Prohibition logic
A recent post by
whip_lash reminded me of something that I think is very important in the immigration debate, such as it is.
All calculations of costs and benefits of immigrantion (legal and illegal) in America today are describing the costs and benefits of today's status quo virtual prohibition on immigration, not the costs and benefits of broadly legalized immigration.
They are arguing against B by citing the costs of A.
There is a fatal flaw in the logic of people who cite various fiscal costs of illegal immigrants especially, because they are advocating against the very policies that would reduce those costs -- legalizing and legitimizing those people currently living in the shadows. Legal people pay more taxes than illegal ones.
Now, most cost / benefit analyses conclude greater benefits than costs for the status quo messiness anyway. However, the picture would be even rosier if we just legalized immigration.
whip_lash reminded me of something that I think is very important in the immigration debate, such as it is.
All calculations of costs and benefits of immigrantion (legal and illegal) in America today are describing the costs and benefits of today's status quo virtual prohibition on immigration, not the costs and benefits of broadly legalized immigration.
They are arguing against B by citing the costs of A.
There is a fatal flaw in the logic of people who cite various fiscal costs of illegal immigrants especially, because they are advocating against the very policies that would reduce those costs -- legalizing and legitimizing those people currently living in the shadows. Legal people pay more taxes than illegal ones.
Now, most cost / benefit analyses conclude greater benefits than costs for the status quo messiness anyway. However, the picture would be even rosier if we just legalized immigration.