Sense on immigration: let them in

Here's a link to the review I did for this Sunday's Register on Jason Riley's recent book on immigration: "Let Them In." Jason, an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal, did an excellent job with this short book, making the case for open borders largely by confronting six of the most common arguments against more extensive immigration head-on, with logical arguments backed up by facts. You know the arguments, and some readers may have used them:

The country is already overpopulated and more people will degrade the quality of life; more immigration is dangerous to the environment; immigrants take jobs that "belong" to native-born; this wave of immigrants is dangerous to American culture; opposing immigration is a good "wedge issue for Republicans; unrestricted immigration is a danger to national security. All of these arguments, I'm afraid, are poppycock.

Of course, as some of the comments on the OCR Website illustrate, some people seem immune to reasoned argument, rejecting the book's argument without reading it. How sad that so many political positions are the result of emotion rather than reason or anything approaching weighing the evidence -- or even giving it a moment's consideration.

Immigration realities

Here's a link to the Register's editorial on the recent spate of immigration raids. Our perspective is somewhat different than what most conventional thinkers would suggest. Money quote:

"It will probably be a long time, if ever, before a consensus emerges around our editorial position, that the quotas for immigrants are too low, and the best approach would be to allow anybody who wants to come to immigrate (except terrorists and those with infectious diseases), but making it clear that they are not eligible for any government benefits until they have lived, worked and paid taxes here for a reasonable period of time.
"But we keep hoping."