Immigration - Thank-You Cardinal O'Malley

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

They are passed to achieve a particular goal.

That’s all that was stated, and in the passing of those laws consideration has to be taken regarding the effect on citizens, not simply whether or not it is best for immigrants.

The crafting of laws designed to determine completely what is best is not always a good thing. That is the justification for the systems of government that have a completely controlled economy, such as communism. The government sets prices based on what they say is best for everyone. I’m sure you are not in favor of that. So with regard to the economy, there is good reason for the laws passed by the government to be as neutral as possible in areas where we value free will. The choice of who gets a job is one of those areas. To design immigration policy based on trying to completely control the economic consequences of every immigration decision is contrary to this principle. It is best if we set immigration policy in keeping with our best estimate of what is just, and let the chips fall where they may with regard to employment. One reason for doing that is that it is not always clear to lawmakers what the economic consequences will be of a given policy on immigration. Over-controlling the economy can be a bad thing.

 

[Ender]

The crafting of laws designed to determine completely what is best is not always a good thing. That is the justification for the systems of government that have a completely controlled economy, such as communism.

True, this is why no one has suggested such an approach.

The government sets prices based on what they say is best for everyone. I’m sure you are not in favor of that.

Again: sure. It is in the determination of “what is best for everyone” that the disagreements will lie, which is why I prefer to address these questions with specifics rather than with generalities…

So with regard to the economy, there is good reason for the laws passed by the government to be as neutral as possible in areas where we value free will. The choice of who gets a job is one of those areas.

This is general enough that I could both agree and disagree. I do not want government to control an employer’s choice in making hiring decisions, but I do want the government to control - by way of limits on immigration - who gets to compete for those jobs.

To design immigration policy based on trying to completely control the economic consequences of every immigration decision is contrary to this principle.

Again, this is a radical description of what has been discussed. No one could rationally advocate such an approach.

It is best if we set immigration policy in keeping with our best estimate of what is just, and let the chips fall where they may with regard to employment.

Yes, but again this avoids the discussion of what is just, and it is precisely this point that is at issue.

One reason for doing that is that it is not always clear to lawmakers what the economic consequences will be of a given policy on immigration. Over-controlling the economy can be a bad thing.

This is too vague to really comment on. Overdoing anything is bad.