Immigration always has been a contentious issue. But the difference between the immigration restrictionist and the free marketer is the latter seeks to deal with immigration’s difficulties without disrupting labor markets, curbing immigration’s economic benefits, or threatening Americans’ right to associate freely with foreigners.
David Bier | All Articles
- Send Email
- Subscribe to RSS
David Bier is a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He holds degrees in political science and philosophy from Grove City College in Pennsylvania. He specializes in immigration and environmental policy, focusing on the value of human beings as the ultimate resource.
Americans often bolster arguments with quotes from Founding Fathers or other U.S. political icons. Unfortunately, this practice often leads to quotes being invented to support a weak case. One such invention made its way into Thursday’s Wall Street Journal in an op-ed by Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AK).
“Maybe we should just brand all the babies.” With this mocking remark, Ronald Reagan dismissed a national ID proposal in 1981. In the 32 years since, Americans have rejected various forms of national ID. But now biometric national ID is back at America’s doorstep, and most Americans don’t even realize.
“As a civil libertarian … I don’t want a police state. I want a reason to do something.” That was Arizona S.B. 1070 author Russell Pearce Tuesday at a Senate hearing on the controversial immigration law. When former Obama adviser Van Jones called libertarians “anti-immigrant bigots” earlier this month, libertarians were confused, but when individuals like Pearce — who has endorsed a white supremacist for Mesa City Council — claim the title, Jones’ mistake becomes more sensible. But to be clear, nothing about S.B. 1070 can be misconstrued as “civil libertarian.”