Dispatch Symposium on Immigration and the Election

Yes،ay, the Dispatch published a symposium on the pros and cons of Donald T،p and Kamala Harris’s immigration policies. The parti،nts were David Bier (Cato Ins،ute), Mark Krikorian (Center for Immigration Studies), Alex Nowrasteh (Cato) and myself. Alex, David, and I are obviously strongly pro-immigration, whereas Krikorian is a pretty hard-core restrictionist.

This may be the first time three different Cato-affiliated ،ysts parti،ted in the same immigration symposium. For what it’s worth, I did not know ahead of time that Alex and David were also parti،ting, and we did not coordinate our contributions in any way.

Here’s an excerpt from my piece:

T،p’s m، deportation proposal would cause immense damage to both immigrants and U.S. citizens. It would create disruption, increase prices, and cause s،rtages. It also destroys more American jobs than it creates… Drastic cuts in legal immigration would exacerbate the economic damage. Cutting migration would also worsen the federal government’s dire fiscal situation.

Harris does have some flawed immigration policies of her own, such as her endor،t of President Joe Biden’s badly flawed T،p-lite asylum restrictions. She would do better to emphasize the expansion of options for legal migration. But T،p’s immigration plans are vastly worse…..

In their contributions (which I largely agree with), David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh both emphasize the dangers of T،p’s plans to greatly reduce legal migration. This aspect of his agenda hasn’t gotten as much attention as it deserves, even t،ugh—as Alex and David note—the president has vast discretion in this field.

For his part, Mark Krikorian fears that T،p might actually expand legal migration. I wish he were right. But that goes a،nst both T،p’s stated plans now, and his first-term record, when he m،ively cut legal migration, far more than the illegal kind.