Why Open Borders Should Be a Non-Issue for America | Eastern North Carolina Now

    On October 16, 2018, Francisco Gonzalez wrote an article, or more aptly, a book review, entitled "Why Open Borders Are Bad for America's Immigrants"; it was published by The Federalist. In that article, Gonzalez reviewed and commented (apparently in support of) Reihan Salam's book 'Melting Pot or Civil War? A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders."

    In this article below, I am providing some thoughts and commentary, and some opinions and counter-arguments as well, on both Gonzalez' article and the underlying work which is Salam's book. I write this with no disrespect at all for either Mr. Gonzalez or Mr. Salam, and I hope that my commentary does not suggest so. I am grateful to both for their coverage and thoughts on this hot topic of open borders because it helps to further a robust debate on the issue. Immigration reform is certainly the defining issue of our time, with the current administration. I believe strongly in the First Amendment and the need for all viewpoints in order that Americans can have the most exhaustive discussions and debates on matters touching on their country, their government, and their communities. Exhaustive discussions and debates helps us to form our opinions, to keep us most acutely informed, and to decide on the best course of action. The First Amendment was adopted first and foremost for political speech and expression, with the intent that a "marketplace of ideas" would be robust and full of diverse opinions and viewpoints and thus, enable Americans to make the most informed choices at the ballot box and to keep tabs on government.

    I should begin by saying that I agree with Salam's ultimate conclusion, which is that an "open borders" immigration policy is bad for the United States. But I want to emphasize that I believe it is bad for the country in general, for the population as a whole, and for the fatal threats it poses to our safety and security, and not simply for the reason that Salam suggests - which is that it is bad for America's more recent immigrants. I also believe it is a reckless and illegitimate attempt to advance a political party's interests way and above any other interests (including moral) that key political leaders may offer.

    Gonzalez's article begins:

    Immigration has long been one of the hottest topics in America with no agreed upon policy solutions. We are often presented with one of two polarized choices. The first favors an open borders policy, where the free flow of migrants across our borders is welcomed and amnesty is granted to those who previously crossed the border unlawfully. The second option would seal the border, perhaps with a "wall," and find and hunt down all illegal immigrants and deport them.

    The election of Donald Trump, who clearly leans towards that second choice, has forced a needed argument about immigration. We can disagree on the tactics and the rhetoric Trump uses about immigration, but he has certainly compelled the nation to have the discussion and has moved the nation - including Congress - as close as it's been to taking some kind of action to remedy this long standoff.

    This is as timely a moment as ever for the release Reihan Salam's book, "Melting Pot or Civil War? A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders." Salam, a son of Bangladeshi immigrants, the executive director of National Review, and a fellow with National Review Institute (where I also work), argues that the real choice we have in our immigration debate "is whether we see the immigrants we welcome to our shores as permanent strangers to whom we have no obligation other than to deliver them from the relative poverty of their homelands, or as free and equal citizens to whom we are pledging our loyalty in this generation and in those to come."

    Clearly, Gonzalez says, Reihan Salam's book provides an important viewpoint to the on-going discussion about immigration policy, and in particular, an open-borders policy.

    However, what Gonzalez fails to recognize, fails to criticize, and fails to comment on is that Salam is insincere and intellectually dishonest about the issues surrounding the immigration debate. If Gonzalez is indeed framing the debate correctly according to Salam's point of view, it is clear that Salam neglects the real issue in the immigration debate - which is "legal immigration" versus "illegal immigration." Are we a nation of laws? Do we believe in the Rule of Law and the Constitution as the foundation of that law? If so, then we must demand that immigrants come here legally and our policy must enforce that and discourage illegal entry. If we don't believe in the Rule of Law, if we believe laws are only for tax-burdened citizens to adhere to, if we believe that enforcement of federal laws is arbitrary, and we've abandoned the notion that the federal government is absolutely responsible for the objects expressly delegated to it by the Constitution, then open borders makes sense.

    Salam also neglects the true nature of the push for an open borders immigration policy. The truth is that a relaxed immigration policy (ie, open borders policy) is a political issue with no concern at all for national security (a very real reason for the power to regulate immigration) but rather for political ends. Today's illegal immigrants are tomorrow's Democratic voters.

    In his book, Salam argues that if we are to live up to the standards of America's principles, which he hopes we will do, we would certainly want to move in a direction more towards an open immigration policy and a welcoming of illegals "as free and equal citizens."

    Salam argues that US immigration policy needs to address the concerns of those immigrants newly added to our country. He notes that, unfortunately, most immigrants and children of immigrants are not moving up the economic ladder. That is simply the truth of the matter. They are also not taking advantage of college and secondary education opportunities (or have as successful graduation rates) compared with their counterparts.

    Gonzalez writes:

    When they don't do that, as Salam shows, they become stuck in ethnic enclaves. When they remain poor and only around other poor immigrants from their own ethnic backgrounds, not only do they not assimilate into America's melting pot, but they also start forming grievances against their new host country. That's a dangerous proposition not only for the American economy, but also for the American identity.

    One of the key factors that contributes to this situation is that most immigrants are low-skilled workers who have traditionally been welcomed into our economy by those seeking cheap labor. However, as Salam shows throughout this book, low-skilled workers are less and less needed, as our modern economy shifts to automation and off-shoring of labor becomes a more likely proposition.

    Note that others, economic experts, assert that since the United States has moved from a production economy to a "service" economy, low-skilled workers (such as servers, maids, housecleaners, landscapers, etc), will continue to be needed. In other words, there will always be a need (a "magnet") for immigration - legal and illegal.... After all, we can't forget that "there are certain jobs that Americans just won't do," even those who need jobs to support themselves and their families.

    Gonzalez continues in his review of Salam's book:

    Salam points out that traditional free-market libertarians tend to favor a more open border policy, coupled with free trade, that is open to a more globalized labor pool, where products and services are manufactured abroad and imported at lower rates for consumers in the United States. At the same time, those who favor more protectionism in trade tend to be more limiting on immigration. He observes both of these sides can't have their cake and eat it, too. "The decline of protectionism has made restricting low-skill immigration a more viable option," says Salam. If we are to pursue more egalitarianism, this is a good thing. Salam argues that we need to shift our immigration policies towards a more selective, skills-based approach.

    A selective, skills-based approach is the same approach that President Trump favors. He believes in an immigration policy that is not only based on legal entry into this country but also that focuses on merit-based entry as well. In other words, he wants immigrants to join our country who can add to our country - wealth, advanced skills, intellect - rather than to drain from taxpayers and otherwise burden our towns, cities, and communities.

    Salam believes that such an approach will favor immigrants who are likely to be more economically stable and upwardly mobile. It will also favor our un-skilled citizenry who need jobs yet often find them given to immigrants (legal and illegal).

    As Gonzalez points out, Salam's concern regarding U.S. immigration policy is not simply for immigrants already in the United States, but also for those who need to emigrate to the United States because they are impoverished in the countries they currently reside:

    Salam does not ignore that there are hundreds of millions of people living in poverty around the world who are on the move. He goes one further and recognizes that "the international poverty line is fundamentally arbitrary. It grossly underestimates the number of people around the world who are desperate to better their lot."

    In fact, it often takes that first lift out of poverty to be able to afford to move at all. That's part of the reason we are seeing many migrants move from impoverished places in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. To this end, Salam provides many ways we can help those people. He goes so far as to suggest that "it's time for Americans to roll up their sleeves and help."