altalena
2yr ago
I'm referring to both categories. I do not want charitable incentives to exist for legal immigration or for unauthorized immigration. The market and not politicians should decide what quantity and what quality of immigrant this country can support.
altalena
2yr ago
As an open borders advocate, I have no interest in providing charity for immigrants. When I eat at a restaurant that's owned and staffed by immigrants, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. When I buy produce that's picked by migrant workers, I'm putting my money where my mouth is.
What I see as needing to end is not letting immigrants in, it's incentivizing the wrong kind of immigrants to come here by making charity and or free social services available to them. Mass immigration was great for America in the 19th and early 20th centuries because it operated under the model I prefer. I say we go back to it.
I do not believe my solution is sadistic, just as I do not believe it was sadistic when the US allowed mass immigration in the 19th century without offering immigrants the kind of public support they're now offered.
Stop offering charity and the sort of immigrants who would only ever have been a drain on the system will, in the words of Mitt Romney, self-deport. Really though, I don't think that many immigrants fit this profile. I believe the vast majority are perfectly willing and perfectly capable of finding jobs and supporting themselves and their families without private charity or public assistance.
What will also naturally come to an end under my preferred system is the mass arrival of unaccompanied minors, which is almost exclusively due to the fact that current US law allows unaccompanied minors to cross the border without fearing deportation while it subjects intact families to deportation. End this bizarre perverse incentive and that entire category of sob story goes away.
More options
Context Copy link