November 21, 2009

WHAT'S SENSIBLE ABOUT NATIVISM?:

Where conservatives have it wrong (Jeff Jacoby, November 22, 2009, Boston Globe)

A couple from Brazil, seeking a better life for themselves and their 2-month-old daughter, enter the United States unlawfully. They settle in Massachusetts, where 18 years later the girl graduates from a public high school, as assimilated and acculturated an American as her classmates in every respect - except that they are US citizens, and she, by virtue of a decision made when she was a baby, is not. Her classmates can attend the University of Massachusetts, paying $9,704 a year in tuition, the price tag for Massachusetts residents. She can attend only if she pays the out-of-state rate of $22,157; if that’s more than she can afford, she’s out of luck.

How is that a rational public policy? How is Massachusetts improved by making it impossible for an accomplished high-school graduate, a lifelong resident of the state, to gain a university degree? Who benefits when her education - along with the higher earning potential it would lead to - is cut short? She doesn’t. You don’t. Massachusetts taxpayers certainly don’t.

Those taxpayers, remember, include illegal immigrants. More than two-thirds of illegal immigrants pay Social Security and income taxes. Between 1996 and 2003, payments from tax filers using Individual Taxpayer Identification numbers - a nine-digit substitute issued by the IRS for taxpayers ineligible for Social Security - totaled $50 billion. More than 35,000 such taxpayers, most of them illegal immigrants, annually file returns in Massachusetts.

If Republicans really believe, as Baker says, that “it doesn’t make any sense’’ to allow illegal immigrants to enjoy the same benefits as other state residents, why stop with in-state tuition? Why not bar them from driving on state highways? From camping in state parks? From using libraries?

Of course illegal immigration is a problem. But it can only be solved by overhauling our dysfunctional immigration laws, not by demonizing or scapegoating illegal immigrants. Those immigrants didn’t come here in order to be lawbreakers; they broke a law in order to come here. That’s a distinction with a crucial difference - one that sensible and principled conservatives should be able to understand.


Posted by Orrin Judd at November 21, 2009 9:52 PM
blog comments powered by Disqus
« IT COULD BE WORSE...: | Main | WE ARE ALL DESIGNISTS NOW: »