February 20, 2007

Tamar Jacoby: "Stop chasing that busboy"

Tamar Jacoby becomes a caricature of herself (again), offering "Stop chasing that busboy" (via this). That's part of an online debate with Mark Krikorian of CIS.

For those who haven't been following along, the "busboy canard" is a stock talking point from the massive immigration/pro-illegal immigration crowd. The argument is that our border guards should chasing terrorists and such, and chasing busboys, gardeners, greenskeepers, and the like distracts them from that mission.

I've already dealt with one of her "arguments":

It was all but impossible to enforce Prohibition.

Now, let's deal with another:

But the most effective way to get control of illegal immigration isn't on the border; it's in the workplace. It's about ensuring that every available job - every job for which an employer can't find an American worker - is filled by a legal immigrant. Because once we do that - once illegal immigrants can't find work in the U.S. - there will be little or no incentive for them to make the long, difficult trip from their home countries.

Obviously, those same companies that employ illegal aliens in order to achieve a lower cost for labor will play similar tricks if all they have available are legal workers. For instance, many current H-1B scams involve placing ads with an impossible list of requirements, then, after no "qualified" citizens can be found, doing what the company wanted to do in the first place: hire a lower-wage and/or more compliant foreign worker.

And, even with that there's no guarantee whatsoever that illegal aliens couldn't find work in the U.S. There are plenty of crooked employers (and banks) around, and they have a tremendous amount of influence. If Bush won't enforce the laws now, what makes anyone think a future Bush clone would enforce them at that time?

Note also that the "guest" worker schemes from the various Senate bill had only a limited number of visas; a greater demand would equal a greater chance for future illegal immigration, and that would be allowed and enabled by those same forces that are currently allowing and enabling it.

Posted to Immigration2007a at February 20, 2007 05:16 AM

Comments

A fine critique of the neocon-WSJ open borders mentality.
(...)
For all the problems with mass immigration from Mexico – a blackmarket economy, forged and stolen document trafficking, assimilation failure, an eroding tax base, greater demand for public services, disruptive effects on manual labor markets, increased crime – all JPod can think about is how cheaply he can get servants to wait on him.

Of course it's obvious to any normal human being that analysis of public policy must extend beyond its impact on the discretionary spending of undeservedly wealthy fat fucks – but then it's also obvious that labor costs are like any other cost, and they get spread out among hundreds or thousands or millions of consumers. JPod can't even begin to mount an argument on this or any other subject, and it remains a great mystery how anyone can stand to be around him without strangling him to death.

Posted by: perroazul del norte at February 20, 2007 08:14 AM

So let me get this straight. President Bush repeatedly cautions against the perils of Prohibition while making a false analogy between Prohibition and immigration. He concludes that impeding the flow of foreign nationals across our border is the reason ‘a horrible industry has grown up’. The obvious solution as he sees it is to ‘decriminalize’ illegal aliens. So on the valid analogy between Prohibition and illegal drugs, surely he must believe that narcotics should also be decriminalized, right? If the negative consequences of black markets are so high, how could we not, right Mr. President? Seems like a pretty obvious question to ask the next time he or any other pol plays the Prohibition card.

Posted by: Amanda at February 21, 2007 02:50 AM