Jason Riley to Barack Obama: Let More Immigrants In

Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, Jason Riley cautions President Obama against "getting bogged down in a debate over 'amnesty.'"

Illegal immigration to the U.S. is primarily a function of too many foreigners chasing too few visas. Some 400,000 people enter the country illegally each year—a direct consequence of the fact that our current policy is to make available only 5,000 visas annually for low-skilled workers. If policy makers want to reduce the number of illegal entries, the most sensible and humane course is to provide more legal ways for people to come.

This could be done by creating viable guest-worker programs or increasing green-card quotas or both. The means matter less than the end, which should be to give U.S. businesses legal access to foreign workers going forward. The 1986 amnesty legislation didn't do that, which is why it didn't solve the problem.

Read the whole thing here. Last August, Riley sat down with Reason.tv to discuss his book Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders. Click below to watch.

Comments

[J sub D]

This is a pre-emptive STFU for Lonewacko.

[High Every Body]

JsD,

You are taking all the fun out of the game.

[Brett Stevens]

Let's truly become Rome. We will have nothing in common except obedience to an economic system.

[PapayaSF]

Does the U.S. really have a shortage of low-skilled workers? We seem to have plenty in San Francisco, where groups of them hang out on street corners.

[High Every Body]

We seem to have plenty in San Francisco, where groups of them hang out on street corners.

Aren't those the trust fund babies that want to raise my income tax?

[24AheadDotCom]

Some of my comments - and comments from others also showing why this is wrong - are here. To even things out, I put a link to Reason at that page.

If anyone wants to find out what's really going on with this issue and discover all the very important things about this issue that Reason will never tell you, subscribe to my feed or search my archives. I've got thousands of posts about the politics of immigration and illegal immigration - and the politicians involved in this issue - going back to 2002.

The feeds are in the upper-right corner at each page, and each page also has three ways to search. If someone's been in the news in the past few months, start typing their name in the tag search box and it will probably come up.

[Steve]

In the full article in the WSJ, Jason Riley made an incredibly misleading statement about the 1986 IRCA mass amnesty, saying "border enforcement enhancements over the past two decades haven't stanched the illegal flow.."

Let me remind Mr. Riley of an important fact he ignores: the reason this supposed one-time 1986 amnesty failed is because after the amnesty was granted, the enforcement soon disappeared. See Edwin Meese's accounts on this. Thus only a fool would be believe that if amnesty was combined with enforcement this time around, things would be different.

The basic fact remains: if policy makers want to stop illegal immigration and protect U.S. taxpayers and vulnerable U.S. workers, they will see that our existing immigration laws are finally & consistently enforced.

[MikeP]

if policy makers want to stop illegal immigration and protect U.S. taxpayers and vulnerable U.S. workers, they will see that our existing immigration laws are finally & consistently enforced.

...immediately after they change existing immigration laws to finally be consistent with economic reality and individual liberty.

After all, consistently enforcing a visa system that has no quotas is far, far easier than enforcing the cornucopia of ignorant protectionism that immigration law is today.

[24AheadDotCom]

Shorter MikeP: "Waaaaa! If I want to do my tiny little part to help foreign governments and far-left/racial power groups obtain even more power, I should have that personal liberty!"

Also, it's hilarious that anyone (like Riley) would be foolish enough to think that those groups that currently oppose almost any form of enforcement - including Reps. calling it "unAmerican" and even referring to ICE as the "Gestapo" - are suddenly going to turn around and support the enforcement parts of their "reform".

[MikeP]

Even shorter MikeP: "The recognition of people's rights should not be based solely on where they were born."

[24AheadDotCom]

Alternatively: "anyone should be able to move anywhere they want on Earth at anytime. So, if China and India decided to team up to colonize the U.S. by sending us tens of millions of people loyal to those countries using a similar technique that other stronger countries and groups have used throughout all history and that resulted in the dissolution of the U.S., that would be just fine and dandy with libertarians."

[MikeP]

Denying an individual entry because he is an agent of a conspiracy to overthrow the US is hardly basing the recognition of his rights solely on where he was born.

[Steve]

Here are some realities that the cheap labor shills ignore:

**the U.S. admits over 1 million (legal) immigrants annually, and is by far the most generous nation on earth regarding this.

**Uncle Sam continues to give about 138,000 permanent work permits to foreign workers PER MONTH.

**13.2 million Americans are out of work.

**so-called "guest worker" programs do not work, as there is nothing as permanant as a "guest worker." People are not objects.

Obviously there is no labor shortage, (especially at the bottom rung of the labor market) just an addiction to cheap labor by some unscrupulous employers.

[shecky]

**the U.S. admits over 1 million (legal) immigrants annually, and is by far the most generous nation on earth regarding this.

Irrelevant. The point is that government immigration policy does not reflect the needs of the market. In fact, to a large extent, current policy does not consider labor markets at all. Nor does current immigration policy reward initiative. Instead, it guarantees a less than legal market will thrive.

Since when is seeking cheap labor unscrupulous? Is this a path one really wants to go down? Restrictive immigration policy as welfare program is a loser for everyone.

[Steve]

And I guess 138,000 permanent work permits to foreign workers per month and the myriad of existing visa programs are not enough. Far from being restrictive, our immigration policy has been far too liberal for far too long. It's time to end illegal immigration and return to pre-1965 levels of legal immigration. IKE had it right. If employers can't hire legally (as was promised in 1986) they deserve to go out of business. Furthermore, how much freedom would we have if amnesty passed and taxpayers were saddled with $2.6 TRILLION in costs to care for legalized illegals (Heritage Foundation report). Look at So Cal.