A while back Brian and I sparred over immigration.

I’ve left it alone for awhile, but do want to clarify one point.

I do not feel that Brian is intentionally basing his anti-immigrant stance on concious prejudice. Once again I got caught up in the heat of the moment and used words loosely and did not mean to give great offense to our blogsopheric buddy. Brian is a good man and would not conciously hold ideas that were prejudiced.

Many of the folks on his side of the argument are prejudiced. And prejudiced in ways that require them to contort logic. When presented with clear evidence, in the form of FBI records, that immigrants are slightly LESS likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans (or should I say nativists?), there is a pause and then “what about Hispanic gangs!” come right back out. As if Hispanic gangs are not included in the FBI statistics and as if Tookie Williams and the Crips are an export of Tijuana.

One commentor on Brian’s site, and I’m calling Lurch out by name, makes the farcical argument that, FBI statistics be damned, illegal immigrants must commit more crimes since they have shown a willingness to violate immigration law. As if any violation of any laws will lead to violent behavior. The Boston Strangler, after all, got his start driving 56 on the interstate. Almost all Americans violate some laws every day. Violation of one set of laws does not predestine one to become a violent felon. Examples:

If you do any of the following, society should fear you:

Smoke or use tobacco while underage.
Fish without a license.
Having sex outside of wedlock in Virginia.
Have oral sex in Virginia (or, if you are the Minister of Propagands, in 42 other states).
Break the speed limit.
Download music on Napster.
(In the future: Keep a backyard flock of chickens in Virginia. Breakin’ the law! Breakin’ the law!)

You said yes? You felon!

No one would seriously argue that the above behaviors (full disclosure, I have at one time or another, done all of the above except the Napster thing. But I’m told it is widespread.) will predict criminal behavior. But somehow crossing the border is signifigantly different. Perhaps we are more likely to believe them Hispanics are capable of crimes because they are…. icky.

On the anti-immigrant side of the argument you have the following threads:

Economic: Immigrants are bad for America. Refuted. Direct costs are more than recouped indirectly in the form of cheaper consumer goods, greater buying power, and the multiplier effect. Nativist reply: nuh-uh!

Crime: Immigrants lead to higher crime rates. Refuted. Government statistics definitively show that immigrants are, if anything, slightly less likely to commit crimes. Nativist reply: nuh-uh!

Tax fairness: Immigrants don’t pay their fair share of taxes and use social services. Refuted. Immigrants actually pay the same sales tax on all purchased goods and do not get any of the taxes they pay under false social secutiry numbers back. They do not get welfare or social security (becuase they are illegal). Nativist response: nuh-uh!

Job theft: Immigrants steal jobs from hard-working Americans. Refuted. Anti-immigrant folks are also typically opposed to raising the minimum wage because it will eliminate low-level jobs by rejiggering employer’s calculations of marginal utility, but somehow magically think that an indirect lift of the minimm wage would not have the same effect. Plus, Republicans are supposed to value hard work and individual initiative. How hardworking are Americans who are outcompeted by folks who don’t even speak English? The marketplace has decried that the “wounded” Americans are not very hard-working at all. Employers do not make hiring decisions on some mushy “i love this group or that group” criteria. They hire employees who will contribute the most to the success of the business. Nativist response: nuh-uh!

The Law is the Law! We should punish all wrongdoers: “What part of illegal do you not understand?” When the legal purists demand the harsh punishment of speeding and fellatio, I’ll pay more attention.

Assimilation: Hispanics, unlike all other immigrant groups of the past (aside form the involuntary immigration of Africans), will not assimilate. Open to question. BUT, historical trends say they will. I’ll try to do a post on assimilation. I’ll argue that there is little indication that Hispanics are different from other immigrants waves. However, analyzing the future is speculative by nature and good people may disagree. Some Nativists are probably concerned about assimilation due to racial prejudice. However, it is possible to be both free of racial prejudice and concerned about assimilation: One could be concerned about the maintenance of the American cultural norms that have worked so well and propelled us to wealth and freedom. I have only rarely seen this argument in isolation; it is usually mixed with economically illiterate diatribes and fears of crime, but non-racist folks concerned about assimilation are out there. I might qualify for that category: I think it is important to pursue policies that encourage assimilation - for us and for “them.”

American Morality. Talking with the Foreign Minister, I realized there is another aspect to the immigration situation. Given that legalizing currently illegal aliens will lessen the countrywide financial benefit of illegal labor, on purely economic grounds we ought to make sure that they never get legal status. Of course, such a Machiavellian stance has moral implications: Is it okay to exploit the willingness of immigrants to work to benefit ourselves while at the same time denying them basic benefits of American society? This is troublesome. I don’t know where I stand here.

Elitiism. Rich middle class people only like immigration because it threatens the poor and less fortunate. My neighbor told me that I would feel differently about immigrants if they were competing for teaching jobs. Actually, if an immigrant could teach better than me and was willing to do it for less pay, society would benefit from my loss of employment. Realistically, the eltists argument is a red herring. Immigrants are not and cannot compete with Americans who are hardworking and educated. The benefits of growing up in our society are immense. I doubt that someone fleeing from a Mexico City slum will be able to teach AP US history. And even if she had the knowledge, I doubt that she could be as exciting as me. (And yes, sometimes I do have to turn sideays to go through doors). The Volokh conpiracy addresses academic immigration elitism very well here.