Legal Si, Illegal No? The Treason Lobby Says Immigration Is Inevitable So We Should “Relax And Enjoy It”

Having fumbled his reintroduction
of
Confederate History Month
, Virginia Governor Bob
McDonnell has just fumbled the immigration issue—not a
good start for someone widely touted as the leader of
the
Republican Party`s conservative wing.

When asked about Arizona`s

heroic
SB 1070, McDonnell tried to avoid giving a
solid answer by suggesting that

Arizona`s law
is a reaction to their unique status
as a border state and is not particularly relevant to

Virginians
:

“I think most of these things are a balance. w:st="on">Arizona`s got its own challenges that they`re
dealing with. Right now, I`m worrying about creating
jobs.”
[McDonnell
says legal immigration fuels economy
,

Richmond Times-Dispatch, April 26, 2010]

Of course, this is nonsense. The
impact of illegal immigration on Virginia, especially in
the

northern suburbs of Washington,
is huge.

But notwithstanding that, one of
the easiest ways of
“creating jobs”
would be to
impose a

moratorium on legal immigration.
 

Of course, as governor, McDonnell
has no direct hand in influencing legal immigration
policy. But this did not keep him from opining

“We need to be able to expand
lawful immigration
here in America for those areas,
in particular, where we can contribute to the economy,
but we also need to be able to enforce the rule of law
for those that are here illegally.”

(My
emphasis).

McDonnell`s explicit call for

increasing legal immigration
is especially
troublesome. But it is not surprising given the

complete failure
of anyone outside of VDARE.COM and
a few other groups and individuals to make the case for

cutting back on legal immigration.

This silence makes possible the
argument that increasing legal immigration will solve
our illegal immigration problem—basically, that rape is
inevitable and we should relax and enjoy it. Apparently
this is a talking point being circulated by the

cheap labor wing of the Treason Lobby
, as I`ve seen
it being repeated among various libertarian
propagandists.

Thus in a recent op-ed, the

Competitive Enterprise Institute`s
Alex Nowrasteh
argued that “Illegal immigration exists because legal immigration is practically
impossible”
.

Nowrasteh claims that the problem of illegal
immigration was caused by the 1921 Emergency Quota Act.
He goes on to assert that that

“Past amnesties

worked as intended
. They brought millions of illegal
immigrants out of the shadows and into the mainstream of
American life. Yet politicians
dropped
the ball in 1986
by failing to create more ways to
legally immigrate to the w:st="on">United States.”

Taking the argument to its logical
conclusion, he argues
“There should be
no numerical cap on the numbers of work visas issued.”
[Amnesty
isn`t the problem, it`s our immigration limits
,
by Alex Nowrasteh,
Silicon Valley Mercury News, April 11, 2010]

Similarly, writing in the
Philadelphia Inquirer, professional immigration enthusiast
Daniel
Griswold
makes the same argument about amnesties
failing because we did not increase legal immigration,
and contrasts it with the supposed success of the

Bracero Program
in reducing illegal immigration:

“We know from experience that expanding opportunities for legal
immigration can sharply reduce illegal immigration. In
the 1950s, Congress dramatically expanded the number of
temporary-worker visas through the

Bracero Program.
The result was a 95 percent drop in
arrests at the border. If

Mexican
and

Central American
workers know they can enter the
country legally to fill jobs, they will be far less
likely to enter illegally.”

 [U.S.
needs to let more workers in
, by Daniel
Griswold, Philadelphia Inquirer, April 27, 2010]

But Griswold and Nowrasteh`s
version of history exists only in the Bizarro world of
immigration enthusiasts.

During the

Great Depression,
legal immigration numbers were at
the lowest numbers since the 1830s—averaging only 68,000
people a year. During this time period, America enacted
a formal policy of Mexican Repatriation where hundreds
of thousands of illegal immigrants, as well as a
disputed number of legal immigrants and US born
Hispanics, were deported or left due to fear of
deportation. Additionally many European legal immigrants
went home
when they could not get work.

The Bracero program, which began in
1942 as a temporary wartime measure of a few thousand
people a year. The number of workers increased from
44,600 at the end of the war, to over 300,000 in 1954.

But during this time illegal
immigration skyrocketed, to levels more than three times
the number of foreign workers let in. This led Dwight
Eisenhower, at the suggestion of Senator William
Fulbright, to enact Operation Wetback in cooperation
with the then-friendly Mexican government. [How
Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico
,
by John Dillin,
Christian Science Monitor
, July 6, 2006]

Upon instituting the policy,
Eisenhower quoted a


New York Times article

describing the extent of illegal immigration:

"The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican `wetbacks` to a current
rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been
accompanied by a

curious relaxation
in ethical standards extending
all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this
contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal
Government."
[SOUTHWEST
WINKS AT `WETBACK` JOBS
|
Ethics Cast Aside
as Growers Accept Peonage Idea and Bridle at
Interference
, By

Gladwin Hill
,
New York Times
, March 28, 1951
                   

This reduction in illegal border
crossing was caused by enforcement—not by increased
legal immigration.

On a side note, both Operation
Wetback and the Depression-era Mexican Repatriation
involved relatively few numbers of deportations. Most
illegals left knowing that they would get deported if
they stayed—one reason the whole
“we can`t deport
12 million people”
claim is

nonsense
. Under

Operation Wetback, over
a million illegal aliens
were forced out, but only a

fraction were actually deported.

After the Bracero Program ended in
1964, illegal immigration from Mexico was virtually
non-existent. But the next year brought the

disastrous 1965 Immigration Act
and both legal and
illegal immigration skyrocketed in tandem, until we
ended up with over 3 million illegal aliens who received
amnesty in 1986.

Contra Griswold and Nowrasteh, we
dramatically increased legal immigration after the 1986
amnesty.

In the ten years prior to the last
amnesty, 1977 to 1986, we issued an average of 570,000
green cards a year. In the next ten years we issued an
average of 700,000 green (technically, we averaged a
million, but I`m excluding the illegal aliens who
received amnesty and got green cards from this figure.)
This was largely due to the

Immigration Act of 1990
that increased legal
immigration by 200,00 people a year in addition
literally dozens of pieces of legislation and free trade
agreements that added hundreds of thousands more
temporary and permanent workers. In 2009, we accepted
over 1.1 million legal immigrants, nearly double the
number prior to the 1986 amnesty.

Of course if we had absolutely

no numerical limitation on immigration
, then by
definition there would not be any illegal immigration.
But few outside the most fanatical globalists and
libertarians will admit they want this.

Nowrasteh was willing to take this
argument to its conclusion, but as one of the two or
three leading cheap-labor advocates in DC, Griswold
knows that no one would take him seriously if he
advocated such an insane policy.

A writer I know once had the chance
to ask Griswold just how many visas we should give out.
He replied that we should give the same number of
additional visas to the total number of illegal aliens
and that would satisfy demand.

But this would not stop illegal
immigration—in fact. it would increase it

Why? One reason is

“Say`s
Law”
, one of the

classic economic doctrines
. It states that supply
creates its own demand. With an unlimited supply of
cheap labor, many jobs
that
would not exist in an advanced economy exist anyway
.
For example, in Third World countries, someone making
what would be considered a middle class income in
America can afford several servants. Because labor is
more expensive in the U.Ss, servants

only work for the very wealthy
. But if labor prices
went down, more people would hire servants. For the same
reason, cheap labor undercuts the development of
labor-saving technological innovations.

Legal immigration also makes it
easier for illegal aliens to live in America without
detection. In 1960, 99% of the population

outside of the Southwest
was White or African
American. Were it not for the fact that we admitted
legal Braceros, then a

farmer
with hundreds of Mexican laborers would
obviously be
hiring illegal aliens. But the legal Braceros allowed
for the illegal alien Mexican workers to blend in.

Most illegal aliens would not even
think of coming here to begin with were it not for legal
immigration. When a Third World peasant sees that a
friend or family member who came here legally can live a
relatively extravagant lifestyle, they are going to want
to come too—regardless of whether they can get a legal
visa.

Finally, there are a lot of people
who have no intention of coming into this country
illegally, either because they come from law-abiding
societies and respect our laws too and/or they are
falsely concerned that they might be deported or be
unable to get a job.

Of course, even if increasing legal
immigration reduced illegal immigration, the economic
and social costs would remain. Millions of immigrants do
not stop

displacing American workers
, depressing

wages
, and straining
government
services
just because they are legal.

The choice for Americans is not
between illegal or legal immigration. It is between

preserving our country
or letting it be overwhelmed.

"Washington Watcher" [email
him
] is an anonymous source Inside The
Beltway.