Schumer’s Double-Talk on Immigration

This morning on ABC’s This Week, Senators Jeff Sessions and Chuck Schumer discussed immigration. The host was reasonably even-handed, and Sessions asked Schumer a good question: will he persist in supporting the Gang of 8′s proposal–Schumer is a member of the Gang–if reputable economists say it will depress the wages of lower-income Americans?

Needless to say, Sessions doesn’t get an answer. Instead, Schumer spews out five minutes or so of double-talk. He makes three main points: first, there is no reason to criticize the amnesty in the Gang’s plan, because what we have now is de facto amnesty for 11 million illegals. This is known in the logic business as a non sequitur. It is true that we currently have a de facto amnesty; this is because the Obama administration, and to a lesser extent prior administrations, have refused to enforce our immigration laws. The solution is not to make the amnesty official, but rather to start enforcing the law, especially against employers who hire illegals.

Schumer’s second point is that having once granted amnesty–actually, this will be the second time–there will be no more illegal immigration. Why not? Because it will be illegal, apparently. But Schumer knows perfectly well that the Obama administration will be no more interested in enforcing the immigration laws next year than it has been for the last four. The real effect of a new amnesty will be to stimulate more immigration, both legal and illegal.

Schumer’s rejoinder to the blindingly obvious fact that allowing another influx of low-skilled workers (guest workers, new illegals and relatives of those who will now be legal) will hurt Americans who compete for the same jobs is that unions favor the Gang’s plan. Why, Chuckles asks innocently, would unions favor something that would lower their members’ wages? Because union bosses don’t care about their members’ wages, they care about getting more members, which puts money in their pockets. Illegals who can’t now join unions will be able to, once they are legalized.

Here is the segment:

Will most viewers recognize how lame Schumer’s arguments are? Probably not; nevertheless, I think most people do understand that we are being sold a bill of goods on immigration.

Responses