One of the things that bothers me about the immigration bill is the view held in the White House and Congress that “something” must be done; the option of doing nothing is not an option. It is my experience that when this idea takes hold, it is almost inevitable that something bad will result.
In principle, I favor the free mobility of labor—just as I favor free trade and the free movement of capital. If we still had the kind of economy we had in the 19th century, in which the government was minuscule and there were no welfare programs, I would be inclined to say, let anyone in who wants to come here. The only way they are going to survive is by working their butts off, and if they are willing to do that then we want them.
This was, of course, the generally held view at that time. The United States welcomed immigrants from anywhere and everywhere. But beginning in the 1930s, this country began to become more and more of a welfare state. Many government programs now confer significant benefits upon those who produce nothing.
I’m not saying that illegal immigrants come to this country just for the governmental benefits, but the availability of such benefits reduces the burden of being illegal. The alternative of turning away people who may be seriously injured from hospital emergency rooms or children from schools simply is not viable. As long as they are here, such people will be accommodated.
To this, most immigration hardliners have a simple answer: send them back where they came from. Defend the border and deport illegals to the greatest extent possible. However, removing the 10 million or so illegal aliens now in the U.S. would be extraordinarily costly in terms of both money and liberty. I seriously doubt that most Americans would be willing to pay the taxes to make this happen or tolerate the intrusion on their own freedom—such as requiring a national identification card—that it would require.
But what about the option of doing nothing? Why this is this not considered a viable option is a mystery to me. It may be the least bad alternative.
Think about the current situation a little more carefully. Illegal aliens who come here do so primarily to work. I don’t deny that. They do a lot of crappy jobs that, frankly, few of the native born would do. And they do so for far less than it would cost to induce the native born to do such jobs. Moreover, aliens probably do a better job in many cases.
Furthermore, illegal aliens are much more willing to do jobs that need to be done for less than the minimum wage and for cash wages that saves their employers from paying a lot of taxes, such as the employer’s share of the payroll tax. Since these people will never qualify for Social Security benefits, why should they pay taxes for such benefits? Looks okay to me. I wish I had that option.
Finally, illegal aliens are not very likely to complain to the Labor Department or a union if they have some grievance. They are more worried about being deported than exploited, so they have no leverage. The result is that illegal aliens are willing to work cheap, which allows the native born to have inexpensive vegetables—which doctors keep telling us to eat more of—and other goods ands services that improve our real standard of living.
We don’t want to open the borders entirely, because that would let in a lot of riffraff. But we don’t want to close the borders entirely, either, because we need the cheap labor. So, in my opinion, the optimum is to allow some illegal immigration, but with enough enforcement to keep it under control.
It is precisely because of their illegal status that they are valuable and are willing to work cheaply. If they become legal, as the pending legislation would establish, the next thing you know they will be demanding the minimum wage, health benefits, and unions, at which point they may no longer be a net benefit to our economy, but a liability.