flooding into the United States and taking jobs as reporters and editors at half the pay being earned by American reporters and editors, maybe people in the media would understand why the argument about "taking jobs that Americans don't want" is such nonsense.

Another variation on the same theme is that we "need" the millions of illegal aliens already in the United States. "Need" is another word that blithely ignores prices.

If jet planes were on sale for a thousand dollars each, I would probably "need" a couple of them -- an extra one to fly when the first one needed repair or maintenance. But since these planes cost millions of dollars, I don't even "need" one.

There is no fixed amount of "need," independently of prices, whether with planes or workers.

None of the rhetoric and sophistry that we hear about immigration deals with the plain and ugly reality: Politicians are afraid of losing the Hispanic vote and businesses want cheap labor.

What millions of other Americans want has been brushed aside, as if they don't count, and they have been soothed with pious words. But now the voters are getting fed up, which is why there are immigration bills in Congress.

The old inevitability ploy is often trotted out in immigration debates: It is not possible to either keep out illegal immigrants or to expel the ones already here.

If you mean stopping every single illegal immigrant from getting in or expelling every single illegal immigrant who is already here, that may well be true. But does the fact that we cannot prevent every single murder cause us to stop enforcing the laws against murder?

Since existing immigration laws are not being enforced, how can anyone say that it would not do any good to try? People who get caught illegally crossing the border into the United States pay no penalty whatever. They are sent back home and can try again.

What if bank robbers who were caught were simply told to give the money back and not do it again? What if murderers who were caught were turned loose and warned not to kill again? Would that be proof that it is futile to take action, when no action was taken?

Let's hope the immigration bills before Congress can at least get an honest debate, instead of the word games we have been hearing for too long.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

[Shuttle Shucker]

Can you believe this comparison of Mexican and U.S. immigration laws?

http://www.directory.com.mx/immigration

Talk about a racist legal system...

[Syncro]

I DON’T want to spend my time searching the news for crimes committed by Hispanics and whining about each one (like a handful of Freepers).

A straw man argument. Just look at the prisons, almost 30% are illegal criminal invaders.

Don't let what a handful of people do get you riled up.

[samcgwire]

It's worse than gate crashing. It's national theft. Aided and abetted by our highest elected officials.

[maica]

Once again Thomas Sowell has the ability to bring clarity to a big issue.

[NCSteve]

Does anyone here have a favorite?

Hands down, the "Vision" series, but I would start your daughter on "Basic Economics" first, followed with "The Vision of the Anointed." The latter is the most devastating critique of liberalism I've ever read. Dr. Sowell is a national treasure.

Don't forget to introduce her to the works of von Mises and Hayek as well.

[sageb1]

Thanks! To you and to all who responded. :)

[beyond the sea]

God ping........

[Just mythoughts]

"Fox doesn't want them - that's why he sends them here."


Fox/Mexico need them to be here costing US and earning dollars, cause they (Mexico) are depending upon allllll those dollars they are sending back home. The illegals here are keeping the country of Mexico from collapsing, according to this supporter of the "Day without Latinos".

Makes complete and total sense to me, The majority of these illegals are not here to be citizens they are here to earn money and they want that to be legal. That is why they have no issue proudly showing their flag so prominently, they are Mexicans first and foremost.

Wonder why there is NO demand for Mexico to straighten themselves out?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

PING!

They're illegal aliens and that is that. They should go home, whether they're Mexicans or Irish.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Frist seems to be the only only one with some sense in DC recently....close the border and then we can deal with the illegals allready here.

Frist's bill doubles the number of Green Cards and take-jobs-from-Americans H-1B visas when DHS cannot even check on the legals coming in now!

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Americans will not take many jobs at their current pay levels -- and those pay levels will not rise so long as poverty-stricken immigrants are willing to take those jobs."

They will also not take many jobs at their current pay levels as long as there are various welfare programs that allow them to pass up these jobs. Otherwise, they might take them until something better comes along.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Well, look at it this way. They sneak in, sometimes in broad daylight (climbing over the fence, etc.). They remain under the radar, and they don't have a background check. Any one of them could be a potential terrorist.

[COEXERJ145]

Unless you have my permission, please do not ping me to threads in which I am not already participating.

Thank you.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Sorry about that.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I'm not sure if you were referring to me or the other freeper as a protectionist in your reply. But I'll explain my position briefly.

I'm not a protectionist. I don't think tariffs or federal regulations help the economy. I think if we lifted many federal regulations, American companies -- in the short term -- wouldn't find it fiscally necessary to offshore. But the larger issue still remains, and the greed of companies would return to seek higher profits. And this is where I am undecided but have not yet heard an argument from the unrestricted free traders to compel me to side with them.

The argument is this: the argument of unrestricted free trade is based primarily upon the economize theories of Adam Smith. While Smith was a genius and most of his theories have been proved correct, he could not have possibly envisioned technology that would allow home-based companies to employ workers from other nations -- in every sphere of manufacture and service. That is, the concept was that if another country can manufacture a particular good cheaper than the home market, let them do it and focus your attention on something else. Offshoring has gotten to the point now where we not only let the manufacturing of many of our goods to go to other countries, but now allow more and more employment of foreign nationals in our country. That is, there are many foreign nationals living in America working at a lower wage than Americans were. And don't think that they're living here means they are substantially contributing to our economy. They are here to make and save money and spend as little as possible. On-shore offshoring has resulted in substantial unemployment in the Seattle area. The companies that hire these offshore employees are partially subsidized by their governments. While American workers are extremely competitive, they cannot compete with the economies of entire nations.

I'm not sure what the solution is, and it may be righting itself because offshoring is proving not to be as successful as its proponents had hoped. But my theoretical debate centers on the hypothesis that if there are no restrictions whatsoever, what if enough employers chose to offshore and caused something like 20% unemployment in this country? Proponents say, "oh that would never happen." Right. And 11 million Latino would never invade our country illegally and then demand social services.

A key component to a market economy is the time required for the market to adjust. This does not happen overnight. With no restrictions on firing American workers and replacing them with foreign nationals, theoretically, a spike in unemployment to anywhere near 20% would be akin to economic sabotage. Most argue for the need for some controls on business (such as anti-trust laws). And in that regard, view free-trade the way conservatives, not libertarians, view liberty, that it is not absolute but comes with some restrictions in order to guarantee the greatest degree of liberty for the greatest number of people.

The false economy caused by the 11 million now demanding citizenship or its equivalent rights and privileges is a perfect example of what happens when there are no practical restrictions (there are, but they are ignored making them de facto non-existent).

[DoughtyOne]

Good points...

[Yardstick]

I liked the Search for Cosmic Justice.

I like that one, too. It's full of powerful arguments that can be used to trip up the libs.

Also Vision of the Anointed.

With Sowell you almost can't lose.

[BlueMondaySkipper]

I've read "Quest For Cosmic Justice" and "A Personal Odessy" and both were excellent. I do think that they are both more about economics than they appear. Economics is really about cause and effect, and the lessons learned in true capitalism apply to other facets of life as well.

[maine-iac7]

Perhaps this will give you another persepective to consider.(it's "perpspecive, I believe, but no matter...)

I am far from unconcerned about illegals - but I am more concerned about people ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We have the socialists who have, over the past 30-40 yrs successfully infiltrating and taking over the Dems - They know if they don't get back in control NOW - all may well be for not. They are hate/fear driven.

They are also in league with the UN - and intend to put this country under it.

The UN has all their ducks in a row - papers/plans drawn and ready to: Take our sovereignty away, put our military under their control (One world Gov't) institute total gun control, every child born will be registered with them in the hour of their birth, control and tax the Internet...The end of our democracy, our Constitution, our freedom, not only of the Internet, but literally.

That would be catastrophic enough but - the unholy hoards who are intent on bringing back the Caliphate will be able to move on all us 'Infidels" across the world with impunity...until it is far too late. (That is, unless you are confident that the UN will step right up to the plate in time - like they are known (NOT) to do.

And why do you think this illegal issue is now taking up all the air time? The dems are masters - with their comrades of the MSM - of diversion.

The illegals problem is hardly new - important to solve,yes, but will not be solved overnight.

IN the meantime, the translations and discoveries coming to light in the documents that are getting translated is off on the back burner somewhere - until it wont be a story anymore and it wont make any difference WHAT is discovered.

We can't be a one issue party - we can't scream that if Bush doesn't do exactly as we demand (and there are several different 'demands' on the solutions, so he can hardly comply with them all - ) we can't say to h*ll with him, let the destroyers take over.

The enemy is outflanking us with diversionary strategy - the most used tool in their arsenal. You'd think we could recognize this by now. So do we wont to win an immediate battle today and let them win the war, or do take off the blinders and stick together?

"US: Together we stand or we fall apart." m.t.

[beeler]

Good points. Bush's pandering to Mexico is absolutely no different than Clinton's pandering to the ChiComms. He's selling out American interests to a hostile foreign country to further political and economic gains for him and his cronies. It's treasonous.