Skip to main content

Michael Munger's modest proposal for immigration reform

Caught this last week at Kids Prefer Cheese and meant to post about it, but as usual stuff happened.

Noting that there is now an outcry to "deal" with immigration reform after the election, Munger proposes a skeletal outline of what reform should look like:
What should this reform look like?
1. an easy path to citizenship for current "illegals"
2. all college diplomas earned by foreigners come with a green card stapled to them
3. a massive (triple? quadruple?) increase in the amount of visas for skilled workers
4. make the process for getting green cards and becoming citizens faster and cheaper
5. a gradually increasing flow of "unskilled" immigrants from around the world
 The only substantive criticism of these ideas that I have yet seen regards #1 and the propensity toward grade inflation ("If I don't pass this class, Professor, I can't become a citizen!").  But since grade inflation in higher education already exists in massive proportions, I'm not too worried about it.

But the reality of immigration is that it comes down to whether you see each new person entering the country as having one mouth (a potential welfare recipient who consumes our resources; a "taker") or two hands (a potential contributor to the economy and culture of the United Staates; a "maker").

There is also the issue that you cannot really resolve immigration issues until (a) you end the drug war and remove much of the economic motivation associated there, and (b) come up with a much more realistic strategy of dealing with the developing (including Islamic) world that does not require us to keep living in fear that some Al Qaeda operative will wade the Rio Grande disguised among all the hispanics (all brown people DO look alike, apparently).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...