skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Don Boudreaux on Immigration
See
Questions for Immigration Skeptics.
"Because restricting the entry of peaceful immigrants into
the U.S. artificially obstructs Americans’ ability to associate with
non-Americans – artificially obstructs Americans’ ability to employ and
to otherwise deal with non-Americans commercially, to learn from
non-Americans, to befriend non-Americans, to marry non-Americans –
restricting peaceful immigration reduces the freedom of Americans. Why
is this reduced freedom of Americans so seldom mentioned? Isn’t this
negative consequence one of significance for those of us who take pride
in being citizens of the land of the free?
Speaking of a line from our national anthem, what about immigrants is
so frightening to us who boast of living in the home of the brave?
If it’s true, as I’ve often heard proclaimed, that among the most
fundamental duties of government is to control the nation’s borders, was
the U.S. government deficient in its fundamental duties under all
presidential administrations from that of George Washington through that
of James Garfield? After all, not until 1882 – with Chester Alan Arthur
in office – did the U.S. government begin to restrict immigration, when
it infamously prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers.
If quotas on immigration are an essential tool for protecting us
Americans from being terrorized on our own soil, why do we still have no
quotas on foreigners who come to America as visitors? Must someone be a
resident of the U.S. in order to unleash terror in America?
Immigration skeptics often argue as if the elimination of immigration
quotas will result in immigrants streaming in endless hordes into the
U.S. from poor countries. But doesn’t the fact that the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. fell
during the Great Recession – and began again to rise only as the U.S.
economy revived – strongly suggest that immigrants are drawn here not
simply because the U.S. is a wealthy country but chiefly by the prospect
of employment, even if it be employment that’s off the books and hidden
from government officials?
Also, if the greater wealth of the U.S. relative to that of other
countries were sufficient, absent quotas, to draw excessive numbers of
people from poorer places to the U.S., why do most Puerto Ricans not
flock to the U.S.? Puerto Rico remains much poorer than places such as
Boston, New York, Miami, Dallas, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles, yet
most Puerto Ricans – despite being perfectly free to immigrate to any of
the 50 states and the District of Columbia – remain in Puerto Rico.
Indeed, if it were true that people from economically poorer places
are invariably drawn to wealthier places, why do not all Kentuckians,
Mississippians, and New Mexicans flock to much-richer states such as
Connecticut, New Jersey, and Wyoming?"
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.