CPAC's Immigration Debate

Does the SEO company you're considering have references and testimonials from their clients? Can you contact the people providing testimonials to ask about their experiences using the seo Company? Considering each of these aspects before selecting an SEO company will help you choose a reputable company that will give you the results you need.

Yes, it's practically a whole week after the fact, but the exchange revealed some intriguing tensions in the conservative movement, as well as some troubling assertions made by both the panel and questions from the audience.

One panelist, a fan of the Bush plan, argued for the need to avoid creating a "permanent underclass" by fixing the main problem by changing their "illegality", making them viable actors in the economy. Mainly, the argument was that:

A) We need the workers - illegal immigrants account for five percent of our economy, and should be documented and allowed to work, given that Americans are increasingly skilled by generation, and our supply of unskilled labor is dwindling.

B) We will suffer lower standards of living if illegal workers are deported; we should grant them legal status for our sakes, not theirs.

The pro-Bush Plan panelists did not list what I believe is their strongest point: if we allow guest workers who are documented and productive members of the market, we can focus on the unlawful visitors that really matter: terrorists. Granted, some terrorists have gained legal entry, but I'd prefer that the INS focus its meager resources, capabilities, and competence where it matters the most: saving American lives. I'm not advocating that we throw out immigration laws, but it should be easier for immigrants to enter the country to work legally so we can chase anti-American militants. This applies with conditions, listed at the end of the post.

Phyllis Schlafly, as much as I adore her in general, countered with some arguments that sounded by turns vindictive or mercantilist. The alarm in her delivery echoed a pre-globalization world, and ran against basic microeconomics.

She called illegal workers robbers and "wage thieves", despite the fact that another panelist cited that we have the lowest unemployment rates in the industrialized world, even with ten million new immigrants. Workers spend, produce, and create more jobs with their productivity. There are good reasons to fault Bush's plan, but protecting American jobs is not one of them. Protectionism ultimately leads to stagnation and lower standards of living for all Americans. We already have a party that subscribes to this rhetoric, and they lost the last two elections.

In closing, we should welcome industrious immigrants, be honest about the skills we are looking for, and not allow immigrants to partake of the welfare state. The panelists agreed that we should stress assimilation. Another added that this does not include support for a national ID card, as it limits liberty and promotes a image of legitimacy, rather than suspicion, when in the wallet of a potential terrorist.

Some, however, still viewed the immigrant as the real enemy. One questioner asked: "How can we enact the death penalty for illegal immigration? We should shoot them on sight. It'd be a great deterrent." It is this sort of xenophobic grandstanding that gives red meat to Democrats who see a bigot behind every bumper with a Bush sticker.

Immigration is not my specialty, but from my superficial exposure to the issue, it seems that Republicans should promote competition, inclusion in the labor force, and economic globalization. In allowing free markets to flourish in America, they would be protecting the long-run interests of American workers and the global poor.