There is an email circulating around entitled “Three Presidents”. This email claims that three different Presidents (Hoover, Truman and Eisenhower) deported illegal immigrants for the purpose of “opening jobs”. This is a fallacious argument in favor of deportation and it is important to address.
Before I go on, I support the rule of law and enforcement of immigration laws, however, this article will show why premise for the argument of enforcing immigration laws is important. Supporting it for the purpose of “opening jobs” is economic protectionism and is just as dangerous as illegal immigration itself.
Deporting illegal immigrants for the purpose of “creating jobs” is bad economic policy.
However, amnesty for economic benefit is bad legal policy, because it creates moral hazard by inviting more law violators into the country, under the pretense that they will simply be forgiven.
Not all who oppose illegal immigration make sound arguments, even if they are correct in their assessment that illegal immigration must be dealt with. When the question arises as to “how” it should be dealt with, the question of “why” is extremely important and cannot be overlooked.
That goes for all issues where we use the force of government as the solution.
Deporting people for the purpose of opening up jobs (economic benefit) is a fallacy. When these people are not on the public dole for welfare and other entitlements, deporting them is not good for the economy. What about the demand that is created from those immigrants? Again, assuming they are producing wealth (not on public welfare). Increased wealth production creates prosperity. There is not a fixed number of jobs, they are not a commodity, they are a function of the demands in the economy, which is a function of the total wealth created in the economy.
The farmer’s production, baker’s production, shoe maker’s production and the tool maker’s production creates demand for other goods and services. As the production of basic needs is increased, demand for other goods and services is created, as basic needs are met, a higher degree of luxury is introduced. Again, this is all based on wealth creation. Deporting a baker, a farmer, a shoe maker, a tool maker reduces the wealth production and therefore excess wealth available for other products and services.
This, assuming that the production output of these individuals is greater than their own personal needs. ie. the farmer produces more wheat than they need, the baker produces more bread than they need and so on. The excess being brought to market and increasing the wealth of the whole economy.
Again:
Immigration policy that is argued for on the basis of economic isolationism and protectionism is bad economic policy.
Amnesty, especially without securing the boarder is bad legal policy.
Immigration policy that seeks an orderly process under the law for the benefit and prosperity of the nation by increasing wealth production is good economic AND legal policy.
That is why only “healthy” immigrants were sought in our history, so they wouldn’t be a strain on society, but instead would add to the wealth creation and prosperity of the nation.
The illegal immigrants should be dealt with, but not under any false pretense that it will help the economy by “opening up jobs”. What should be emphasized is the financial burden of some illegal immigrants in the way of entitlements for those who don’t produce wealth; as well as illegal immigrants who are creating a financial strain on our penal system who are arrested for murder, assault, theft and are not deported. The process of law should also be emphasized.
Good policy would include deporting those we find here illegally (especially those who murder, steal and break other laws), fine/punish those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants and end entitlement programs (especially benefits to illegal immigrants).
But again, none of this should be done under the fallacious arguments of economic protectionism or “job creation”, because that can lead to bad immigration policy as a whole and create a whole new set of problems.
