The Truth About Immigration the Left Chooses to Ignore: The BorderLine

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Conservatives know that when the American Left wants us to “have a conversation” about an issue, it means they get to talk incessantly until we agree with them.

To progressives, there is one, approved view on a given issue and all others are atavistic throwbacks to an era before “progress.”

Observe that humans (and all mammals) come in two sexes, and you are a “transphobe.”

Suggest it is unfair for males to compete against females in sports and unsafe for men to share prison cells with women, and it is “hate speech.”

Declare that America is about equal opportunity, not equal outcomes, and uphold merit over race- and sex-based discrimination, and you are racist and misogynistic.

Argue against mass illegal immigration, and you are xenophobic at best, racist at worst.

The Washington Post recently printed an opinion piece by David Bier of the Cato Institute. Bier and I have appeared together several times on panel discussions, so I know his views.

Bier is a libertarian. He believes that immigration should be constrained only by supply and demand, not limited by the government. Where there is a willing employer and a willing employee, he argues, who are we to interfere? To support this view, Bier also argues that immigrants are net contributors to the U.S. economy and that they commit less crime.

My view—shaped by a career serving as a diplomat overseas in developing countries—is that worldwide demand for the American lifestyle exceeds any possible supply, so we need numerical and other limits. It is Congress’ prerogative to set those parameters in law. And it is the president’s constitutional duty to enforce these laws, not ignore them or circumvent them by executive fiat.

Bier and I do agree on a few things; first, that open borders cannot long coexist with a welfare state that provides any newcomer with free health care, education, housing, and income. Second, we agree that whatever the limits, criminal aliens should be kept out and removed.

Bier is not a leftist, but he agrees with them on immigration, so his argument is acceptable to The Washington Post. My view—opposing mass illegal migration—never darkens the publication’s pages (its choice, not mine).

If The Post really wanted to have a “conversation” instead of a weekly lecture to the echo chamber of its readership, I would make the following counterpoints.

First, it is often said by the Left that “studies show” immigrants commit less crime than natives. The main rebuttal here is that unlike crimes by Americans or legal residents, any crime committed by an illegal alien is preventable.

But there is also other research to show that, in fact, illegal immigrants offend at higher rates than legal immigrants or natives. When the Left cites its figures, it says “immigrants” and deliberately lumps both legal and illegal immigrants together when the real issue being discussed is primarily about illegal immigrants. It is by no means proven that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than those who legally reside in the United States. Research on the subject is limited by bias and poor data.

The City Journal recently reported that we’re not just “imagining a migrant crime spree” with issues from drug trafficking to shoplifting—linked to the Biden-era migrant surge—on the rise in even remote parts of the country.

Second, as to whether immigration is an economic benefit to the country, I’d point out that illegal immigrants are overall lower skilled than U.S. born workers, with only 30% educated beyond high school. Of U.S. households headed by illegal immigrants, 59% use at least one welfare program. Over a lifetime, the average illegal immigrant takes an estimated $68,000 more in benefits than he puts in.

Daniel Di Martino of the Manhattan Institute estimates that the millions of illegal and paroled immigrants who entered under the Biden administration will cost taxpayers an estimated $1.15 trillion over their lifetimes. While young, educated immigrants reduce the U.S. budget deficit, “those without a college education and all those who immigrate to the U.S. after age 55 are universally a net fiscal burden by up to $400,000” each over their lifetimes.

The immigration of low-skilled workers also reduces the wages of many U.S.-born workers. Heritage Foundation economist EJ Antoni writes that between 4.9 million and 7.3 million employable Americans left the labor market during COVID-19 and haven’t returned. Meanwhile, “all the net job growth over the last year went to foreign-born workers” while “native-born Americans lost over 900,000 jobs.”

Harvard economist George Borjas wrote in 2016 that “decades of record immigration have produced lower wages and higher unemployment … especially for African American and Latino workers.” He says that “immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program,” concluding that “the total wealth redistribution from the native losers [lower-skilled employees] to the native winners [employers and stockholders] is … roughly a half-trillion dollars a year.”

These are just financial costs. I could also discuss the social costs to towns like Charleroi, Pennsylvania; Lockland, Ohio; and Logansport, Indiana, where schools, housing, police, and other services faced a sudden influx of needy migrants thanks to federal policies these communities had no say in.

But The Post, like the other legacy papers that are losing market share along with the trust of the American people, doesn’t really want to have a “conversation” on this. Its mind’s made up.

The Washington Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, chose not to endorse Kamala Harris for president in the recent election—to the outrage of practically his entire staff and about 250,000 subscribers who canceled their subscriptions.

I canceled my print copy long ago but might re-up if the paper makes some effort to restore balance to its coverage. Bezos has reportedly been urged to hire a few conservative opinion writers to add perspective. Other leftist media outlets are also looking to add actual conservatives to help their readers and viewers understand what more than half the country thinks.

So, Jeff, sign me up. I promise to deliver 800 words a week for half what you pay token conservative Jennifer Rubin to reliably fawn on Joe Biden and Harris, and vilify Donald Trump. I’ll go down into the bunker where we conservatives live, confer with rest of the “garbage” gang as we eat My Patriot Supply emergency-preparedness meals and chug Black Rifle Coffee, then tell your readers what “deplorables” think about the issues.

But I fear the legacy media’s ship has sailed. Abandoned by conservatives, such media outlets are now losing leftists because they are not far-left enough. Anyone who studied the Chinese, French, or Russian Revolutions could have told them this day would come. Too bad for them they didn’t have a clue.

The BorderLine is a weekly Daily Signal feature examining everything from the unprecedented illegal immigration crisis at the border to immigration’s impact on cities and states throughout the land. We will also shed light on other critical border-related issues such as human trafficking, drug smuggling, terrorism, and more.