Immigration is not always the clearest of issues. Just watch the talking heads on the tv. Both sides have the maddening tendency to claim the same argument as their own — “I am for legal immigration, and against illegal immigration.”
Sounds reasonable enough. That’s probably why so many people say it in the first place. But where does that kind of thinking take us?
The quota on H1-B visas for highly skilled workers is currently 65,000 per year. Remember the pro-legal, anti-illegal argument. That requires being for 65,000 visas, and against 65,001 visas. Think about that for a minute. Isn’t that weird? 0.0015% is the difference between saying yes and no.
It gets stranger. Congress constantly changes the definition of “legal immigration.” Restrictions are tightened in one bill. Loosened in the next. Do people then change their mind every time Congress passes new immigration legislation?
This is not a rigorous line of thought. That’s why I don’t think very many people actually think that way, even if they say they do. Most people have some optimum immigration level they’d like to see. This is where the real immigration debate lies.
My preference is on the high side. For a lot of reasons, I favor letting in more immigrants. Morally and economically, in my heart and my head, that is what I believe to be right.
Others would prefer to have fewer immigrants. They have their own reasons, just as sincerely held.
Being for legal immigration and against illegal immigration may sound sane and pragmatic. Really, it is neither. It reduces a debate over the well-being of millions to semantics.
Combatants in the immigration debate should base their opinions on what they feel is just. Not on whatever happens to be legal this year.
Inertia Wins! 