by Jeff Jacoby

The Boston Globe – link to original
May 9, 2010

Not all Republicans endorse the new statute. US Senate candidate Marco Rubio has spoken out against it in Florida; so has business executive Meg Whitman, now running for governor in California. Other GOP critics include Texas Governor Rick Perry, political strategist Karl Rove, and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. But they are decidedly in the minority. According to the latest Gallup poll, 75 percent of Republicans who have heard of the new law support it; only 17 percent are opposed.

I have never understood the anti-immigration hysterics. Industrious self-starters who come to the United States to find work, create new wealth, and improve their lives are not a menace or a threat. They are an asset. No state seeks to drive out hard-working newcomers from New Mexico or Indiana; why should hard-working newcomers from Old Mexico or India be treated any differently? To say that they cross the border illegally only begs the question. Why should it be illegal for any person to come to the United States, assuming his intentions are peaceful and he is not likely to become a public charge or health risk?

For most of US history, there was no ceiling on the number of immigrants allowed to enter the country. There were some specific exclusions — polygamists and prostitutes were denied entry, for example, and the racist Chinese Exclusion Act barred immigrants from China — but on the whole, nearly anyone who wished to settle in the United States before the 1920s was free to do so. The immense influx of immigrants made possible by that policy was often the cause of tension and suspicion. It was also an extraordinary blessing, transforming America into the most prosperous, vibrant, and innovative nation in history.

We have an illegal immigration problem today only because federal law makes legal immigration so costly and difficult. A concrete-and-barbed-wire wall along the border will not fix that problem, and neither will punitive sanctions on employers who hire illegal aliens. Meaningful immigration reform would focus instead on simply making it easier for low-skilled or unskilled workers to enter the country lawfully.

Republicans like to think of themselves as champions of law and order — never more so, many of them, than when damning illegal aliens. To quote Republican state senator Russell Pearce, lead sponsor of the new Arizona law: “Illegal is illegal.” That is what passes for a thoughtful argument among many immigration restrictionists.

But there is nothing thoughtful or admirable about insisting that a foolish or counterproductive law be enforced at all costs. In Montgomery, Ala., in 1955, Rosa Parks broke the law that mandated racial segregation on public buses. For refusing to give up her seat to a white passenger, Parks was arrested, fingerprinted, and fined. As she was being removed from the bus, she asked the arresting officer, “Why do you push us around?”

“I don’t know,” he replied. “But the law is the law and you’re under arrest.”

A century earlier, thousands of Southern slaves were guided to freedom by “conductors” along the Underground Railroad, the clandestine network of escape routes into the Northern states and Canada. Those “conductors” — many of them supporters of the new Republican Party — loathed the Fugitive Slave Act, which mandated the return of runaway slaves and imposed criminal sanctions on anyone aiding a fugitive. No doubt there were Americans who cried then, as Russell Pearce and those who anathematize illegal aliens cry today, that “illegal is illegal” and the law must be obeyed.

Of course respect for the law is important. But when laws are foolish, perverse, and repugnant to American interests and ideals, they should be resisted and replaced. Republicans and conservatives should be leading the fight for real immigration reform. How sad that so many of them would rather fight immigrants instead.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).

by Jeff Jacoby

The Boston Globe – link to original

September 6, 2009

WHATEVER HAPPENED to the furor over illegal immigration? Two years ago, the denunciation of “crimmigrants” was approaching fever pitch, especially in conservative precincts, and woe betide any candidate who appeared before a Republican audience and failed to denounce “amnesty” – i.e., any proposal that would allow illegal aliens to legalize their status — with every ounce of conviction he could muster.

Now, however, the hysteria seems to have cooled a bit. There was no bellowing when President Obama reiterated during a Mexican summit last month that he intends to press for “a pathway to citizenship” for the millions of illegal immigrants living in the United States. News stories highlighted instead his acknowledgment that overhauling immigration law would have to wait until next year at the earliest – a retreat from his 2008 promise to make “comprehensive immigration reform . . . a top priority in my first year as president.”

Perhaps the brawl over the issue has simply been upstaged by the current brawl over ObamaCare, in which immigration has been reduced to a supporting role. Or maybe the lowering of the decibel level is a reaction to something else: a significant decline in the number of illegal immigrants living in the United States.

For some time now, news reports have been calling attention to the flow of immigrants back to their homelands. Recent headlines tell the story: “Bad economy forcing immigrants to reconsider US” (CNN); “More Mexican immigrants returning home” (Orange County Register); “Immigrants head home as jobs dry up” (Rocky Mountain News); “Fewer Cubans make crossing to Fla.; economy cited” (Associated Press); “Job losses push immigrants out” (Chattanooga Times Free Press).

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors sharp immigration restrictions, the population of illegal aliens in the United States declined by almost 14 percent, or 1.7 million people, between the summer of 2007 and the spring of 2009. Analyzing Census Bureau data, researchers Steven Camarota and Karen Jensenius calculate that the number of immigrants entering the country illegally has fallen by one-third, while the number returning home has more than doubled. “Both increased immigration enforcement and the recession seem to explain this decline,” they write.

Certainly enforcement is up. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration in its second term, has made a point of tightening the border and punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants. “The share of the US border that has a fence has increased significantly in the last three years and the number of Border Patrol agents has more than doubled,” the CIS report notes. Removal and deportation of unlawful aliens “has increased dramatically,” as federal agents have repeatedly raided workplaces where immigrants are employed. “Worksite enforcement has seen some of the largest increases in recent years, with the number of criminal and administrative arrests increasing more than five-fold since 2005.”

But as the slew of the news stories focusing on the economy suggest, what is primarily driving the immigration outflow is the recession. In good economic times, immigrants pour into the United States; at other times the influx slows or reverses. It has ever been thus, and — barring the implementation of a border and workplace crackdown more ruthless than anything most Americans would tolerate — ever will be.

During the recent boom, the US economy was creating 400,000 new low-skill jobs per year. Immigrants surged in droves to fill those jobs, most of them illegally since US immigration law provides almost no lawful option for unskilled immigrants with no American relatives. Because immigration is a measure of economic robustness, the news that 1.7 million fewer illegal immigrants live within our borders is a datum to regret, not celebrate.

A study published by the Cato Institute last month debunks the notion that preventing illegal immigrants from entering or working in the United States is good for the economy. “Increased enforcement and reduced low-skill immigration have a significant negative impact on the income of US households,” economists Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer write. Whatever savings might be achieved in public expenditures “would be more than offset by losses in economic output and job opportunities for more-skilled American workers.”

Legalizing low-skilled immigrants, on the other hand, expands the US economy and leads to the creation of new higher-skilled jobs. Result: “significant income gains for American workers and households” — gains the authors estimate at $180 billion a year.

The benefits of immigration, a potent growth hormone, have always outweighed the costs. Men and women willing to uproot their lives, to brave daunting obstacles in order to come to America and work hard, are men and women we should welcome with open arms. Calling them “crimmigrants” accomplishes nothing. Letting more of them immigrate legally would.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)