Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Viva Tax Cuts
Of all the reactions/analysis of the President's speech on immigration Monday night, the best I've seen so far is from Times columnist John Tierney, one of my favorite right-leaning columnists. I can't link to it, since the Times hides Tierney behind its select-o-wall, so I am pasting in the whole text of his column from yesterday below.
As you will see, Tierney uses wit and common-sense to dissect the chief arguments border hawks use to make their naive, nativistic case against legalization of any kind. For my money, here are the two clinching graphs:
The border hawks' other argument is that America must enforce its immigration law or succumb to "mob rule," as one of the Minuteman leaders warned. But for most of the country's history, America allowed essentially unlimited immigration without descending into Hobbesian chaos. The country survived just fine when immigrants were governed solely by the law of supply and demand.
Bush tried a brief dose of economic reality in last night's speech, pointing out that the lure of America for poor Mexican workers "creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop." As he explained, the way to reduce illegal immigration is to change the law so more people can enter legally.
That's a critical point the President needs to make over and over -- and better and better. Here's an easy way to do that and sweeten the appeal of the guest-worker plan the President and Senators on both sides are pushing in the process -- tell conservatives that it will lower taxes.
The fact is that millions of undocumented workers who are working underground are often compensated in cash and therefore don't pay taxes -- income or FICA. You get them out of the shadows and give them legal status, America's tax base grows substantially -- more legal workers equals more incoming revenue. That in turn gives the government the option to either pay down the deficit or cut taxes for the rest of us or some combination of both. It also eases the pressure on the Medicare and Social Security trust funds.
Of course, most of us on the progressive side would favor using this additional revenue from income taxes to first get the government out of hock. But that's a policy debate for another time, one that we would all welcome. For now, it's time for some political pragmatism. We all know that outside of the religious right, the Bush base cares most about tax cuts. So let him use that carrot to woo the reasonable non-nativists on his side and open their eyes to the huge economic upside of bringing undocumented workers into the economic mainstream.
It seems like a no-brainer to me. In fact, I am dumbfounded that the White House has not seized this obvious opportunity yet. Fortunately there's still time -- the President's prime time speech seems to have bought them at least another bite at the apple. Let's hope they slice it right.
Anyway, here's the full Tierney column.....
May 16, 2006
Throwing Hawks a Bone
By JOHN TIERNEY
President Bush promised tonight to regain "full control" of the border with Mexico. He won't, but that's beside the point.
His job last night was not to secure the border but to pretend he could. Like Ava Gardner tending to the germphobic Howard Hughes in his isolation chamber, Bush had to reassure the Minuteman Republicans that they were safely sealed from the perils outside.
"The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration, and shut to illegal immigrants," he said firmly, sounding as if he believed it himself. It was precisely the cover needed by Republicans to vote for sensible reforms.
His plan to send a few thousand National Guard troops to the border is a symbolic gesture, but symbolism is what's needed. Immigrants will find ways to evade the proposed new ID card requirements, as well as the new high-tech sensors at the border, but the ideas sounded good enough on television. Bush's conservative critics accused him of playing politics, but he was just responding in kind to their tactics.
The fixation on defending the border is a political — and psychological — problem, not a rational response to a genuine national threat. People living along the border understandably object to strangers' sneaking through their backyard, but why are so many people in the rest of the country obsessed with keeping out foreigners?
The border hawks have two chief arguments, starting with that great debate stopper: Sept. 11. A porous southern border is supposedly no longer tolerable now that terrorists have declared war on America and are threatening even more catastrophic attacks.
But if terrorists are smart enough to plan such an attack, they're smart enough to get into the United States, no matter how many agents and troops are on the Mexican border. If terrorists have the determination to train for years, if they can pay for flight lessons or anthrax or a nuclear bomb, then they can easily bribe or forge their way into America — or waltz in with legitimate visas.
Mohamed Atta did not have to hire a coyote or swim across the Rio Grande. He and the other hijackers entered the country legally. The 500,000 or so people who manage to sneak in from Mexico each year are a minuscule fraction — about 1 percent — of the tourists and students and other visitors who enter America legally.
Mexico is not the preferred route of the suspected terrorists caught so far because they prefer more convenient options, like the Canadian border. Even if the northern border were sealed with the Great Wall of Saskatchewan, there would still be thousands of miles of unsecured coastline — and plenty of drug runners with boats and planes who would have no trouble delivering a terrorist or a suitcase bomb.
The border hawks' other argument is that America must enforce its immigration law or succumb to "mob rule," as one of the Minuteman leaders warned. But for most of the country's history, America allowed essentially unlimited immigration without descending into Hobbesian chaos. The country survived just fine when immigrants were governed solely by the law of supply and demand.
Bush tried a brief dose of economic reality in last night's speech, pointing out that the lure of America for poor Mexican workers "creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop." As he explained, the way to reduce illegal immigration is to change the law so more people can enter legally.
But that was the rational part of the speech, which Bush knew wasn't enough.
He had to throw in the tough border talk and the ID cards. He had to deal with the new outbreak of xenophobia, the fear that has always been easy for demagogues to arouse because it's such a basic human instinct.
Distrusting foreigners made evolutionary sense when outside clans threatened to bring in disease and encroach on hunting grounds. It made sense during the thousands of years when towns built walls to stop invaders from plundering their wealth and enslaving their inhabitants.
But the immigrants now coming across the Mexican border do not want to sack our cities. They're not about to pillage our granaries or march home with Americans in chains. They just want to mow our lawns and clean our offices.
They're coming to feed us, not take our food, yet we're demanding that our leaders keep them out. No Mexican busboys! No Guatemalan cooks! Stop them before they grill again!
As you will see, Tierney uses wit and common-sense to dissect the chief arguments border hawks use to make their naive, nativistic case against legalization of any kind. For my money, here are the two clinching graphs:
The border hawks' other argument is that America must enforce its immigration law or succumb to "mob rule," as one of the Minuteman leaders warned. But for most of the country's history, America allowed essentially unlimited immigration without descending into Hobbesian chaos. The country survived just fine when immigrants were governed solely by the law of supply and demand.
Bush tried a brief dose of economic reality in last night's speech, pointing out that the lure of America for poor Mexican workers "creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop." As he explained, the way to reduce illegal immigration is to change the law so more people can enter legally.
That's a critical point the President needs to make over and over -- and better and better. Here's an easy way to do that and sweeten the appeal of the guest-worker plan the President and Senators on both sides are pushing in the process -- tell conservatives that it will lower taxes.
The fact is that millions of undocumented workers who are working underground are often compensated in cash and therefore don't pay taxes -- income or FICA. You get them out of the shadows and give them legal status, America's tax base grows substantially -- more legal workers equals more incoming revenue. That in turn gives the government the option to either pay down the deficit or cut taxes for the rest of us or some combination of both. It also eases the pressure on the Medicare and Social Security trust funds.
Of course, most of us on the progressive side would favor using this additional revenue from income taxes to first get the government out of hock. But that's a policy debate for another time, one that we would all welcome. For now, it's time for some political pragmatism. We all know that outside of the religious right, the Bush base cares most about tax cuts. So let him use that carrot to woo the reasonable non-nativists on his side and open their eyes to the huge economic upside of bringing undocumented workers into the economic mainstream.
It seems like a no-brainer to me. In fact, I am dumbfounded that the White House has not seized this obvious opportunity yet. Fortunately there's still time -- the President's prime time speech seems to have bought them at least another bite at the apple. Let's hope they slice it right.
Anyway, here's the full Tierney column.....
May 16, 2006
Throwing Hawks a Bone
By JOHN TIERNEY
President Bush promised tonight to regain "full control" of the border with Mexico. He won't, but that's beside the point.
His job last night was not to secure the border but to pretend he could. Like Ava Gardner tending to the germphobic Howard Hughes in his isolation chamber, Bush had to reassure the Minuteman Republicans that they were safely sealed from the perils outside.
"The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration, and shut to illegal immigrants," he said firmly, sounding as if he believed it himself. It was precisely the cover needed by Republicans to vote for sensible reforms.
His plan to send a few thousand National Guard troops to the border is a symbolic gesture, but symbolism is what's needed. Immigrants will find ways to evade the proposed new ID card requirements, as well as the new high-tech sensors at the border, but the ideas sounded good enough on television. Bush's conservative critics accused him of playing politics, but he was just responding in kind to their tactics.
The fixation on defending the border is a political — and psychological — problem, not a rational response to a genuine national threat. People living along the border understandably object to strangers' sneaking through their backyard, but why are so many people in the rest of the country obsessed with keeping out foreigners?
The border hawks have two chief arguments, starting with that great debate stopper: Sept. 11. A porous southern border is supposedly no longer tolerable now that terrorists have declared war on America and are threatening even more catastrophic attacks.
But if terrorists are smart enough to plan such an attack, they're smart enough to get into the United States, no matter how many agents and troops are on the Mexican border. If terrorists have the determination to train for years, if they can pay for flight lessons or anthrax or a nuclear bomb, then they can easily bribe or forge their way into America — or waltz in with legitimate visas.
Mohamed Atta did not have to hire a coyote or swim across the Rio Grande. He and the other hijackers entered the country legally. The 500,000 or so people who manage to sneak in from Mexico each year are a minuscule fraction — about 1 percent — of the tourists and students and other visitors who enter America legally.
Mexico is not the preferred route of the suspected terrorists caught so far because they prefer more convenient options, like the Canadian border. Even if the northern border were sealed with the Great Wall of Saskatchewan, there would still be thousands of miles of unsecured coastline — and plenty of drug runners with boats and planes who would have no trouble delivering a terrorist or a suitcase bomb.
The border hawks' other argument is that America must enforce its immigration law or succumb to "mob rule," as one of the Minuteman leaders warned. But for most of the country's history, America allowed essentially unlimited immigration without descending into Hobbesian chaos. The country survived just fine when immigrants were governed solely by the law of supply and demand.
Bush tried a brief dose of economic reality in last night's speech, pointing out that the lure of America for poor Mexican workers "creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop." As he explained, the way to reduce illegal immigration is to change the law so more people can enter legally.
But that was the rational part of the speech, which Bush knew wasn't enough.
He had to throw in the tough border talk and the ID cards. He had to deal with the new outbreak of xenophobia, the fear that has always been easy for demagogues to arouse because it's such a basic human instinct.
Distrusting foreigners made evolutionary sense when outside clans threatened to bring in disease and encroach on hunting grounds. It made sense during the thousands of years when towns built walls to stop invaders from plundering their wealth and enslaving their inhabitants.
But the immigrants now coming across the Mexican border do not want to sack our cities. They're not about to pillage our granaries or march home with Americans in chains. They just want to mow our lawns and clean our offices.
They're coming to feed us, not take our food, yet we're demanding that our leaders keep them out. No Mexican busboys! No Guatemalan cooks! Stop them before they grill again!
