I’ve been wondering what Thomas Sowell would have to say about the current illegal immigration controversy that’s brewing.
It seemed to me that, as a free market advocate, Sowell might be, not favorable toward illegal immigration, but favorable toward broadening the American market whereby migrants would be able to do work here in America legally on a much larger scale than as been the case heretofore.
If the free exchange of goods and services is the best way to foster economic development then ceteris paribus expanding the U.S. labor market to include neighboring countries might make sense.
One could argue, though, that this is not the case. Having a free market, labor or otherwise, presupposes a kind of institutional openness and level playing field that may not exist between America and Mexico. I haven’t thought through the situation with sufficient thoroughness or researched the America-Mexico situation enough to know whether that relationship would make sense. (Which is why I’m interested in what Sowell has to say. He’s the expert; not me.)
I do know that I am opposed to folks entering America illegally. I especially don’t like long, porous borders in an age of global terrorism with us as the main target of the terrorists’ efforts.
If people want to come here to improve their economic condition and America can handle the influx, fine. But breaking laws is not a good thing. The law might need to be changed to better facilitate matters, but lawbreaking itself is a bad thing, especially when conducted on a massive scale. I understand that desperation can make breaking the law morally licit in extreme individual cases but if we’re talking the kind of humanitarian crisis that would justify mass disregard for the law then something needs to be done to address that desperation. (Massive disregard for the law being itself a huge societal "bad.")
What needs to be fixed in such a case should not be too hastily assumed to be American immigration law. If America has worked out a system that makes it attractive enough that folks want to come here because of the economic opportunities that it offers that their own homeland doesn’t then it seems to me that the logical thing to do is change the country of origin’s system so it it more closely approximates the American model and thus creates economic opportunities that don’t require immigration to a foreign land (which is itself a cost to the immigrants).
For example, if it’s easier to get a business license in America than Mexico, resulting in greater economic opportunity in the former than in the latter, then it seems that the logical first thing to do is not to demand that America change its immigration policy but to change Mexican law so that it’s easier to get a business license there, too.
Indeed, this would seem to be a justice issue. It would seem unjust to ask one country to bear the costs of accepting massive immigration when this immigration is being driven by disordered economic policies in the migrants’ country of origin.
Fixing the situation back home so people aren’t desperate to migrate to a foreign land is the real solution to the problem. Bettering economic conditions back home so that immigration to a foreign land is a matter of personal choice rather than of economic necessity is the real way to help people.
Now, some folks may pick up on one point I just mentioned–the cost of absorbing massive immigration–and say "Ah! But in reality there is no cost! After all, many of the immigrants are taking jobs native-born Americans won’t do! It thus helps them by having them be employed and helps us by getting these undesirable jobs done."
Enter Thomas Sowell.
EXCERPTS:
Virtually every job in the country is work that Americans will not do, if the pay is below a certain level. And the pay will not rise to that level so long as illegal immigrants — "undocumented workers" — are available to work for less.
Even those who write editorials about how we need Mexicans to do work that Americans will not do would not be willing to write editorials for a fraction of what they are being paid. If Mexican editorial writers were coming across the border illegally and taking their jobs, maybe the issue would become clearer.
You cannot discuss jobs without discussing pay, if you are serious. And, if you are really serious, you need to discuss all the welfare state benefits available to Americans who won’t work.
When you say that Americans have a "right" to have their "basic needs" met, you are saying that when some people refuse to supply themselves with food and shelter, other Americans should be forced to supply it for them.
If you subsidize workers when they won’t work and subsidize employers by making illegal aliens available to them, then under those particular conditions it may well be true that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans won’t do. But such statements conceal more than they reveal.
Hard-working immigrants may indeed be a godsend, not only to farmers and other employers, but also to families looking for someone to take care of children or an aged or ill member of the family. But Americans worked as farm laborers and as maids before there were "undocumented workers" to turn these chores over to.
If it has been done before, it can be done again. All that prevents it is the welfare state and the attitudes it spawns.
