Now that Newt Gingrich has become the latest in a series of Republican frontrunners, he is getting the kind of scrutiny and attacks that have done in other frontrunners.
One of the issues that have aroused concern among conservative Republicans is that of amnesty for illegal immigrants, especially after Gingrich said that it would not be “humane” to deport someone who has been living and working here for years.
Advertisement
Let’s go back to square one. The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country.
There is no inherent right to come live in the United States, in disregard of whether the American people want you here. Nor does the passage of time confer any such right retroactively.
The Wall Street Journal, usually sober and thoughtful on issues other than immigration, outdoes Newt Gingrich’s claim that it would not be “humane” to deport illegal immigrants who have been living here a long time. A Wall Street Journal editorial says that it would be “psychotic” to do so.
“No one honestly believes the government should or will mount a nationwide manhunt to deport millions of people,” according to the Wall Street Journal.
What we have today is virtually the opposite of that. Cities that openly proclaim themselves “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants put their own policemen under strict orders not to report illegal immigrants to the federal authorities, with the result that illegal immigrants who have committed crime after crime are free to stay here and commit more crimes, including murder.
You don’t have to launch a “manhunt” when a known criminal is also a known illegal alien. Many local policies have virtually put illegal aliens in a witness-protection program.
The more doctrinaire libertarians see the benefits of free international trade in goods, and extend the same reasoning to free international movement of people. But goods do not bring a culture with them. Nor do they give birth to other goods to perpetuate that culture.
Why do people want to come to America in the first place? Because America offers them something that their native countries do not. This country has a culture that has produced a higher standard of living and a freer life than in many other countries.
When you import people, you import cultures, including cultures that have been far less successful in providing decent lives and decent livelihoods. The American people have a right to decide for themselves whether they want unlimited imports of cultures from other countries.
At one time, immigrants came to America to become Americans. Today, the apostles of multiculturalism and grievance-mongering have done their best to keep foreigners foreign and, if possible, feeling aggrieved. Our own schools and colleges teach grievances.
"Let’s go back to square one. The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country."
This should be the point that is driven home repeatedly by potential candidates courting my vote. Thank you, Dr. Sowell.
Would that we could have the option of voting for Dr. Sowell in the primaries...
This article shines, not because it conveys truth that many of us don't already know, but because it exhibits a moral clarity that isn't common among conservatism's presumptive leaders in politics and punditry. What Sowell had to say about the national interest, culture as the key difference between imported goods and imported people, the balkanizing effects of multicultural grievance mongering... NONE OF IT is diffiicult, but it's all politically incorrect.
And to temper all this with the recognition that amnesty is unlikely with a Republican government and a virtual certainty with a Democratic government... I hate to say it, but it's a sobering truth we should all keep in mind.
A bit disappointing from the good doctor as he makes passing mention of the economic component of migration. Of all the immigrants, the cohort we all consider is the economic migrant from Mexico. We like to say that they "jumped the queue", except there is no queue. The quota of visas is gone by January 3 or 4th.
We like to say they take good jobs from Americans. While that argument may gain traction today, just a few years ago unemployment was 4% and the cohort of Mexican workers was estimated to be as much as 5%. It's hard to argue they took any jobs at all. That does anyone think the effect on the economy would have been to remove such a fraction of the workforce? What might removing 5% of the total population have done to the housing market?
Consider the lettuce farmer in Atlanta who cannot get his crop in (it's happening now). What happens? His competitor in Monterrey who is given the competitive advantage of a labor force with fewer options takes over the production of lettuce and the Atlanta farmer either sells higher priced lettuce or goes out of business.
The system is broken, and has been broken since before Simpson-Mazolli.
The one thing everyone can agree on is to control the border. It was promised in 1986. Solve that first, then lets talk. Newt is just getting realistic about the prospects of the effect of deporting millions of integrated producers and consumers and its effect on the economy. It's refreshing to hear someone other than the xenophobes for a change.
Where is the evidence that everybody agrees on controlling the border? Even the language of the debate does not that back that up. Certainly the practice of the government does not. It would not actually be that difficult, though admittedly not necessarily cheap.
Oh BS, visas are available all year long. You just don't like that we rightfully limit immigration to 1 million a year, you probably want 100 million a year.
Great article. Newt should read it and respond to it. I repeat what I've read and said else where: Require the use of E-Verify, and fine employers $50,000 for each illlegal they hire. The illegals here will go home and few will come in the first place.
Here's Sowell's money quote: "The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country."
Yup. Now consider the POLICY underlying the laws, and the ADMINISTRATION of the laws. You want inhumane laws and merciless administration, maybe? Remember, we're not talking unequal. We're talking inhumane and merciless.
How is the choice between serving the national interest of this country and inhumane laws and merciless administration?
The enforcement of immigration laws is not inhumane or merciless. If one ignores the sovereignty of the United States and breaks our laws by illegally entering our country then one is subject to deportation. We can humanely deport someone. It is done all the time. We can be merciful while still respecting the rule of law.
Those who willy nilly cross our border are jumping the line and declaring themselves to be above those who LEGALLY try to immigrate to the US. They are declaring that they are above the law. For if they respected the law, they would not have broken it to come here.
I, we, should not tolerate those who openly flaunt the rule of law and legal process for coming to our country. I can treat these people mercifully and humanely while they are here but ultimately they must be deported. It is the only way to be fair to those who attempt to immigrate legally and to those who live in this country.
The purpose of immigration laws is not to be humane and merciful. That is different than "the purpose of immigration laws is to be not humane and merciful". That's the point. You assume that their enforcement automatically equates to inhumane and merciless. I don't doubt you actually think that way. Its not one or the other with no room in between.
I do not assume that enforcement of immigration laws "automatically equates to inhumane and merciless," whatever that means.
The issue I'm raising is whether the policy underlying immigration laws ought to be humane. I propose that it should, as all our laws ought to be humane. Consider the alternative. I then proceed to administration of these laws. Should administration and enforcement of these laws be merciless?
The point, which I think you completely missed, is that Sowell dangles before you the correct but not very relevant statement that the law is not enacted for the purpose of requiring us to be humane or merciful. He beguiles you into thinking that, since the law has a different purpose, you can stop thinking about humaneness and mercy. My point is that, no matter what the law says, you ought not to, as we like our laws to be based in humane principles and administered with mercy.
Humaneness and mercy are merely two value points in policy making that must span multiple competing interests and walk a delicate balance between trading one "good" for another. Yes, they are very important values to have and we should do our utmost to see that they are actually achieved. But where we as conservatives part company with you as progressives is that we recognize there are other things policy should achieve and because the world is imperfect some goods (like humaneness and mercy) at painful times must be ordered below other goods (like security, the rule of law, order, etc...).
Also, your post is written as if humanity and mercy can be simply dialed into policy making as independent variables. I submit that is naive. First question you should ask yourself is who should we be humane and merciful too first? The legal people and native residents who respect the law and are productive or the illegals who come here to take advantage of our overly generous welfare system and "free" emergency room care? What if giving $100 in welfare benefits to an illegal means that we have $100 less to spend on Mexican nationals who arrived here legally? Is that "humane"? Please enlighten us with your finely tuned set of policy initiatives that balances all these competing interests.
What is the exact meaning of "the policy underlying the laws"?
Policies to implement laws, including immigration laws, can be many and varied. The policy behind a law must be straightforward, as in this context "policy" equates to "aim". The aim of immigration law is to ensure that only people wanted by the country get in, and only by the process the country lays out. The political debate is the place to settle who those people are and what that process should be.
Anyone who enters by any other means than that process and for any other reason is a criminal. That is statement of fact, however merciless.
Should our immigration policy be humane to foreigners or to Americans? Citizens have a right to expect their government not to sell them out to a group of non-citizens. Otherwise, what's the point of belonging to a body politic?
