Obama's immigration policy: Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul
President Obama’s recent executive order to shorten the time that illegal immigrants would have to spend away from their U.S. citizen spouses, children or parents while seeking legal status is unfair to both Americans and the immigrants who escape the harsh conditions of life in countries like El Salvador, Mexico, Russia or Guatemala. Here is an issue the U.S. Congress should rise to the occasion and be heard.
It is unfair to Americans because the executive order creates an even larger pool of workers who now compete for fewer and fewer jobs. In a time when black unemployment among teenagers is a staggering 38 percent or when two million Americans with a bachelor’s degree are unemployed it seems counter intuitive to enlarge the size of the labor market by allowing more illegal immigrants the chance to enter the job market.
Let us take the example of babies born to illegal parents – otherwise known as anchor babies. According to various studies this number hovers between 260,000 to 360,000 per year. Allowing the parents to stay and apply for legal status translates into 520,000 to 720,000 entrants into the anemic job market. And once this group is granted citizenship they can apply for their brothers, sisters and parents to join them – this latter process is what is called chain migration or family reunification. In short, as President Obama panders to Hispanic voters to secure another term in office, other constituencies; namely, black Americans, teenagers, elderly, veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and blue-collar American workers are put behind the eight ball.
In 2000 the labor force participation rate for ages 16 and older stood at 68.5 percent but since then has stagnated (in other words, millions of Americans have simply given up their search for work) and dipped to 64 percent: a two percentage point decline is the equivalent of about three million fewer Americans working or looking for work or approximately six million.
The fact that a Mexican or Central American mother has to walk across the border and deliver her baby in the U.S. is testament to the gross injustice facing millions of Latinos in their home countries. If the healthcare system in Mexico was above average or clinics in Central America could provide quality healthcare to their citizens the issue of anchor babies would be a moot point. Indeed, Mexico should be one of the richest countries in the world because it has all the necessary ingredients for a dynamic economy: rich in natural, human and agriculture resources. The potential of tourism alone should be the engine of growth for the Mexican economy (Turkey has been able to generate between $20 - $26 billion annually from tourism). Sadly, Mexican officials have exported their revolution to the U.S. by not providing decent jobs to their citizens who are forced to find work in the U.S.
What America needs is not a president that panders to certain ethic voting blocs but a “Latin American President” who puts the issue of good governance in Mexico, Central and South America front and center. If President Obama does not insist on good governance in places like Mexico and Russia then the U.S. Congress must fill in that void. We need statesmen who will decouple our trade from China and move it to places like El Salvador or Nicaragua. With wage differentials between China and Mexico (and Central America) at par private-public partnerships to move manufacturing south of our border makes sense. For example, moving the annual $8 billion worth of toys we import from China to south of our border would a reverse magnet for immigrants. In addition, America needs bi-partisan solutions to our broken immigration system such as mirco-finance loans -- not hand-outs -- to the millions of immigrants (legal and illegal) as a means to use as start-up capital in their home countries. Congress must also pass the Dream Act immediately but ask that those armed with engineering, geology, accounting, computer science, public health and science degrees to return to their communities and help rebuild them from ground up.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Some Visa Categories Are More Vulnerable than Others (Memorandum)
2. Jerry Kammer Discusses 'Cheap Labor as Cultural Exchange' (Radio Interview)
3. Janice Kephart Discusses 9/11 Ruling (Radio Interview)
4. Caution: Watch for Farmers' Fibs on 'Labor Shortages' (Blog)
5. Cook County Pressured to Reverse Sanctuary Policy (Blog)
6. USCIS Staff Pushed to OK Questionable Cases – Unpublished IG Report (Blog)
7. ICE Gets One Right, Admittedly on a Tiny Issue (Blog)
8. Stupid Is as Stupid Does (Blog)
9. Much Easier to Get Naturalized Now Than a Decade Ago (Blog)
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment