Yes, I would like to receive periodic updates and information via e-mail from Commentary.

Recipient Addresses:

Separate each address with a comma.

Your E-mail Address: Message:

To the Editor:

Linda Chavez’s article is anything but realistic about the ramifications of mass immigration for America [“The Realities of Immigration,” July-August]. Perhaps the most major adverse consequence is rapid population growth. According to the Census Bureau, the U.S. population has grown by almost 50 million since 1990, mostly due to immigration. By 2050, it is projected to be 40-percent larger than it is today.

Rapid population growth puts severe strains on society, especially when it comes to the poorly educated and the labor market. Linda Chavez cites studies showing how immigration adversely affects native-born high-school dropouts, but she is dismissive of this large segment of society for its lack of motivation and its low labor-force participation. My own research and that of others have shown that the low participation rates can be attributed largely to the competition from immigrants, which takes away jobs and drives down wages. Rather than giving up on our own people, we should help them become economically self-sufficient by limiting mass immigration.

Linda Chavez believes that continuing mass immigration is an economic necessity. I know of no economist who shares this view. Immigration has been shown to have a very small impact on the overall economy. That is because the large gains it creates for high-income Americans are offset by the large losses it produces for low-income Americans. Immigration, like other aspects of globalization, increases inequality.

If immigration were reduced, the U.S. economy would do what it does best, namely, adapt. Employers would raise wages, reorganize, and invest in new technologies in response to labor shortages. Standards of living would rise.

Linda Chavez is enthusiastic about the Senate immigration bill, but she fails to note that the White House has estimated that it will double the rate of legal immigration over the next two decades. Other estimates are much higher. Nor does the experience of the 1986 amnesty give much hope that the Senate bill will reduce illegal immigration. Perhaps Linda Chavez looks forward to living in a much more crowded country. I, for one, do not.

Steven Shulman

Colorado State University

Fort Collins, Colorado

 

To the Editor:

Linda Chavez claims that in my 1995 book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, I called for “more immigrants who look like me.” This is flatly untrue. Instead, I called for a moratorium, for no net immigration. I am not going to accuse her of lying because I know from experience that immigration enthusiasts are motivated by intense emotion and are literally incapable of telling truth from falsehood.

In particular, they are apt to project their own motivations onto their opponents. Because Linda Chavez wants to expand the ethnic groups to which she is allied, she naturally assumes that everyone else wants to do the same for their group. Thus, she finds it “curious” that I, a white, can be interested in the impact of immigration on American blacks, whose unemployment rate has actually risen during the current recovery. But beyond smearing me as a racist, she feels no need to address the facts. Conveniently for her, whites in today’s America are not supposed to defend their own interests.

The bottom line in the immigration debate is this: for more than fifteen years, the consensus among labor economists, confirmed by the 1997 National Research Council report, has been that native-born Americans gain no significant benefit, in aggregate, from the unprecedented influx of immigrants since 1965. America is being transformed for nothing. There is no economic rationale for our policy—except for the special interests who fund Washington think tanks. There must be a political rationale. What is it? Why does Linda Chavez want to transform America?

Peter Brimelow

VDARE

 

To the Editor:

Linda Chavez’s article misses many critical facts. There is a limit to how many people the United States can sustain with a reasonable standard of living. The population has more than doubled to 300 million in the last 50 years. More people mean more crowding of schools and highways, destruction of farmland for housing, and increased demand for imported petroleum.

President Bush slanders the American worker when he says that immigrants do work that Americans are no longer willing to do. Americans will do any work if they are given decent pay and working conditions.

Linda Chavez states that “employers favor immigrants” over “poorly educated natives” who are often lacking in “motivation.” This slam on blacks and poor whites may be partly true, but is an insufficient reason to allow unfettered immigration. If immigration is stopped or severely limited, there will be a need to educate the uneducated and motivate the unmotivated. The needs of these Americans must come before those of would-be immigrants.

Lawrence Briskin

Centerville, Ohio

 

To the Editor:

Linda Chavez’s article seems to overlook some critical points. First, while emphasizing the economic and cultural dimensions of immigration, she gives less attention to nationalistic concerns. Is not citizenship related to embracing the national creed, or have we lost confidence in what America stands for? Are we unwilling to make such demands of immigrants?

The 1986 Immigration Act theoretically imposes fines on employees who hire illegal immigrants. Recently, I called the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to inquire how many of these fines have been imposed. (There were about 4 million illegals in the U.S. in 1966; there are about 12 million today). “We aren’t sure,” was the answer I received, “probably a few.” When Linda Chavez argues that we can have an immigration program that is enforceable through fines on employers, she would be well advised to consider the experience of the last two decades.

Linda Chavez also argues that illegal immigrants who have been here for five years should be treated more favorably than recent arrivals. On the face of it, this is a perfectly reasonable position. But when I inquired with the USCIS about how the length of an immigrant’s residence is ascertained, I was told that “a personal affidavit would suffice.” Which illegal immigrant is likely to say that he has been here for less than five years?

Before this nation embraces a new stance on immigration, legislators and analysts should learn from experience, which in my view yields two important lessons: first, the USCIS does not have the resources to monitor our existing immigration program, much less any new one; and second, among the conditions for naturalization should be a commitment to the nation and its principles.

Herb London

Hudson Institute

New York City

 

Linda Chavez writes:

Steven Shulman knows of no economist who shares my view that “continu[ed] mass immigration is an economic necessity.” He ignores my citation of congressional testimony precisely to that effect by none other than former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. Nor is Green-span alone; during last summer’s congressional debate on comprehensive immigration reform, 500 economists, including five Nobel laureates, signed an open letter to the President and Congress attesting to the economic benefits of immigration. Granted, the net benefits are modest, but that is to be expected in a $13-trillion economy.

---

---

© 2009 Commentary Inc.