The WSJ continues its campaign to legalize illegals. Until now, it’s done that by conflating immigration (good) with illegal immigration (bad). Now it’s moved on to another sophomoric trick, claiming that since illegal immigration can’t be completely stopped by enforcement, it must be facilitated. Oddly, it doesn’t apply the same argument to other crimes.
By now it should be clear that “enforcement only” won’t solve the immigration problem.
The logic flaw can be clarified by replacing “immigration” with “murder”, thus:
By now it should be clear that “enforcement only” won’t solve the murder problem.
The body of the argument is even weaker:
…In addition to all of the other challenges Border Patrol agents face, there is growing evidence that more of them are falling prey to the temptations of bribery and corruption…
…Border agents tell me they could most effectively do their job and contain the spreading corruption within their ranks is if they didn’t have to chase down people coming here to work and instead could focus their resources on catching gang members and terrorists.
But isn’t it likely that border patrol agents who “tell” him this are the corrupt ones? Gang members and terrorists offer much better bribes than future bellmen!
And corruption isn’t a “challenge”; it’s a management failure. Every police force faces the same problem, and there are tried and tested ways of cleaning it up – firing the corrupt and improving hiring practices.
Regardless, the argument for adding millions of unskilled workers to the US economy is bunk – as explained here (my ellipsis):
…as many Americans sense and so much research has demonstrated. America does not have a vast labor shortage that requires waves of low-wage immigrants to alleviate; in fact, unemployment among unskilled workers is high—about 30 percent. Moreover, many of the unskilled, uneducated workers now journeying here labor…in shrinking industries, where they force out native workers, and many others work in industries where the availability of cheap workers has led businesses to suspend investment in new technologies that would make them less labor-intensive.
If the WSJ honestly favored more immigration, it would be calling for higher quotas on well-educated Indians, Eastern Europeans etc., not more bellman and lawn mowers. Shame about that – it used to be a good newspaper.