Thursday, August 9, 2007

Bruce Morrison on Immigration Reform

Former Congressman Bruce Morrison's op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle emphasizes a focus on family and employment visas:

The resounding defeat of the Senate immigration reform bill was a relief to true friends of American immigration. No more urging a "yes" vote just "to move the process forward." Let's speak the truth - the Senate bill was not merely imperfect, it would have made many things worse.

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" sounded good, but it reflects a flawed strategy.

Immigration opponents put illegal and legal immigration into the same bucket because they want to convince Americans that there's just one problem - too many immigrants. When immigration supporters make coming or staying illegally seem like just another immigration option, they invite the same wrongheaded conclusion - that cutting all immigration is the answer.

The Senate bill was the inevitable result. To secure support for legalization (which opponents will always call amnesty regardless of the technicalities), both family and employment immigration would have been cut and crippled by broadly unpopular, ideologically driven changes demanded by restrictionists. Employers all around the Bay Area and in Silicon Valley, who have created thousands of American jobs with the help of key immigrant employees, would have been hurt by these changes. Yet all the Senate's concessions produced no additional support in the end. Click herefor the rest of the piece.

bh

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/08/bruce-morrison-.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e3982557568833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bruce Morrison on Immigration Reform:

Comments

both family and employment immigration would have been cut and crippled by broadly unpopular, ideologically driven changes demanded by restrictionists.

Actually, cutting H1-B's (i.e 'employment immigration') and levels of immigration in general is popular, usually in the 40 percent range and higher , and that's what people are willing to tell pollsters. And its strange that restrictionists are called ideologically driven when certainly the libertarian H1-B advocate types and ethnic activists certainly have their own ideologies.

Posted by: Mitchell Young | Aug 9, 2007 12:57:46 PM

As I recall, it was the tiny subset of Americans who are fanatical open borders ideologues that were first to claim equality between legal and illegal immigrants, something that is manifestly untrue in the opinion of the majority of Americans. Even the immigration lawyers and their liberal allies use the terms immigrants and illegal immigrants interchangeably and antagonistically I might add, to most Americans. The most popular term these days is undocumented immigrants, as if semantics would magically change the nature of the act.

It isn't difficult to see how all this gave impetus to restrictionist ideologues who then pointed out the corrupt H-1B visa practices of employers. We've all heard how they cheat the system through the use of phoney efforts to advertise for citizens when they actually intend to hire low cost foreign professionals who typically undercut the prevailing wages for citizens. It is the immigration lawyers, champion ideologues and their ethnocentric allies that ironically brought to light these perferdies against the citizen in his competition for employment. Remember the immigration law firm that was videotaped advising its employer customers on how to evade the spirit of our immigration laws? While not all immigration lawyers are corrupt or unethical, this one incident made all suspect. Most Americans would trust a restrictionist than an immigration lawyer these days. At least in the case of the former they could be sure that the interests of the citizen would come first.

Posted by: Horace | Aug 9, 2007 4:26:18 PM

'Immigration opponents put illegal and legal immigration into the same bucket because they want to convince Americans that there's just one problem - too many immigrants.'

Virtually everyone who's anti-open borders goes out of their way to differentiate between illegal and legal. 'Too many immigrants' in general is rarely mentioned, especially on the floors of Congress. Even the Great Satan of the unlimited immigration zealots, Lou Dobbs, has never called for a reduction in legal immigration although he does frequently point out how huge the legal immigration numbers actually are. Even though opinion polls show substantial %s of people favor lower immigration in general (both legal and illegal) that notion is somehow unutterable.

The author at least acknowledges employer enforcement as the key to weakening the magnet of illegal hiring.

Unfortunately, he scares me with his suggestion that the current levels of legal immigration are not 'realistic'. They are already massive so I can only guess how many visas this guy would favor. 'Fix legal immigration' obviously means increasing it dramatically. No thanks.

Posted by: Jack | Aug 9, 2007 5:36:39 PM

Post a comment