NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name
and/or email address published when sending VDARE
email.
A Reader Says 245(I)
Really Is As Bad As Painted
A Reader Rebukes Jacoby
From:
Xavier
Rabinowitz
In her April, 2002
Commentary piece,
Tamar Jacoby writes:
"It is,
for example, as easy today as it ever was to migrate to
the U.S. from Puerto Rico, and wages on the island still
lag woefully behind wages here. But the net flow from
Puerto Rico stopped long ago, probably because life
there improved just enough to change the calculus of
hope that had been prodding people to make the trip.
[VDARE.COM NOTE: This is
actually not true. There is still net migration from
Puerto Rico. See
Wall Street (Journal) Story,
August 8th, 2001.]
"Sooner or later, the
same thing will happen in Mexico. No one knows when, but
surely one hint of things to come is that population
growth is slowing in Mexico, just as it slowed earlier
here and in Europe."
Alas, Jacoby omits mention of the perverse incentives
-courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer-that "improve....the
calculus of hope" to native Puerto Ricans: primarily,
the
Section 936 tax credit.
The Section 936 corporate welfare provision has lured
many low-skilled manufacturing jobs (mostly in the
pharmaceutical industry, which comprise more than 53% of
the island's 2000 merchandise exports) to P.R., helping
to stanch the flow of immigrants to the U.S. mainland.
The upshot: in 2005 the 936 credit will be phased out.
Though fuzzy on the minutiae, Steve Sailer
suggested something akin to a Section 936 credit for
Mexico.
Pragmatic as Sailer's suggestions may be, note that
in spite of NAFTA & maquiladora fueled job growth
during the 1990s, Mexican immigration nevertheless
surged.
As if waking up yesterday from a pre-September 11th
cryogenic sleep, Jacoby inexplicably blathers:
"The more daring,
long-term gamble lies in continuing to admit millions of
foreigners who may or may not make it here or find a way
to fit in. This is, as Mr. Buchanan rightly states, "a
decision we can never undo."
"Still, it is an
experiment we have tried before—repeatedly. The result
has never come out exactly as predicted, and the process
has always been a wrenching one. But as experiments go,
it has not only succeeded on its own terms; it has made
us the wonder of the world."
Well, credit Jacoby for her apt 'experiment' jargon
(ditto for characterizing what Buchanan says as
'rightly'). Not unlike the
1960s housing "projects", the post-1965 immigration
"experiment" has abetted many catastrophic and
unforeseen consequences as well.
Amazingly, Jacoby fails to grasp that:
(i) accommodating
these newcomers means expanding government power, or
what she euphemistically calls 'basic services' like
English, civics, and - gasp! - bank/credit counseling (gov't
credit counseling? Coming soon: Mike Tyson anger
management seminars!!!); or,
(ii) eliminating
'counterproductive programs' (bilingual ed, ethnic
entitlements) becomes more - not less - difficult by the
influx of more immigrants.
Finally, before Ms. Jacoby recklessly throws all
caution to the wind, might we remind her of a few
significant differences between immigration today and
pre-1920:
(i) welfare:
it distorts incentives on whether to remain in the
country or
go home,
(ii) presence
of myriad
ethnic lobbies: do we really want to keep feeding
the machine?,
(iii) the
activist foreign policy posture of the U.S.: let's keep
our
enemies away from our cities, civilians and
sensitive infrastructure, and
(iv) the
frightening accessibility of
destructive technology.
Just wondering Ms. Jacoby: which
reality are we really denying?
April 29, 2002
