Let Them All In
2013-05-04 · Guest: Alex Nowrasteh (Cato Institute) · 35:07
History and Economics of US Immigration Policy
Bob Zadek and Alex Nowrasteh discuss the history and economics of US immigration policy, arguing for a return to the “let them all in” approach of the 19th century. They examine how the shift from open borders to restrictionism was driven by Progressive Era centralization and economic protectionism rather than cultural failure.
Topics: Immigration Policy, Open Borders, Progressive Era, Economic Protectionism, Assimilation, Chinese Exclusion Act, Cato Institute
Speakers: Bob Zadek, Alex Nowrasteh, Caller (Marie)
The History of Open Borders [00:22]
Bob Zadek: Everybody wants to be in America, don’t they? Everybody from around the world would love to come here. Why aren’t we delighted to welcome them? This is Bob Zadek, host of The Bob Zadek Show. I’m here every noon on NewsTalk910.com, 910 AM on your radio dial. We are the leading libertarian talk radio show in the Bay Area and around the country. We are the show of ideas, not attitude; the show of stuff, not fluff. Thanks so much for listening.
Immigration policy. Why is there a need for immigration policy? From the founding of our country through and including, well, around the 1880s, 1890s, somewhere around there, we had no immigration policy, unless one would consider “let them all in” to be a policy, because that was how we treated immigrants. If anybody wanted to come here and they were willing to abide by our rules and sign on to our system and our political philosophy, basically of freedom, they were welcome, as they should be. And that worked. From the founding of our country through the 1880s and 1890s, we became a country of unparalleled growth, opportunity—we were truly the shining city on the hill. We were the magnet for the world.
Perhaps the immigrants who came here weren’t on a one-off basis. They weren’t always welcome in the communities that they chose to join. Their behavior was seen by some to be strange. They were not behaving as others. They spoke a different language often. But as a country, as a legal system, we welcomed them. The social system was slower to react, as it can be, because a social system represents a lot of individuals acting privately, and social systems are not necessarily and shouldn’t be the focus of government. But as a political system, as a country, the laws of our country, we welcomed them.
Then things started to change, and we started to develop an immigration policy. And the immigration policy was a reflection of bigotry and cowardice—more about that later—protecting “our jobs” from “them.” And by the way, anytime anybody refers to any “them,” that gets my dander up. There are no “thems” in the world. There are individuals, but no groups and no “thems.” But they started to change the playing field for the native-born Americans, and government started to intervene and create immigration policy, when in fact there should be no such policy.
And now it, of course, has become a very politicized issue. There is an immigration reform bill presently before Congress. Marco Rubio is one of the sponsors. There is—and I hate this phrase—the “Gang of Eight.” How sinister that sounds. There is the Gang of Eight in the Senate who are working on the immigration reform bill. So immigration is very much in the news these days. And therefore, what better time is there to discuss immigration policy than today? And who better to discuss it with than my guest, Alex Nowrasteh? Alex is with Cato. When I say Alex is with Cato, that’s like my saying describing an individual, “This individual is a member of Mensa” or some other honorary organization. When you hear the word “Cato” as describing how somebody spends their time or where they spend their time and their energy, that tells you a great deal about them. They are smart, focused, open-minded, know their subject cold. So Cato is a very positive identifier, and Alex represents the group of men and women who work at Cato suggesting policy alternatives for our country. Alex, welcome so much to the show.
Alex Nowrasteh: Bob, thanks so much for having me, and thanks again for those kind words. I really appreciate that.
Principles of a Free Immigration Policy [06:12]
Bob Zadek: Now, Alex, immigration policy. First of all, when we talk about immigration and immigration policy, whenever you talk about the word “policy,” you have to have—one should have—some principles that the policy should adhere to. That is, policy is not designed in the abstract. And it seems to me the principle should be: let anybody in who wants to come here. Because if somebody wants to be an American, they probably bring the positive values that we all so much want to have as our fellow residents—and I use the word “resident” rather than “citizen,” because citizen is a different topic which we’ll discuss today. So as far as your view is concerned, what should be the cornerstones of immigration policy? And before you answer, Alex, I’ll invite the audience to join the conversation at 800-345-5639. All views are welcome. We love to hear from the folks out there. That’s what makes this show such a rich experience that it is every Sunday. Now, Alex, immigration policy. If we are to have a policy—and as I said, I see no need for any policy other than “let them all in”—what should be the goal of any immigration policy?
Alex Nowrasteh: I think the goal should be to adhere to our traditions of respecting the life, liberty, and private property of everybody in the United States and of people who want to come here. So to give you an example, the only policies that we should have in regards to immigration is to exclude people who are criminals or suspected criminals, terrorists or suspected terrorists, or those with very serious communicable diseases that could hurt the rest of us. And that principle that I just described is consistent with our free market, with the foundational principles of this country, which is an Enlightenment idea that everybody has a right to pursue life, liberty, and private property without the coercive interference of government or the coercion of other people. So if we can change immigration policy to mean that peaceful people who are healthy people, who aren’t criminals or suspected terrorists or anything like that, who want to be able to come to this country, they should be able to come here legally. They should be able to work, own property, raise a family, and engage in all of the other peaceful exchanges that you and I engage in on a daily basis.
Bob Zadek: You know, it’s interesting, Alex. I’m going to tweak what you said. I’m going to sort of just tweak you a little bit, but I’m not trying to engage in a sidebar conversation. But you said, as most people do, exclude criminals and people who have a disease. Now, I would say as a rhetorical question: if we don’t want people who are criminals here, why don’t we take criminals who are citizens and strip their citizenship? If we decide that citizens who have in the past committed crime are not welcome, why don’t we—and what would be wrong with, as part of punishment, anybody who commits a crime or whatever crimes we decide to be bad crimes, why not strip them of their citizenship if as a matter of policy we do not want criminals as citizens? Now, that’s only rhetorical. That’s to get the audience all worked up, Alex. I don’t want to get distracted on that issue. But I throw it out. And the same thing with disease. If you get sick, you’re out of here and you can’t vote anymore. I mean, it’s the same issue. But I just want to tweak the audience.
But let’s go on, Alex. So the founders recognized certain inherent rights that humans are born with—natural rights. And one of them is freedom to travel, freedom to improve yourself if in doing so you don’t compromise the property or personal rights of another. That right was really important to the founders: the right of freedom of travel, freedom to improve yourself. So America as a founding principle respected that. So I ask really to the audience, because you don’t have to be convinced: what’s wrong with honoring that traditional American freedom and telling the world you are free to come here if you want to sign on to an American system of values? And those people who say “close the borders,” are they saying, “Stop, we have exactly the right number of people here now, and if we have one more, it’s going to ruin something”? So it’s not as if we have a magic number now and let’s close the borders. There is no such thing. So those who want to close the borders because we have too many people already, it’s utter nonsense.
The First Immigration Laws and the Progressive Era [10:51]
Bob Zadek: Now, Alex, starting with the founding and going through the 1880s, wasn’t it fair to say, as I said in my opening remarks, that we had truly open borders? And what happened after the 1880s?
Alex Nowrasteh: Yeah, I think it is fair to say that. When you take a look at the first immigration law, immigration and naturalization law passed by the US Congress, it was in 1790. And it had—it was one paragraph long, and it had zero restrictions on immigration. It didn’t even mention it. The idea was that anybody could come here. There were no inspections, there were no quotas, none of that. The only thing, the only thing in this law, the first law passed, was that you had to be here for a couple of years—you had to reside in the US for two years before you could become a citizen. That was the first immigration law, one paragraph, that’s all it was.
And I think you can say that, you know, going forward through the 1850s, ’60s, ’70s, you had just a handful of laws passed that didn’t do very much at all to restrict immigration. In fact, in the 1860s, the government went to the other extreme to subsidize immigration, to subsidize the advertising of immigration in Europe to try to get more people to come here. I don’t agree with that policy. But what happened in the 1880s was the government put in place the first quotas and limitations based on a nationality ever. And that was in the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which was, by the way, passed, I believe it was in the first week of May in 1882. And the Chinese Exclusion Act barred the immigration of Chinese into the United States. And it was the first big restriction, and it was pushed, of course, by a lot of union interests on the West Coast. There were a lot of Chinese, especially in the Bay Area at that time, who were coming in and working in cigar manufacturing. The head of the American Federation of Labor’s cigar union in that part of the country, a man named Samuel Gompers, who himself was an immigrant from the United Kingdom, pushed for a ban on Chinese immigrants because he thought that they were competing too much with the white workers who were working in the cigar and cigarette manufacturing companies in the Bay Area. And that was basically the first time that immigration restrictions had been put in place on a nationality.
The Fallacy of “Our Jobs” [13:13]
Bob Zadek: Now, let me just interrupt, Alex, because it’s so interesting to me. So we had from the founding of our country through the 1880s essentially no rules on immigration other than just get here and you’re welcome. And then, and the country as a country, there were no problems. No problems. And what happened was Americans who—well, many Americans who will give lip service to “let’s compete, we’re number one, meritocracy, let the best man win, compete for the job”—all of a sudden they were unwilling to compete because, God forbid, somebody would do their job for less money. So it was cowardice and economic protectionism that drove our immigration policy. Nothing to do with the fabric of America. It was shameful.
And by the way, that policy is that same policy of protecting—and I hate this phrase—“our job.” Oh my, no one owns a job. People are only entitled to a job if they do the best job for the lowest money. That’s the only thing that makes you entitled to a job. Erase the phrase “my job” as if you own the job from your vocabulary. But it’s only when Americans felt “their job” being threatened that they, in a form of crony capitalism, they run to the government and they say, “Protect us from somebody who will do our job for less money.” It is shameful. Thanks, Alex. I didn’t mean to interrupt.
Alex Nowrasteh: You’re welcome. But I just want to say that part of these immigration restrictions, they were put in place and they increased over the entire length of the Progressive Era in this country. From the 1880s to the 1920s, these rules got more and more and more strict until we literally closed the border to almost all immigrants in the late 1920s into this country. But you also had, you know, at the same time increasing throughout the country, you had the creation of the Federal Reserve system and a nationalizing of the currency. You had the creation of the income tax. You had prohibition of alcohol. You had immigration restrictions. All efforts to force into Washington, to centralize into Washington, the economic and social decision-making that had prior to that taken place on the individual level. And it’s no coincidence that immigration restrictions are one of the most important parts of this Progressive Era of its increasing centralized control. And it’s something that is unfortunately often forgotten. And now today we have the so-called right wing of American politics, a lot of the conservatives and Republicans who are very skeptical of immigration. They understand that the income tax and the Federal Reserve and prohibition were bad policies, but they still cling to this notion that this Progressive Era policy of immigration restrictions was somehow good for the United States and good for us now.
Assimilation and American Exceptionalism [18:46]
Bob Zadek: So what we have is—but when they say, when those people who support immigration restrictions—and by the way, what’s really interesting is it transcends the traditional dichotomy of Democrats and Republicans. The progressive Democrats favor immigration restrictions to the extent that those restrictions protect union jobs. The right wing of the Republican Party favors immigration restrictions to the extent that it brings “them” in—those people who play loud music, have fuzzy dice hanging from the visors of their car, and celebrate—by the way, today is Cinco de Mayo, congratulations to all of my Hispanic friends out there—so that each party has found something to love in immigration restriction, but none of those reasons for restricting immigration have anything to do with the country as a whole. America is—no one makes an argument because it cannot be made that somehow America, the country, is harmed by immigration. But yet there are specific axes that the left and the right have to grind, and that’s why they support for their own agenda some form of immigration restriction. As I said, I—and I know I speak for Alex, but Alex doesn’t need somebody to speak for him—favor generally totally open borders. My view of immigration policy would be have a whole lot of kiosks at our borders handing out Starbucks cards, Social Security cards, and access to Craigslist so they can go find work. That would be my immigration policy, but I don’t think that view is shared by the majority of Americans, although it is shared by many.
Alex Nowrasteh: Oh, it’s definitely not shared by many Americans at all, actually. It’s a very difficult policy to talk about, which is surprising considering our great history and success at immigration. I mean, if you went back to Ben Franklin writing in the 1760s, he has this essay where he rails against the German immigrants in Pennsylvania and how they’re going to take over Pennsylvania, and pretty soon Pennsylvania is going to be entirely German-speaking, and how the Germans are a bunch of oafs and lazy fools who can’t ever work or assimilate into our society. In the 1840s, the complaints were about the Irish and how the Irish were subhuman, they can’t assimilate, they don’t work hard, they’re a bunch of bums. In the 1870s, ’80s, ’90s, it was about the Jews and how the Jews were coming in and they were different than our society and they could never assimilate. After that, it was the Chinese and the Italians, and they could never become American people, people said. They could never rise up above the terrible cultures they left behind or do better than that.
But today we look back at those arguments and we rightfully laugh and see how ridiculous they are because we are their descendants. You know, we all have descendants from those areas of the world mixed in our genes, and we’re all American despite the numerous places where our ancestors came from. So to hear Americans today, especially those who are familiar with our history, who are familiar with our success at assimilating tens of millions of immigrants into our society from numerous places throughout the world, to hear them say that this group of immigrants today, Hispanics and Asians, can’t possibly assimilate, to hear them say that their cultures can’t possibly succeed in a modern country, they’ll never earn enough money or they’ll never get educated, is just the biggest amount of short-sighted opinion, the biggest short-sighted opinion that you can imagine based on the total success of this country dealing with immigration over the centuries. And it’s one of the things—I think the American exceptionalist argument is overplayed a little bit, but this is one area where I think all Americans should be very proud about and we are truly exceptional on, which is our ability to assimilate and integrate immigrants over the long run and their descendants into becoming Americans. And it troubles me deeply that so many people don’t recognize that great thing about our country.
Bob Zadek: And Alex, I couldn’t agree more. We do that better than any other country on the planet. We invented the product of peaceful assimilation into our borders. That is our secret sauce of success as an economic and as a freedom-loving powerhouse and a shining city on the hill. This is Bob Zadek. I’m talking to Alex Nowrasteh. We are talking about immigration policy. 800-345-5639 to join the conversation. Alex and I firmly believe that a policy that “lets them all in” is the only policy that makes any sense whatever.
And it’s interesting, Alex, when I hear—and God knows I’ve heard lots of it—when I hear the reasons to “close the border,” as if that is even possible, but when you hear the argument about protect our borders and keep away illegal immigration, unlike almost any other political discussion that I have, I struggle because I find the arguments in favor of closing the borders to be so bankrupt. They are so vacuous. There’s nothing there other than bigotry, other than xenophobia and irrationality and hatred and fear of having to compete. I struggle so hard to elevate the arguments on the other side so that I can respond to them, and they can’t be responded to. They’re just empty suits of argument. What are some of the arguments, Alex, that—I know it’s hard to enunciate them because they’re so empty—but what are some of the arguments that those folks who favor a more restrictive immigration policy raise? I know you were on The Blade recently, and I watched that segment, Alex, at the Cato website, and I was astonished at how people who otherwise seem rational and well-informed raised such empty arguments, devoid of any factual support. So as we go to break, what are some of the arguments that opponents of open borders will raise?
Alex Nowrasteh: Well, some of the main arguments are that immigrants are going to destroy our culture when they come in here. Another argument is that they’re going to—
Bob Zadek: Now, let me just pause, and let’s do them one at a time. And we have a minute now, Alex, before we go to break. So just to respond to—because you’re right, that was raised at your appearance on The Blade. And it’s so strange because our culture is one of an accumulation of cultures. There was no ever purely American culture. It always was reflective of the immigration waves that have come into this country. Just look at our language. Our language has grown so much as we pick up the words and phrases of immigrants. Our holidays, everything about us and what it is to be American is to have a mixed culture. So that whole sense of as if there is some purely WASP-type American culture is absurd. We’re going to have to go to break now, Alex. This is Bob Zadek. I’m talking to Alex Nowrasteh. We are talking about immigration policy, basically in a word: let them all in. 800-345-5639. Please stay tuned. Back in 90 seconds.
Caller: Language and Cultural Assimilation [26:32]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to The Bob Zadek Show. Johnny Cash brings us back with “This Land Was Made for You and Me,” that great Woody Guthrie folk song of the 1930s. Thanks so much for listening. I’m Bob Zadek, host of The Bob Zadek Show. We’re here every noon, noon to 1:30 on NewsTalk910. Today we are discussing immigration policy. My guest is Alex Nowrasteh. Alex is with the Cato Institute. Alex studies immigration policy for Cato. We are discussing what would be my fantasy policy, which is “let them all in.” And Alex, not surprisingly, we have our first caller. Alex, let’s talk to Marie in Sonoma. Marie, welcome to the show this afternoon. How are you?
Caller (Marie): I’m fine, thank you, sir.
Bob Zadek: How can we help you?
Caller (Marie): Well, it does affect our culture because I’m speaking of the Mexican people that are coming in. They speak Spanish to their children at home till they go to school, and then the taxpayers have to pay to teach them how to speak English. And I’m supposed to learn how to speak Spanish so that when I go shopping and ask somebody for a product, they look at me that they don’t speak English, so I’m supposed to learn how to speak Spanish so that I can shop in my own country. I don’t live in Mexico. I live in the United States.
Bob Zadek: Marie, Alex would love to respond. I’ll respond first and then Alex, I’m sure, will like to add something. First of all, you said a bunch of different topics, and let me respond if I can. First of all, people are free in our country to speak in their homes whatever language they want. They can speak any language they want, they can worship any religion they want. They have in our country, and always have had, total freedom of conscience. They can speak in their home whatever language they want, and I welcome that. Now, if they want to survive in the economic system, they will have to either learn English or their job opportunities will be limited. As to having to speak a language when you are helped in a store by somebody who doesn’t speak English, well then, Marie, you will just simply not patronize that store. You can take your dollars and you can say, “I will only go to a store where the sales help speaks English.” That is your exercising your freedom, and you’re telling a message to the manager of the store. The manager of the store might tell his employee, “You are costing me sales. Speak or learn English or you won’t be hired.” Everybody has their freedom, and we are not being harmed as a country by somebody coming in who doesn’t speak English at all or quite that well. Alex, anything you wish to add for Marie?
Alex Nowrasteh: Yeah, I would. As to the whether people in this country learn English after coming here to immigrate, the children of Hispanic immigrants on average, according to every poll that’s ever been done of them and every survey, 97% of those who were born in the United States whose parents were immigrants who were Spanish-speaking speak English. Of the third generation, those whose grandparents came here from a Spanish-speaking country, the English fluency rate is 100%. It’s 100%.
Caller (Marie): Then why are we teaching them in our schools?
Alex Nowrasteh: Excuse me, let me just finish my one point, one second. And that rate, the rate at which these people have learned English is faster than any other non-English speaking immigrant group in American history. It’s faster than Italians, it’s faster than Jewish immigrants, it’s faster than Russian immigrants, and it’s faster, a lot faster, than German immigrants ever learned English in this country. So when we complain about things like that—you know, I’ve had frustrating experiences too. I don’t speak Spanish, I don’t speak another language, I only speak English. We’ve all had a frustrating experience now and again. But to know that those frustrating experiences are limited in time and their children will be fully English-fluent and assimilate in our society, that’s something that I think you and everybody else who is concerned about this issue can look to as positive in the long run. In the next generation, these people are going to be fully English-speaking.
Caller (Marie): And how come in our schools, taxpayers are spending extra money for extra classes to teach these children English?
Alex Nowrasteh: Marie, I’d like to respond to that. That’s a problem with the school system. That’s a problem with the government wasting money on silly little programs that teach people language that they already either speak very well or these kids who are coming in themselves who are immigrants themselves who don’t speak English very well. That’s a problem with the school system.
Bob Zadek: And by the way, Marie, as a matter of school policy—and California is one of the really offending states—there is a discussion going on among teaching people who are in the teaching professions, those skills, about whether we should offer bilingual education. And I say of course you should not.
Caller (Marie): Oh, I think we should, in the lower starting in kindergarten.
Bob Zadek: Well, if we don’t offer bilingual classes and we force people, “If you want to assimilate, learn English,” that would be a better policy. But that’s an educational issue. There are different schools of thought. So all I say is under a “let them all in” policy, everybody gets to practice their freedom. And the only fly in the ointment is occasionally flawed governmental policies. Marie, thank you so much for being a listener and thanks so much for sharing your views with us.
Caller (Marie): Thank you.
Bob Zadek: Thanks for being a listener.
The Meaning of “Reform” and Economic Protectionism [32:11]
Bob Zadek: You know, Alex, I have a rule. We are now talking about immigration reform. Whenever we have any reform, whether it’s tax reform, immigration reform, welfare reform, whatever we have a reform movement in this country, we are always reforming a governmental policy. And we never are reforming what people do acting alone. We never are reforming private behavior. So government doesn’t learn that if they wouldn’t interfere to begin with, there wouldn’t be a need for reform of what government does so badly. So whenever one hears the word “reform,” it is fixing another government-created mess.
Now, Alex, in addition to the issue of assimilation of cultures, which we have discussed, what is another major issue that motivates the anti-”let them all in” crowd? What is an important issue to them?
Alex Nowrasteh: A huge one for them is the economic issue. People who are anti-immigrant like to say that immigrants come in here and, like you said earlier, they like to come in here and quote “take your job,” unquote, or they compete for your job and lower your wages, or they’re all on welfare and they’re taking government services and not paying anything in taxes, so they’re a drain on the system. And it’s sort of arguments within those lines of thought are very common.
Bob Zadek: And we’ve discussed that on the show a little earlier today. We’ve discussed the fact that people just simply want the right to work, to sell their services for more than the market value of their services. They want the right to be protected in not being worth what they are paid by governmental help. And I should mention, it’s pretty darn ugly, and we see the roots of this kind of approach in minimum wage laws, which we’ve discussed on this show. Minimum wage laws were initially enacted by whites in the construction trades in New England and in New York because blacks were coming up from the South in the ’20s and willing to work for much cheaper than the prevailing wage of the union workers in the Northeast. So they enacted minimum wage laws to prevent the blacks from working for less. It is again, it is cowardice. It is sloth-like American workers who refuse to accept only what they are worth for their job, and they want government artificially inflating the value of their job by preventing competition. We are a country that raises NFL football players to god-like status because we—[audio cuts out]