Michael Clemens v. Center for Immigration Studies
January 29th 2010 18:20
No, economist Michael Clemens is not suing the Center for Immigration Studies, but the CIS (via Mark Krikorian) has responded to the article written by Clemens in the Washington Post (I blogged about this article here). To say that the CIS was less convinced by the article than me would be a massive understatement. I will post the relevant excerpts from Clemens' article, followed by the CIS rebuttal, and finally my take. Sounds fun, right?!?
Clemens:
Krikorian:
The first two sentences by the Krikorian totally miss Clemens' point. The Coast Guard is clearly not to blame, as they are following orders, but the orders they are following are wrongheaded. So, going "Boo hoo... stop picking on the coast guard" does nothing to refute the immorality of the laws. Then Krikorian notes that the number of Haitians who would like to emigrate to the U.S. is 4.5 million. Ok?
Clemens:
Krikorian:
Oh, know I see. Since a Haitian was by chance born in Haiti, he deserves to die in poverty. On the other hand, an American who was born in America deserves to live abundantly, even if he is much lazier than all Haitians. Krikorian even implicitly concedes that Americans have no inherent superior work-ethic, but that Americans still deserve to live better-off than Haitians. Should we also ignore the fact that Americans would gain from more Haiti immigrants?
Clemens:
Krikorian:
Krikorian asks, "was our immigration policy "sinister" because we didn't take them [Congolese]?" Yes. Forcing people to stay in horrendous conditions because "they aren't American" seems rather sinister to me. As for Krikorian's second point, why does anyone have to wait in line? Bring them all on! They will boost the U.S. economy, push domestic workers up the income ladder, and lower global poverty. Oh, but I forgot, they aren't American.
Follow me on Twitter: @AGoldenDoor
Clemens:
We do know, however, why many individual Haitians are poor. For a large number, there is a clear reason: Many have been willing and able to leave Haiti for American shores, but armed agents of the U.S. government have forcibly stopped them or deterred them from trying. If they had not been stopped, virtually none of them would have been as poor and vulnerable as they were on Jan. 12.
Krikorian:
Oh my, armed agents forcibly stopping illegal immigration — the boot of the Coast Guard is stomping on Haitians' faces forever. As for "many" Haitians who are willing to leave, Clemens himself notes that 51 percent of Haitians told Gallup last year that they want to emigrate — that's 4.5 million people.
The first two sentences by the Krikorian totally miss Clemens' point. The Coast Guard is clearly not to blame, as they are following orders, but the orders they are following are wrongheaded. So, going "Boo hoo... stop picking on the coast guard" does nothing to refute the immorality of the laws. Then Krikorian notes that the number of Haitians who would like to emigrate to the U.S. is 4.5 million. Ok?
Clemens:
A moderately educated adult male, born and schooled in Haiti, typically enjoys a standard of living more than six times greater in the United States than in his homeland. In other words, U.S. policy wipes out more than 80 percent of a Haitian's earning power when it keeps him from coming to the United States. ... The difference has nothing to do with his ability or effort; it results purely from where he is.
Krikorian:
Well, not where he is, but who he is — he's not an American, so he has no right to come here and increase his earning power. His unwillingness to even acknowledge the distinction between Americans and foreigners...
Oh, know I see. Since a Haitian was by chance born in Haiti, he deserves to die in poverty. On the other hand, an American who was born in America deserves to live abundantly, even if he is much lazier than all Haitians. Krikorian even implicitly concedes that Americans have no inherent superior work-ethic, but that Americans still deserve to live better-off than Haitians. Should we also ignore the fact that Americans would gain from more Haiti immigrants?
Clemens:
Who [in the wake of Katrina] would have blocked Interstate 10 with armed guards, forcing hundreds of thousands of people to suffer in the disaster zone, no matter how much assistance was coming in from outside? We wouldn't have done that, because it would have made us collectively responsible for their continued suffering. Why then, in the thoughtful debate that has emerged over how best to aid Haiti and help its citizens help themselves, are Americans still quiet about this sinister face of our immigration policy?
Krikorian:
Even without the post-Americanism, this would be morally infantile. In fact, any putative claim of Haitians to enter the United States based on suffering would pale in comparison to the millions of Congolese peasants who've died as a result of the war there — was our immigration policy "sinister" because we didn't take them? And if increase in earning power is the appropriate moral yardstick, then Haitians would still have to wait in line, after Zimbabweans and Nepalese and Ethiopians, among others.
Krikorian asks, "was our immigration policy "sinister" because we didn't take them [Congolese]?" Yes. Forcing people to stay in horrendous conditions because "they aren't American" seems rather sinister to me. As for Krikorian's second point, why does anyone have to wait in line? Bring them all on! They will boost the U.S. economy, push domestic workers up the income ladder, and lower global poverty. Oh, but I forgot, they aren't American.
Follow me on Twitter: @AGoldenDoor
| 29 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog













