Thomas Sowell writes about complex issues in a way that everyone can understand them, and then applies a massive dollop of common sense. In “The amnesty fraud” he puts his finger on one of the issues that troubles me about the proposed immigration bill:
Nothing is more common than political “solutions” to immediate problems which create much bigger problems down the road. The current immigration bill in the Senate is a classic example.
The big talking point of those who want to legalize the illegal immigrants currently in the United States is to say that it is “unrealistic” to round up and deport 12 million people.
Back in 1986 it was “unrealistic” to round up and deport the 3 million illegal immigrants in the United States then. So they were given amnesty — honestly labeled, back then — which is precisely why there are now 12 million illegal immigrants.
As a result of the current amnesty bill — not honestly labeled, this time — will it be “unrealistic” to round up and deport 40 million or 50 million illegal immigrants in the future?
If the current immigration bill is as “realistic” as its advocates claim, why is it being rushed through the Senate faster than a local zoning ordinance could be passed?
The implicit question raised by Sowell’s analysis is whether the status quo is worse than the predictable consequences of the proposed immigration legislation. I think the status quo is less harmful than the legislation.
To comment on this post, go here.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.