ALVARO VARGAS LLOSA: “Conservatism has always been pro-immigration.”Has it always been pro-illegal immigration, though? Because that’s what seems to be bothering some people.
I don’t know Glenn’s own views here, so I don’t mean to pick on him, but this does remind me that I’ve always found something a shade disingenuous about the familiar line: “I have no problem with immigration! I’m just opposed to illegal immigration.” Given the facts on the ground at present, that’s a little like: “I’ve got no problem if people want to smoke marijuana; I’m just against illegal marijuana smoking.” Given that we’ve got a huge undocumented population it would be both infeasible and undesirable to deport wholesale, and a set of economic conditions that exert an irresistible pull on many, many more people than we’re currently admitting, the relevant question is: How much immigration do you want to make illegal? Are you willing to couple increased enforcement with significantly higher legal immigration rates?
11 responses so far ↓
1 Chris // May 29, 2007 at 1:00 pm
That’s a silly point. Think of tax policy — A conservative coalition may have be anti-tax, but that doesn’t mean that it should try to facilitate opportunities for tax evasion.
2 Grant Gould // May 29, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Particularly silly given that the quota system means that, relative to the number of people trying to come to the US, there is basically no immigration. Illegal immigration is actually possible. The folks I know of in the legal queue won’t see their spouses and kids for another decade.
Open up legal immigration and we can talk about fixing the illegals; until then, the term for illegal immigrants is “immigrants” and the term for legal immigrants is “people stuck in Gambia with a million pounds of paperwork.”
3 Julian Sanchez // May 29, 2007 at 1:40 pm
” A conservative coalition may have be anti-tax, but that doesn’t mean that it should try to facilitate opportunities for tax evasion.”
Except… that’s not analogous at all. The right analogy would be to suggest that in a country where the tax policy is so convoluted and burdensome that cheating is extremely prevalent, a group insisting on a crackdown on tax cheats should really also be pushing for tax reform that would reduce the need to cheat, especially if they’re claiming that they’re “pro-entrepreneur.”
4 Chris // May 29, 2007 at 3:04 pm
A tax amnesty usually comes with reforms that fix the loophole causing people to break the law. An immigration amnesty isn’t going to come with reforms that fix Mexico.
5 Dave W. // May 29, 2007 at 3:29 pm
How much immigration do you want to make illegal?
Only as much as makes me and my family economically better off than we otherwise would be, or is at least economically neutral with respect to my family’s finances.
I think all people feel this way.
The differences arise because the economic impacts are different on different families, and also because the true, net economic impacts can be hard to detect and/or measure.
6 Dave W. II // May 31, 2007 at 12:36 am
How much female fertility do you want to make illegal?
Only as much as makes me and my family economically better off than we otherwise would be, or is at least economically neutral with respect to my family’s finances.
I think all people feel this way.
The differences arise because the economic impacts are different on different families, and also because the true, net economic impacts can be hard to detect and/or measure.
7 Farmer Dave // May 31, 2007 at 12:37 am
How much more farming do you want to make illegal?
Only as much as makes me and my family economically better off than we otherwise would be, or is at least economically neutral with respect to my family’s finances.
I think all people feel this way.
The differences arise because the economic impacts are different on different families, and also because the true, net economic impacts can be hard to detect and/or measure.
8 Businessman Dave // May 31, 2007 at 12:41 am
How much market entry do you want to make illegal?
Only as much as makes me and my business economically better off than we otherwise would be, or is at least economically neutral with respect to my business’s finances.
I think all business owners feel this way.
The differences arise because the economic impacts are different on different businesses, and also because the true, net economic impacts can be hard to detect and/or measure.
9 Arkady // May 31, 2007 at 1:08 am
I’m sorry Dave, were you saying something about restricting other peoples’ rights in order to protect your current income level? Was that supposed to be a good reason to restrict immigration, or were you just explaining your take on other peoples’ twisted logic? (if it was the second, then my further illustration of your point wasn’t personal)
The government does not exist to maintain anyone’s income level. That goes for each of us personally, for the Forbes 400, American high school dropouts, and the “endangered middle class”. Just because “X hurts my pocketbook”, it does not follow that “the government must outlaw X”.
Oh, and Chris: I know you just wanted to make that cutesy jibe, but Julian wasn’t asking how to make Mexicans stop wanting to come here. He was asking the “pro-legal-immigration” crowd just how much immigration they thought should be legal. If you could, with 100% effectiveness, stop all unauthorized immigration into the US, how many immigrants would you authorize?
Dave gave an answer (or an explanation) that put the value of his nest-egg over the human rights of millions of Americans and foreigners, but at least he gave an answer.
10 Arkady // May 31, 2007 at 1:09 am
Not that it matters, but I meant to close that bold tag after “un”.
11 David T // May 31, 2007 at 4:26 am
The basic problem with “Conservatism has always been pro-immigration” is that it simply is not true. There have been plenty of anti-immigration conservatives over the past two centuries, and arguing that if they were anti-immigration they couldn’t have been “real” conservatives is begging the question.