By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, August 06, 2017
Conservative efforts at health-care reform are, for the
moment, a shambles. Conservative efforts at tax reform are foundering as well,
though their prospects may be sunnier, given the habitual Republican appetite
for tax cuts of almost any description, including irresponsible ones.
Both the tax-reform project and the health-care project
have run into trouble because of a lack of intellectual and political
leadership: Washington’s sock drawers are stuffed full of conservative
proposals to rationalize taxes and to nudge health care in a more
market-oriented direction, but herding those congressional cats — and
conservative activists, think-tankers, PACs and super PACs, aspiring
presidents, etc. — in the same direction requires real political leadership.
That is made difficult by the fact that the loudest conservative voices — the
talking mouths of cable news and the talk-radio ranters — have a very heavy
financial incentive to be dissatisfied, or at least to pronounce themselves
dissatisfied, with whatever it is that Republican congressional leaders decide
to support, while the president himself, who has decided that railing against
Congress will be his substitute for leading them in his direction, has similar
incentives.
If these two issues are any indicator, then the Trump
administration’s keystone issue — immigration reform — is on a course to end up
wrecked upon the same rocky shoals.
Can that be prevented?
The Republican party is at odds with itself over what it
actually wants out of an immigration policy. One the one hand,
libertarian-leading Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce crowd think that
the case for free trade is also the case, more or less, for free immigration,
that the free flow of goods and capital across borders ought to be complemented
by the free flow of labor. The “open borders” Republican is mainly a straw man
deployed by the talk-radio gang: Advocates of a genuine open-borders policy of
the sort that Great Britain maintained in the 19th century, when immigrants
could show up in London without so much as proof of identity (much less a
visa), are scarce. But there are a fair number of Republicans who prefer
relatively high levels of immigration, including relatively high numbers of
low-skilled immigrant workers from Latin America.
Opposing them are more restrictionist
populist-nationalist Republicans, some of them in the Trump mold and some of
them intelligent and responsible. These include those who see the world the way
my colleague Mark Krikorian does, believing that current levels of immigration
are bad for domestic workers, especially low-wage workers, and that recent
immigrants have placed undue burdens on domestic institutions, especially the
social-welfare and criminal-justice systems. They want lower immigration across
the board, not only a crackdown on illegal immigration but also a significant
reduction in legal immigration.
Can these differences be resolved in such a way as to
allow the emergence of a unified Republicans approach to immigration?
Yes. And not only that: Democrats can be brought on
board, too.
Democrats, in reaction to Trump, are at the moment moving
rhetorically in a more liberal direction on immigration. But that is not where
the Democratic base is right now, especially in the Rust Belt and the Midwest.
At Bernie Sanders rallies I attended in Iowa during the primaries, union-hall
Democrats offered up many an earful about the need for immigration control, and
Senator Sanders himself denounced the Republican view of immigration as an
“open borders” scheme hatched by right-wing billionaires looking to undermine
the economic position of the American working class. Many of those voters no
doubt cross the aisle for Donald Trump in places such as Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin. The Democrats cannot afford to lose those voters permanently, and
they know as much.
So, where to begin?
Begin by cordoning off the issue of illegal immigration.
With the exception of a few oddballs and ideologues, we
can all agree that whatever our national immigration policy ends up being, it
must be conducted in an orderly and lawful fashion. That means that getting
control of illegal immigration needs to be the first order of business.
Happily, that is something we can do without waiting years or decades to build
new walls that will, in the end, address the problem only partially. (Most
illegals do not wade across the Rio Grande; they enter legally on visas and
then violate them.) Through workplace enforcement (mandatory use of the
E-Verify system) and modest financial controls (making it hard to cash a check
or pay remittances without proof of legal status) we can greatly reduce the
economic attraction of illegal immigration to the United States. (Border walls,
properly understood, are not about illegal roofers and avocado-pickers: They
are about terrorists and their instruments.) Jeff Sessions could do a great
deal to advance this if he happened to haul in a few poultry-plant bosses or
general contractors for employing illegals. There is no shortage of cases from
which to choose.
Republicans should pursue this first and in legislative
quarantine from other immigration reforms: It emphatically should not be part
of a “comprehensive” immigration-reform package. Illegal immigration is —
focus, now — illegal. We can take positive steps to control this problem right
now, in a relatively straightforward fashion at relatively low cost. If our
more libertarian-leaning friends are correct (I’d bet against them here) and
the nation’s agricultural industry is hamstrung by a lack of workers — if the
United States should decide that it has a shortage of poor people with few
professional skills — then that problem can be addressed in the future fairly
easily. If what happens instead is that the price of tomatoes and landscaping
labor goes up a little bit, then the republic shall endure.
There are many good and useful proposals for immigration,
such as replacing family-oriented chain migration with a policy oriented more
toward the economic needs and economic interests of the United States. President
Trump’s “radical” proposal would reduce immigration to levels not seen since .
. . the 1980s, which is to say, to a few hundred thousand immigrants per year
rather than the million or million-plus of recent years. A period of relatively
low immigration might help in the projection of assimilation, which currently
is producing mixed results. My own preference is for an economically oriented
policy that, callous as it may sound, is approximately Cato for rich people and
Krikorian for poor ones: Bring on the highly educated and affluent, the doctors
and investors and entrepreneurs, and maybe take a pass on the 13 millionth
day-laborer.
That’s a debate worth having. Indeed, the failures of
Republican health-care and tax-reform efforts suggest very strongly that we
need to have more of those debates in order to forge some kind of politically
viable consensus behind conservative policy projects. But we do not have to do
everything at once. Addressing illegal immigration is something we can do right
now, something that Republicans and (most) Democrats can get behind — and
should get behind.
No comments:
Post a Comment