Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
Emily Esfahani Smith, Ed. ·
Oct 1, 2010 at 6:48am
Yesterday, at a hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Ricochet's Rupert Murdoch spoke in favor of amnesty (via The Daily Caller):
News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch said he supports amnesty for “law abiding” illegal immigrants because as legal residents they can help the nation’s economy by adding to “our tax base.” He also said he supports securing the border to prevent more illegal immigrants from entering the United States.
Sure, he's no Stephen Colbert, but he makes a reasonable point that I can get behind--can you?
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
It is a reasonable point. But, as someone else said this past week, we should do our best to avoid considering human beings as mere commodities. Thinking of individuals as economic actors is fine, but that should never be the extent of our thinking.
Aug '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
It's an economic point, and reasonable mostly when compared to the scare quotes about throwing 10 million people in jail. My preference is watertight border security, raised immigration quotas, and reforming/streamlining the process for becoming a citizen. The big mystery of the immigration debate is why the pro-amnesty advocates think enforcing existing laws is not the "reasonable" position.
But if, as Aaron Miller says, we are going to treat illegals as economic actors, then Murdoch's analysis is incomplete. He has to prove that adding them to the tax base provides a higher revenue than the government benefits they become eligible for as legal citizens.
Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare, low income tax breaks, and so on... it's well known that these transfer programs take wealth from some and subsidize the less wealthy. Would the newly integrated population be the ones subsidizing others, or would they be subsidized themselves?
To put it crudely, if amnesty happened, would the newly eligible citizens provide net benefit to the country on the margin, or a net drain? Yes, it's a cold, impersonal calculation. But if you like Murdoch's idea, then it is also a reasonable calculation.
Jul '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
Mr. Murdock paints an incomplete picture.
Steve Camarota has more.
Edited on Oct 1, 2010 at 7:28amMay '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
It's not like we haven't been totally bamboozled by this argument before.
Enforce the laws we have for a few years before you start amending them, is what I say.
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
Aaron and BlueAnt -- I think we have to consider Murdoch's audience. He was talking to congressmen. To congressmen, the words "increasing our tax base" is like music to their ears. I'm not sure that Murdoch is advocating treating illegal immigrants as economic commodities. What I think is a reasonable point--and Murdoch's point--is this: if they are going to be living in this country and reaping it's benefits, then they should pay taxes like the rest of us do to enjoy those benefits.
But BlueAnt (and mesquito): I think your point below is a great one. Amnesty should be an option that comes down the line when all else fails.
Jul '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
Who does Murdock imagine all those illegals to be?
His point might make sense if we were beseiged by twelve million illegal orthodontists, IT Administrators and venture capitalists.
But we're drowning in a tide of low-skilled, low-income illegals. The taxes they'll pay are a pittance compared to the social services they'll use.
As Milton Friedman warned, "You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state."
Edited on Oct 1, 2010 at 8:03amAug '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
By definition, no illegal immigrant is law-abiding.
Kenneth, what do you think the reaction would be if we were besieged by 12 million lawyers? Oh, wait...
Aug '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
Emily: fair point, I wasn't saying Murdoch himself was treating people as economic units, just that his argument for amnesty was.
There are direct benefits to living in this country as well as indirect ones. Simply by living in AnyTown USA, you get police and fire department coverage, access to hospital emergency rooms, good infrastructure, a wealth of consumer choices, etc. Those are the indirect benefits that illegals are not paying for with taxes, and adding them to the tax base would have them pay a share of it... assuming they don't qualify for the myriad tax breaks and subsidies we've put into place for low income persons.
But paying taxes also gets them access to the direct benefits I listed above, and as federal entitlements grow it becomes increasingly likely they will be taking more federal dollars out of the system than they are putting in.
Yes, it is entirely reasonable to claim that adding people to the tax base will be a net economic benefit. But that claim carries a specific burden of proof before it crosses from "likely" to "true", and I strongly doubt Murdoch has calculated indirect and direct benefits for that analysis.
Sep '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
If they become legal won't they (presumably) be subject to minimum wage laws? Isn't that why they are so attractive right now, because employers can pay them actual market wages for low skilled labor as opposed to the govt mandated wage?
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
To be clear: I wasn't saying that the taxes we would get from illegal immigrants who get amnesty would outweigh the cost of the social services they might consume. I was making an argument in principle: in principle, if they are in the US living as citizens, they should pay taxes.
My experience with immigrants, and the few that I met who I assume are here illegally, is that they are hard workers who want to climb the ladder of economic mobility rather than continue their low wage jobs and enjoy the benefits of the welfare state. If we do grant them amnesty, it is our responsibility, as a society, to absorb them into our society, and assimilate them so that they can, on the one hand, create a better life for themselves, and on the other, not become dependent on the state.
Jul '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
Emily, that's all well and good, but how did that last Amnesty work out?
Aug '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
Waitaminnit, if granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is a good thing because they would add to the tax base, then why would we try to keep more of them out? Am I the only one who sees the glaring contradiction in his argument?
Sep '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
The current sittuation 12+mil illegals took 2 plus decades to develope and will not be revervesed quickly. Most illegals are as much victims as violators. 2 Bushes, Clinton and now O. have failed to secure the border because it was politically expedient to do so. They chose to victimize these people as well as the 1000's who were beaten, raped and killed attempting to come here. All this for their own political well being. If they secured the border, as their oaths demanded, we would not be in a situation that has no really good solutions. Generally the first step in correcting a mistake is admitting it.
Jul '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
As much victims as violators? What utter pap.
By the way, there is no "e" at the end of "develop" and it's spelled "reversed", not "revervesed".
We allow liberals in here, but we do have standards....
Edited on Oct 1, 2010 at 11:12amAug '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
Kenneth
As much victims as violators? What utter pap.
By the way, there is no "e" in "develop" and it's spelled "reversed", not "reversevrsed".
We allow liberals in here, but we do have standards.... · Oct 1 at 11:10am
Illegals are victims as well as violators. The two states of being are not mutually exclusive. The Federal government, under Republican and Democratic administrations, is guilty of not enforcing its own laws. Whether it is willful or negligent is immaterial.
By the way Kenneth, we also have standards about "tone"...
Sep '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
Crerating an atmosphere that induces the poor and powerless to place themselves in a lawless sitiuation where they can be easily explioted is a morally corrupt thing to do. The US is guilty of this. I do not absolve the illegal Im. of responsibility for their actions, but suggest that perhaps conservatives should begin asking the question, what is the most moral solution to the problem? I for one do not believe amnesty at this point is.
Jul '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
Red & Black Redneck
Kenneth
As much victims as violators? What utter pap.
By the way, there is no "e" in "develop" and it's spelled "reversed", not "reversevrsed".
We allow liberals in here, but we do have standards.... · Oct 1 at 11:10am
Illegals are victims as well as violators. The two states of being are not mutually exclusive. The Federal government, under Republican and Democratic administrations, is guilty of not enforcing its own laws. Whether it is willful or negligent is immaterial.
By the way Kenneth, we also have standards about "tone"... · Oct 1 at 11:21am
Lol. Noted.
But since the two of you prefer to bestow the mantle of "victimhood" upon those who criminally trespass upon our sovereign territory - dismissed.
Aug '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
And I agree, in principle, but I don't see that as necessitating amnesty. At this point, maybe we're approaching the conversation wrong; we're mixing up moral/principle arguments with economic ones, not to mention the rule of law implications this thread has avoided so far.
We could oversimplify and say you just described vanilla tax evasion, and we should sic the IRS on them. (At least then we'd have a government agency who's always serious about enforcement on the job!) If illegal immigration is merely as bad as tax fraud, why shouldn't we just enforce existing laws? Because of a principle, or a technical reason: US laws not applying to non-US citizens, uneconomical to chase 12 million undocumented illegals, etc?
I'm in danger of beating a dead horse, but my main point is that arguments for any solution to the illegal immigration problem can not just ignore the economic aspects of that solution.
Aug '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
Wait, what? Which atmosphere is this--one of high economic growth and mobility? Or just one where certain rules aren't adequately enforced--which is unfortunate, but happens in every government?
The closest I can come to justifying calling it "morally corrupt" is a half-remembered paraphrasing of Thomas Aquinas, saying that an unenforced law produces an outsized burden on law-abiding citizens. But I can't seem to google up a reference.
May '10
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Pro-Amnesty
Exactly what definition of "amnesty" (a word that should consigned to the ash-heap of conservative history for its constant misuse and never rehearsed again) are we using here? The 2007 reform bill did not include amnesty, despite the loud keening by the "shoot all the aliens" crowd (Krikorian, Ingraham, and Malkin).
Kenneth, "The taxes they'll pay are a pittance compared to the social services they'll use." - sorry, Charlie Tuna, the social service costs are already paid and have been for years due to several Supreme Court cases. I don't have time to dig out the cite right now, but I will later if you wish. You cannot discriminate on the basis of alienage regarding public schooling or most welfare benefits.
Michael- forget CIS and its parent FAIR. The founder, John Tanton, was the Sierra Club Zero Population chief, and was the president of Zero Population Growth. He is no conservative, he is a "remove humans", enviro-wacko nut. NRO's association with these people is disgraceful, as Linda Chavez explains.
Yes, we need to slam the Southern border shut- but then we need to increase legal immigration, especially from Mexico- with learning English enforceably required.