A conservative’s endorsement of liberal immigration policy

Jason Riley, a member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, has written a book supporting liberal immigration policy. The WSJ’s editorials on immigration reform have been favorable towards reforms envisioned by the defunct McCain/Kennedy initiative. Riley criticizes Republican conservatives who have wrapped themselves in the anti- illegal immigrant flag, calling this cause a non-starter at the polls.
Some excerpts from this review which appeared in the May 16 issue of the WSJ (subscription required):
“Immigrant workers tend to act as complements to the native U.S. workforce rather than substitutes. There is some overlap, of course, but this skill distribution is the reason immigrants and natives for the most part aren’t competing for the same positions.”
“Americans may rail against illegal aliens in telephone surveys, but election results have shown time and time again that it’s seldom the issue that decides someone’s vote. The lesson for the GOP is that hostility to immigrants is not a political winner.”
“Reasonable people agree that illegal immigration should be reduced. The question isn’t whether it’s a problem but how to solve it. Historically, the best results have come from providing more legal ways for immigrants to enter the country.”
The review in full:


On Monday, federal agents entered the Agriprocessors kosher-meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa, and arrested nearly 400 workers in what immigration officials called the largest single-site roundup ever. The detainees – most of them from Guatemala and Mexico – are suspected, among other things, of being in the country illegally. If nothing else, the mass arrest – and the effect it had on the meatpacking plant, which had to shut down for lack of workers – was a reminder that even though the immigration debate has subsided recently, the matter is no more closed than are the nation’s borders. In “Let Them In,” Jason L. Riley, a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, argues the case for open borders, reminding us of the immigrant contribution to America’s economy and culture, correcting various myths about legal and illegal immigration, and chiding Republicans for their restrictionist tendencies. Some excerpts:
The work-force effect: “The reason that immigrant workers tend not to elbow aside natives for jobs and depress wages has to do with the education and skills that foreigners typically bring to the U.S. labor market. Most immigrants fall into one of two categories: low-skilled laborers or high-skilled professionals. One-third of all immigrants have less than a high school education, and one-quarter hold a bachelor’s or advanced degree. Most native workers, by contrast, are concentrated betwixt those two extremes. Hence, immigrant workers tend to act as complements to the native U.S. workforce rather than substitutes. There is some overlap, of course, but this skill distribution is the reason immigrants and natives for the most part aren’t competing for the same positions.”
The talent imperative: “It’s a tragedy that America’s public school system is geared more toward appeasing teachers’ unions than educating kids. And until that changes, the trends will be difficult to reverse. The upshot of the status quo is that Mumbai and Beijing – often by way of MIT and Stanford – are currently producing a good amount of the talent that Bill Gates needs to keep Microsoft competitive. Immigration policies that limit industry’s access to that talent become ever more risky as the marketplace becomes ever more global. If we want American innovators and entrepreneurs to continue enhancing America’s wealth and productivity – and if we want the United States to continue as the world’s science and technology leader – better to let Apple and Google and eBay make their own personnel decisions without interference from Tom Tancredo and Lou Dobbs.”
The true costs: “Illegal aliens, who are one-third of all immigrants, do not have access to federal welfare benefits. And many illegals are reluctant to take advantage of the emergency health care available to them out of fear of apprehension by the authorities. Immigrant bashers who like to drag the undocumented population into the cost debate often leave out these inconvenient facts, either out of ignorance or an acute sense that it undermines their argument. The truth is this: Because the illegals who collect a paycheck also pay payroll and Social Security taxes but are denied the attendant benefits, Uncle Sam tends to come out ahead.”
The political danger: “As a voting issue, immigration restrictionism is political pyrite. It’s often likened to economic protectionism because both tend to poll better than they perform on Election Day. Americans may rail against illegal aliens in telephone surveys, but election results have shown time and time again that it’s seldom the issue that decides someone’s vote. The lesson for the GOP is that hostility to immigrants is not a political winner. That’s been the lesson in the past, and given demographic trends, as well as a voting public that is more racially and ethnically tolerant than at any time in U.S. history, it’s likely to be the lesson in the future. Unfortunately, it’s not a lesson that some conservatives are in danger of learning anytime soon.”
The populist push: “Mexican immigration was such a nonissue in American politics that it never even came up in the 2004 presidential debates. But by November 2006, Republicans and their conservative allies in talk radio and cable news would turn it into a raucous national theme. The GOP spent tens of millions of dollars on television ads that portrayed Latino immigrants as dangerous criminals and in some cases even compared them to Islamic terrorists. The spots didn’t only run in border states, either. They could be seen in places like Pennsylvania, where the Latino population is relatively small and consists mainly of Puerto Ricans, who are U.S. citizens. One Republican ad, which suggested that supporters of the president’s approach to immigration reform were soft on terrorism, ran in southwestern Ohio, where the only people crossing the border are from . . . Kentucky.”
The policy challenge: “Reasonable people agree that illegal immigration should be reduced. The question isn’t whether it’s a problem but how to solve it. Historically, the best results have come from providing more legal ways for immigrants to enter the country. Most of these people are not predisposed to crime or terrorists in waiting. They are economic migrants who would gladly use the front door if it were open to them. Post 9/11, knowing who’s in the country has rightly taken on an urgency. But painting Latino immigrants as violent criminals or Islamofascists won’t make us any safer. Nor will enforcing bad laws and policies, as opposed to reforming them. On the whole, immigrants are an asset to America, not a liability. We benefit from the labor, they benefit from the jobs. Our laws should acknowledge and reflect this reality, not deny it.”