Volokh on Immigration

Eugene Volokh has a very balanced, informative discussion on immigration policy.

His is a refreshing voice, at least as compared to Michelle "Open Borders Lobby" Malkin, whose rhetorical technique is to scorn anyone who approaches any topic even-handedly. As Volokh notes, while there are strong arguments in favor of restricting immigration, there are also strong arguments in favor of allowing more foreign visitors than we currently allow. As with all such debates strident militancy on either side of the issue does little to inform debate about an important topic; Malkin's emotionalism is in stark contrast to Volokh's reasoning:

Volokh:

So when we refuse to let some people come here, or refuse to let them stay, we might be protecting our national security. But we might also be hurting our national security, by denying us the services of someone who may one day greatly help our nation -- or, worse yet, by letting some enemy country or movement take advantage of his services. And the same can happen even if we alienate the prospective immigrants in other ways, by making the immigration process too much of a hassle, by making it too hard to come to the country to study or to temporarily work, by questioning visitors or restricting them in ways that make them feel insulted, or by generally getting a reputation as a country that's unpleasant to foreigners.

Again, this is hardly an open-and-shut argument for open borders; and I hope that there's some optimal mechanism that will screen out as many bad immigrants or visitors as possible, while at the same time deterring as few good ones as possible. But it's always important to remember that there are national security costs to tight immigration policies as well as national security benefits.

Malkin:

The obtuseness of the open-borders lobby never ceases to amaze. Here we are, three years after the 9/11 hijackers easily exploited lax borders, and the OBL continues to argue that cracking down on illegal immigration and tightening terrorist-friendly loopholes are "anti-immigrant."

Banging. Head. Against. The. Wall.

How do you maintain sanity when wading through the emotional drivel that passes for the OBL's reasoning? Tip: Whenever they say "anti-immigrant," substitute "pro-enforcement." And shout it at the top of your lungs.

Political correctness is the handmaiden of terrorism. By smearing the overwhelming majority of Americans who support real borders as racists and xenophobes, the OBL obscures its deadly agenda: sabotaging our existing immigration laws and blocking any new efforts to punish those who abuse the system.

Comments

[The Liberal Avenger]

I am pleased to see consideration of "foreign visitors" being discussed.

I am an American. My wife is a foreigner (now naturalized after appx. 15 years of marriage and residency here in the United States) from a developing nation. She is the only member of her family here.

We love our family and are very close to them. Unfortunately, all of our interaction with them must take place in the home country. Despite their all being gainfully employed, as the home country is quite poor, and none of them happen to own their own homes, try as we may, we have never been able to secure any of them visas to enter the United States.

I understand how and why it works this way. As far as changing the world, this issue is lower on my list than a lot of other things that I would like to see changed first.

It makes me cringe, however, when I hear someone strident (especially Malkin) demand immigration reform. As things stand now, my 40 year old schoolteacher brother-in-law is unable to come visit us here. What would the situation be like if Malkin had her way with it?