The Wall Street Journal Lays All of Its Open-Borders Cards on the Table

And the deck is not complete (requires free registration if seen today).

First, some historical background. The core of the WSJ’s position can be summed up in five words from a 1984 Journal editorial that were repeated in 2001 by the late Robert Bartley, words that The Journal feels belong in a constitutional amendment (you read that right): There shall be open borders.

I hope I can be forgiven for agreeing with The Journal — in 1984. But the Reagan amnesty in 1986, its foolish “problem solved” predictions, and the tidal wave of illegal immigration that followed it shortly thereafter, and which has not stopped since then, shocked me into reality. This meeting with reality clearly has not yet occurred at The Journal. I daresay if the paper was headquartered in Phoenix or San Diego, they would see things quite differently.

But back to today’s editorial. At its core is a fundamental denial of what two decades of virtually de facto open borders combined with the worst features of the “diversity” movement, the left’s antipathy towards our fundamental national values, and the changed nature of those who are entering this country have wrought. It’s right there in these amazingly ignorant statements, with my response following in each instance:

We realize that critics are not inventing the manifold problems that can arise from illegal immigration: Trespassing, violent crime, overcrowded hospital emergency rooms, document counterfeiting, human smuggling, corpses in the Arizona desert, and a sense that the government has lost control of the border. But all of these result, ultimately, from too many immigrants chasing too few U.S. visas. Those migrating here to make a better life for themselves and their families would much prefer to come legally.

Phooey. The trespassers, violent criminals, pregnant mothers who want to come here just to have their babies, and con artists have no interest — none — in doing things legally.

But the immigrants who arrive here come to work, not sit on the dole. And thanks to welfare reform, the welfare rolls have declined despite a surge in illegal immigration in the past decade.

Oh please. The relevant question is first how much smaller the welfare rolls might be if illegals weren’t here. Additionally, families receiving food stamps, in-state college tuition rates, and free emergency-room care aren’t seen as being “on the dole” for statistical purposes, even though they are most certainly receiving free government benefits.

As for education, even illegals pay for public schools through the indirect property taxes they pay in rent. Overall, immigrants contribute far more to our economy than they extract in public benefits.

Yikes. The Journal knows darn well that renters with one or two children in the public schools don’t even come close to paying their “fair share” of property taxes through their rent payments, let alone the not-unusual situations of multiple immigrant families, each with several children, occupying small rental units.

It may very well be true that LEGAL immigrants contribute more than they extract; even if they don’t quite do that, that’s all right with me, because over the long-term past descendants of legal immigrants have become net contributors. I have no reason to believe it will be different for those who are currently here, legally.

But there is no conceivable way this is true for illegals, especially if you consider the adverse effects of unfair competition with legal workers. Just one small example of that is described here at former US Senate candidate Bill Pierce’s blog. After you multiply it by hundreds, if not thousands, of other instances that are certainly occurring around the country, don’t even try to tell me it’s a win-win.

But the good news is that these newcomers by and large aren’t listening to the left-wingers pushing identity politics.

Again, The Journal fails to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, as if the difference is trifling. Despite the entreaties of the identity obsessives, legal immigrants probably are assimilating just fine. But it is highly doubtful that illegals, who violated the law to get here, violate the law with identity fraud to get jobs, and very often mooch off the system, are assimilating at all. If amnesty or amnesty-lite ever becomes a reality, illegal immigrant families will, first, be far too likely to become the multigenerational welfare clients of the future, and second, will be far too likely not to have any kind of meaningful loyalty to their new country.

According to the most recent Tarrance Group survey, 75% of likely GOP voters support immigration reform that combines increased border and workplace enforcement with a guest-worker system for newcomers and a multiyear path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here–provided that they meet certain requirements like living crime free, learning English and paying taxes.

That’s so nice. Too bad the immigration bill passed by the Senate requires almost none of this. The bill actually rewards past unlawful behavior by vesting those who have worked illegally with earnings for Social Security benefit purposes and entitling them to file back tax returns on which they will often be able to claim the Earned Income Credit. It further assumes an ability along with willpower to enforce and monitor the crime-free and language-learning requirements that simply doesn’t exist, and, given the unconditional amnesty-oriented outlook of perhaps a third of our politicians and judges, most likely never will.

House Republican leaders, who passed an immigration bill last year focusing only on enforcement, want to frame this debate as a choice between more border security or “amnesty” for the 11 or 12 million illegals already here.

Darn it, no they don’t. The House just wants to know that the borders are reasonably secure BEFORE comprehensively addressing the problem of those who are here. Why? Painful experience from 1986 shows that when increased enforcement and amnesty are designed to occur at the same time (both at the border itself and at employers who are expected to, but don’t, do the most basic screening to prevent the hiring of illegals), enforcement gets short shrift. The House is saying: Not this time. And when poll questions are framed appropriately, the electorate agrees.

When border patrol agents don’t have to chase down people coming here to work, they can concentrate on genuine threats, like gang members and terrorists.

Once it becomes known that the chances of success at illegal entry are very low, that is exactly what will happen — And not a moment sooner.
__________________________

UPDATE: A letter agreeing with The Journal’s position, signed by roughly 40 known conservatives, also appears today, and is essentially more of the same. These people refuse to get it, and mischaracterize the House bill (deliberately, in my opinion) as enforcement-only, when it is of course enforcement-first.

UPDATE 2: Right on the Right provides plenty of well-documented evidence that The Journal and others underestimate the influence of La Raza’s racist elements and the Southwest separatist/ethnic cleansing movement.