The Immigration Bill

Bill Whittle develops an idea here. I'm not sure it will work (read the whole thing, then see my comment), but part-way through his post Bill really summarizes why so many people don't like the current immigration bill being proposed. I'm glad he did, because I didn't really understand the objection before. To quote Bill:

"Large numbers of non-citizens want to live in the United States. Large numbers. A society can only assimilate so many people in a given year. If millions and millions of people come here illegally, they are loading the system to capacity at the expense of the honest, decent people who are doing the right thing by applying to immigrate legally. If we reward illegal immigration with amnesty, we have allowed the illegals not only to screw our own people and laws, but even more so they harm their own countrymen who are trying to get here by cooperating.

The biggest losers in our inability to control illegal immigration are the legal immigrants. What benefit do these honest people gain from playing by the rules? This is as clear a real-world example as you are likely to see of the lack of retaliation flipping a system from cooperation to betrayal.

And, by allowing this to happen, you also set a precedent, which I think is even more destructive: you are saying not only to the illegals but to the entire society that laws are for chumps. Cheaters win. How much of this do we need to be immersed in before everyone realizes the smart move is to flip from cooperation to betrayal? How much damage does it do when the very people sworn to uphold the law – uphold the rules that allow this amazing cooperation game to continue -- are the ones who seem most enthusiastic to reward cheating? Finding out the cops are in on the crime is enough to drive even the most stout-hearted person to despair.

A steady diet of this message is not going to end well."

He's right, of course. Disrespect for one law (even if you think it's a bad one), may grow into a general disrespect for all laws. The law of a civilization must be followed, or the people within that civilization will not trust each other, and we'll quickly slip into a Prisoner's Dilemma "Screw the other Guy" Mode. (Read page 1 of Bill's post for a longer explanation of what that means).

The Z-visa didn't bother me because I don't have a problem with large immigration flows. I'm an "open borders" kind of guy, and as long as folks are law-abiding, hard-working, god-fearing and tax-paying, I don't mind if they move in next door. Goodness knows that the Latinos who sneak across the border for work are hard-working and god-fearing, and except for the immigration laws, they're generally law-abiding. If we can get them on the tax rolls, we'll be all set. That was my first thought, anyway.

But I should have known better. I should have thought of the precedent this sets. What does it say to others that someone can break the law today, as long as the law changes tomorrow? A bad precedent, I assure you. If everyone believed that, and if everyone acted on that, then people would be breaking laws left and right. We'd have no idea whether someone would obey a particular speed limit, or pay a certain tax, or honor a certain contract, because they might believe that tomorrow the law would change. This is Not Good(TM). "The law" is what holds a civilization together. To a point, it must be followed. So the Z-Visa is a bad idea.

I think the Y-Visa is more tolerable. In many senses, this "temporary worker" visa has been the unofficial system we've been using for years now. Latinos and other illegal immigrants knew they could come here because they knew that they could get a job, and send money home. Although it was an unofficial contract, it was a contract of our creation through our actions. We legally tolerated their presence, and commercially encouraged it. We are at least somewhat honor-bound to respect the promises we have made with our actions.

Hat-tip Glenn.

Powered by ScribeFire.