A reader, edited to preserve his privacy:
Mr. Derbyshire—[Recent time reference] I shelled out $2300 at a private fundraiser for Rudy in [major city] and can report that he still does not get it. While he wants to close the border and ripped Hillary on licenses for illegals, he also said that we need to increase legal immigration. In all fairness, that was the only thing he said there that I did not agree with (and I hope I did not cringe too visibly since I was standing up front and just several feet from him). I am also glad to report that he looked (and sounded) like a real fighter, and we will definitely need that next year.
[Me] I know what you mean, and agree on its importance.
As for the need to increase legal immigration, I really don’t get that. Seems to me the only acceptable evidence for us not having enough people in some category (e.g. computer programmers) would be wages for that category going through the roof. Then I could see a case. Is this actually happening in some sector of the economy?
Every other argument I hear for increased legal immigration seems to rest on a sort of “bicycle” theory—If we don’t have a steady supply of immigrants coming in, the economy will stop and fall over. To which I have a number of questions, like: (1) Is there any actual, you know, evidence for that theory? (2) How come the economy didn’t stop and fall over in 1945-65, when immigration levels were very low? (2) Shall we have to go on importing people like that for ever to keep our economy alive, or is there a point of diminishing returns? Etc., etc.
I think this “bicycle” theory is nonsense. We have all the people we need. Let’s pull up the drawbridge. What pols like Rudy are really doing when they profess enthusiasm about legal immigration is just uttering a spell, a charm against being called “anti-immigration,” which apparently is a bad thing to be. Don’t ask me why—something to do with those durn “mystic chords of memory,” I suppose.
So far as illegal immigration is concerned: it’s illegal. Deport ‘em.