On the Wall Street Journal’s website, veteran WSJ Editorialista Holman W. Jenkins Jr. graces us with his solution to the immigration problem:

“So how about just open the door to anyone willing to put down a refundable entry deposit (say, $2,000) in return for a biometric work card?”

Great idea, Holman! I bet you spent 60, maybe even 90 seconds thinking through all the possible ramifications of that plan.

According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2004, there were 4,976,000,000 people in this world living in countries with average per capita GDPs lower than Mexico’s. And, two polls conducted by the Pew Hispanic Trust showed that over 40% of Mexicans say they would immigrate to America if it were legal. And, just about anybody could borrow $2,000 based on their future earnings in America.

So, where exactly would we put two billion new immigrants?

Well, obviously, we don’t have to worry about 2,000,000,000 newcomers. Probably by the time 10 percent of that number had jostled their way in, conditions in America would have descended to the level of their Third World homelands, so there’d be no more incentive to immigrate.

Have you noticed how Open Borders advocates like to show off in public that they have not spent done anything so disreputable as thinking hard about immigration? Mindless insouciance about immigration proves that you, personally, don’t have to worry about it, that you are above it all. Nobody from Chiapas is going to take Holman W. Jenkins Jr.’s job, no sirree!

E.J. Dionne Jr. writes in the Washington Post:

There is no sturdier liberal or Democratic slogan than “Jobs, jobs, jobs.” But liberals have a problem: The old capitalist job-production machine is not working the way it used to. The venerable promise that new (progressive) leadership will create masses of well-paying jobs is harder to make and even harder to keep.

In principle this is a larger problem for conservatives, whose main economic program involves reinforcing the status quo by giving tax cuts to rich people so they have more money to invest. Conservatives simply ignore the fact that fewer jobs are being created, particularly at home, for each dollar invested.

But conservatives are expected to stand up for the rich. Liberals are supposed to expand the standard of living for everybody else. That is harder than it used to be.

Mr. Dionne is fundamentally correct. For Democrats and Progressives to have any credibility, they must have a credible story for delivering lots of good, high quality jobs. What he is missing is that the US has been a great job creation machine-for recent immigrants. Where the United States has failed is in creating good jobs for US citizens. In a previous article, Dionne endorsed the Kennedy-McCain immigration proposal, which would strongly accelerate these trends.

I would agree with Mr. Dionne that permanent creation of a class of guest workers in the US would be a big mistake. However, using truly temporary guest worker visas to facilitate gradual deportation of all or most illegal aliens facilitated by financial incentives is something which has not been seriously considered. The problem is that assuring that use of guest worker visas isnt just a means to expand overall immigration rate(as is embedded in the Kennedy/McCain immigration bill) and ensuring that those temporary visas are truly temporary. A period with a large number of guest worker visas would present real and unacceptable problems-but if we in fact saw and overall decline in immigration levels and a gradual repatriation of those former illegal immigrants it would present fewer problems that the recent explosion in illegal immigration coupled by dramatically expanded legal immigration.

The simple fact is that most Americans want less immigration–perhaps not as little as some of us here on Vdare .com might like, but a less than the plutocrats in DC are facilitating. Lots of countries like Japan and South Korea prosper with few or no immigrants. The US has every ability to move strongly in that direction over time. It is a direction that the US must move if we are to return to a high wage, high productivity economy capable of supporting a progressive agenda.

From Barbara Garson on ZNet:

A few decades ago Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew realized that Singapore could never win the worldwide competition to offer cheap labor. He decided instead, that this one equatorial Island among hundreds, was to become a high value-added producer. To Lee that meant wages had to be high enough to encourage Singapore’s businessmen to invest in labor saving technology. To raise Singapore salaries he had to make sure that local wages wouldn’t be under-cut by migrants. So Lee set a high levy on each migrant’s salary. Yes, you could pay an unskilled Bangladeshi $400 dollars a month. But in that case you had to pay the state another $400 a month.

Coming from the U.S. I simply couldn’t believe that a government, however indifferent to the welfare of foreigners, was honestly trying to keep its own people’s wages up. But I interviewed a labor contractor who brought Indians, Filipinos and some of the first Mainland Chinese migrants into Singapore. He told me that he would have to pay a Singaporean welder $2,500 a month. “And the foreigners?” I asked.

He took out a pencil to calculate his cost.

“Salary $900, levy $200 [it was lower on skilled workers], meal allowance $250, accommodation,insurance,interest on the bond,: His final figure was “The same! $2,500 a month.”

Senator Rick Santorum’s strategy of emphasizing his opposition to (and his opponent’s support for) the Kennedy-Bush Amnesty/Immigration Acceleration Bill looks shrewd, judging by a report today from the front line. The Hazelton Pennsylvania Standard-Speaker has an editorial [It’s the illegal immigration, stupid – June 14 2006] which explains why:

What’s the hot-button issue for this year’s Congressional elections?… It’s immigration.
Mayor Louis Barletta, upset over recent crimes by illegal immigrants, announced a bold initiative Monday. First, he proposed making English Hazleton’s “official language,” a local take on a concept that has been floated on the national level. Second, and even more significant, he proposed levying $1,000 fines on businesses that hire illegal aliens and on landlords who fail to get documentation from prospective tenants…

The mayor – who has been an activist on several fronts – says he has never seen such a huge response to any previous comment or proposal. (VDARE.com emphasis)

The Standard-Speaker has seen a similar reaction. E-mails and letters to the editor began coming in as soon as Monday’s paper hit the streets. The sentiment has been all but unanimously in favor of the mayor’s stance.

Many politicians and pundits – particularly those who operate within the confines of the Capital Beltway – don’t seem to appreciate how concerned Americans are about the threat posed by illegal immigration. They seem to think the issue is only important in areas near the Mexican border, or in certain urban neighborhoods.

One TV pundit opined the other night that folks in Iowa aren’t concerned about illegal aliens. He couldn’t be more wrong. Sections of Iowa, like Hazleton, have seen huge influxes of Hispanic immigrants fueled by the arrival of big meat-packing plants. They see the problem first-hand. And they are worried.

Today in The Washington Times Rep. Lamar Smith is quoted:

The recent special-election victory of Rep. Brian P. Bilbray, California Republican, who made tough anti-immigration measures a centerpiece of his campaign, “changed a lot of people’s thinking on the issue,” Mr. Smith said. “It shows how politically advantageous it is to talk about the issue…

[Immigration bill suffers setback – AP June 14 2006]

Perhaps after November Senator Santorum’s re election will be attracting the same remarks.