NATIONAL REVIEW Back On The Amnesty Bandwagon
November 12, 2012, 11:18 PM
Print Friendly and PDF
After a bout of temporary sanity, National Review Online has doubled down on amnesty for illegal aliens, taking its marching orders from the Chamber of Commerce.
NRO November 12, 2012 by Robert Zubrin

Toward An Intelligent Immigration Policy

Over the past few years, some in the conservative movement have allowed a legitimate concern over border security to become conflated with anti-immigration politics. As the recent election shows, this confusion threatens to saddle the Republican party with a losing platform that will become even more unsustainable in years to come.

Some conservatives say that whether it’s popular or unpopular, imposing strict limits on immigration is the right thing to do, and it must be defended. Are they correct? Putting aside politics, let us step back and consider, on the basis of first principles, what a proper immigration policy should be.

The bedrock foundation of any rational immigration policy should be to benefit America, rather than benefiting potential or existing immigrants, or any other specific group, whether favorable or antagonistic to them. Therefore, let us consider the effect of immigration upon our economic well-being.

In any economy, the entire population is supported by the part of it that is working. All other things being equal, it thus follows that the most attractive acquisition a society can have is a young adult, whose childhood and education has already been paid for, but whose entire working life still lies ahead. Of course, all other things are not equal. Those with more skills are greater prizes, as they cost more to create and are likely to be more productive in life. This being the case, it is absurd to deny young foreigners who graduate from American universities a path to citizenship.

Fair enough, an immigrant with a BA is better than one that hasn't graduated from high school. But then he says just the opposite:
Very well, say some, let’s let in educated foreigners, but what about Mexican laborers? Do we need them too? You bet we do. Currently, over half of U.S. farm workers are illegal immigrants from Mexico. American agriculture simply could not function without them. True, they are breaking the law, but if they did not do so, we would not have food. So where does the problem lie — with the illegals, or with the system that makes it illegal for people to do good and necessary work?

Of course Zubrin [Email him] ignores the fact  that we have a current underclass of black and Hispanic welfare recipients who refuse to work. Given that half of all agricultural workers are either Americans or legal aliens, then forcing the welfare class into agricultural labor is actually the solution.

Then he tells a series of lies that are obviously directed at the H-2A Visa program, designed to provide cheap alien labor for farmers.

Let us consider this problem by imagining a country, which may well be the United States in the not too different future, where federal bureaucracy intrudes itself into the hiring process of all companies, and thus for the purpose of assuring “fairness,” or other noble goals, demands several years’ worth of paperwork before any private hiring decision can be legally approved. Say you are a businessman living under this regime, and you are running a company that must respond to market conditions with frequent and timely hiring operations. What would you do?

The answer is clear; you would seek to evade the overweening bureaucracy by hiring people off the books, paying them as consultants, or engaging in other tricks. If you did not do so, you would not stay in business. And regardless of those who might denounce you for giving away American jobs to illegal workers, in point of fact, without you and your illegal employees’ willingness to brave doing what is necessary to function despite the bureaucracy, no one would get any jobs or products from your company.

While this scenario may seem like an anti-utopian future fantasy, in point of fact it is essentially the situation faced by American farmers and farm workers today. The problem is not with the illegal farm workers, who are willing to work long hours in the hot sun to put food on our tables, but with the dysfunctional federal immigration bureaucracy, which has failed to do its job of providing a means for swift and efficient processing and approval of entry and work permits for people who wish to come to the United States for mutually beneficial purposes. That is the problem that a Republican immigration policy needs to fix. The nation needs a fence, but it also needs a well-functioning door.

In fact it does not take years to get an H-2A visa approved. They are quite easy to obtain, if you are willing to pay the costs, such as providing housing to the itinerant H-2A laborers. Of course that is more expensive than hiring a illegal workforce. It is the welfare system, though, that keeps most of the black population out of the fields.
But why does Zubrin not address the issue of workforce participation by blacks and other minorities? He seems to have an agenda: Denigrating white Americans.
No, jobs are not a resource that exists separately from people. Jobs are created by people. Immigrants are famously entrepreneurial: While immigrants constitute 13 percent of the American population, they own 18 percent of small businesses, and, according to a recent study by the Fiscal Policy Institute, were responsible for 30 percent of the growth of U.S. small businesses over the past two decades.
Studies actually show that immigrants are less entrepreneurial than Americans:
Center for Immigration Studies January 2000 by Steven A. Camarota

Reconsidering Immigrant Entrepreneurship

The non-farm self-employment rate of immigrants has fallen from 13.8 percent in 1960 to 11.3 percent in 1997. Over the same period, the self-employment rate for natives increased from 9.6 to 11.8 percent (see Figure 1 on page 8 ). As result, natives are now slightly more likely to be self-employed than immigrants, a reversal of the historic pattern. Natives are also slightly more likely to be self-employed on a part-time basis.

So, clearly immigrants are not the contributors Zubrin claims. And then he tries to blame White America for Obama's re-election, funny given that every immigrant group voted for Obama. But blame whitey anyway:
America is a country defined by a set of ideas, and when people choose to accept those ideas, they should be able to become Americans, as fully so as any — and perhaps more so than most — regardless of how recently they or their ancestors arrived upon our shores. This is the true American tradition, which as conservatives we must defend. We should not abandon our formative principle, which is inclusion and growth, not exclusion and stasis. We should continue to bravely welcome new talent into our ranks, sure in our knowledge, and in our faith, that the more of us there are, the more opportunities we can create, and the more great things we can do.

Americans constitute 4 percent of the world’s population, yet are responsible for half its inventions. Consequently, the world needs more Americans, and so do we.

And who are those innovating Americans? Mostly white Americans. Silicon Valley was started by the white engineering class of smart geeks, think William Hewlitt, Dave Packard, Steve Wozniak, Steve Jobs, etc. There were virtually no immigrants in Silicon Valley in the 60s and 70s. Immigrants were not a significant presence in Silicon Valley until well after the 80s and then as hangers on, importers of Chinese products, and the underpaid H-1Bs doing the stoop-labor equivalent in high tech; line coding at low wages.

And Zubrin pretty much comes out and says it, immigrants are superior to Americans. Apparently nothing was built in this country by Americans:

And as for those who still shy away from such an inclusive policy, answer this: Barack Obama was just reelected, at least partly because the Republican party embraced your preferences. As a result, the U.S. economy will continue to decline, American energy production will continue to be strangled, our deficits will continue to mount towards bankruptcy, our military will be continue to be hollowed out, American foreign policy will continue to support the spread of Islamism, and Iran will get the atomic bomb. Is it worth it?

So, without amnesty we will be conquered by Socialist Muslims with nuclear weapons. Talk about crazy. But what we have here is a deep seated contempt and hatred for white America. It can only be saved by our little brown brothers from India, China and Mexico, who voted for Obama and are dependent on welfare.

Print Friendly and PDF