A hidden premise of almost all discussion of immigration policy is that illegal immigrants come from the south-of-the-border underclass, an uneducated, shiftless proletariat whose preference for living in squalor enables it to underbid American workers. Maybe there is a scintilla of truth in that picture, but, as Fay Crevoshay, a Mexican citizen living legally in San Diego, observes, there are immigration scofflaws from the middle and upper classes, too (via Nixatron Blog-Times).
Since 2001, a wave of Mexican illegal immigrants with light skin, who drive Mercedes and Navigators, buy homes in Coronado, La Jolla and Del Mar, has been steadily arriving. They don’t come for vacations, like they used to. Instead, they come to stay, looking for security and peace of mind.
“We all have family or close friends that have been kidnapped, we waited to see if police could do something, but they themselves are part of the problem, so we left,” says Pepe, who arrived here two years ago with his wife and three children ages 5 to 11.
The older generation stays behind in Mexico, tending to the family business, but sends the kids to safety.
“It’s very hard to move, we were happy in Mexico, but it’s impossible to have peace of mind there today. You need to hire bodyguards; restaurants have security men with watchdogs at the entrance. You are afraid to take the kids to the park. How can one live like that? We are prisoners in our own city … very sad,” says Angelica, who arrived four years ago with husband andkids. . . .
These immigrants send their children to private schools and use private doctors. They are educated people, they bring in capital and are patrons of the arts. They spend lavishly at restaurants, theaters and the ballet.
I doubt that even the screechiest closed-border restrictionist can come up with a plausible objection to these interlopers, who place no burden on the American welfare system, are unlikely to fall into lives of crime, and have no interest in influencing U.S. politics. Why should the Immigration and Naturalization Service devote resources to tracking them down?
This is far from the only instance of immigration restrictions that comport with no rational policy that I can discern. Last month the Wall Street Journal ran an enlightening piece, “Rules Restricting Canadian Loggers Backfire on Maine” (4/25/05, p. A1; link for subscribers only), describing how the arbitrary cap on seasonal work visas “has led to a shortage of loggers, a supply crisis at sawmills and a profit squeeze at pulp mills as printers shop for lower-cost paper on other continents”
Between the deep north woods and Fenway Park, Maine’s timber industry creates work for at least 25,000 Americans. A mere 760 Canadians fell a third of its trees. When Canadian loggers were banished from the woods a year ago, the impact was immediate and measurable: The price of wood went up. In 2002, a cord of Maine pulpwood – the equivalent of 128 square feet – cost $57. In 2004, the same cord cost $78.
“That’s the highest price we’ve seen in a decade,” says Peter Barynin, an economist with Resource Information Systems Inc., a forest-products consulting firm based in Bedford, Mass. Other causes contributed: higher demand, environmental issues, wet weather. But in 2004, Mr. Barynin says, the chief cause of high prices was “a labor shortage.”
Perhaps restrictionists regard such consequences as forgivable side effects of a policy with logical underpinnings. I find it hard, however, to see what that logic might be.
Comments