Two comments in different media venues last week grabbed my attention. The first came from PBS interviewer Charlie Rose. The second on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal", came from the grandson of an immigrant from Mexico.
Rose's comment came in an interview with Max Levchin, the Internet entrepreneur and co-founder of PayPal whose family immigrated to the United States from the Ukraine when he was a young boy.
Said Rose: "I assume you're among those who say [immigration] is a proud part of the development and the evolution of this country and that's something that we essentially must make sure that we cherish and preserve."
Rose's speechifying struck me as an example of how far elite opinion on immigration has moved in recent years to defend all forms of immigration, without qualification. It would have been understandable if the public debate included serious discussion of stopping immigration. But there is none. The discussion today is about regulating immigration, about setting appropriate limits, and then enforcing those limits.
As a point of contrast, consider this excerpt from a New York Times editorial back in 1982, before the Times joined the elite chorus that is quick to denigrate efforts to enforce immigration law as rooted in racism. Wrote the Times: "Without effective enforcement, there can be no immigration reform worthy of the name."
For the record, Levchin said he agreed with Rose's observation, saying: "It's a very divisive issue, there's lots of facets to it, many of which I can't hope to understand fully. But just the fundamental notion of the melting pot, bringing people that have the ambition and the drive to better themselves, better their fate, better their children's fate, and pay back to the country that welcomes them is fundamental to who I am and I think it's critical that America does not lose that."
Responded Rose: "And in the process not only do well for themselves, but do well for the country, by creating jobs, you know, inventing things, and a whole range of other things.
A more inquisitive interviewer might have engaged Levchin on the issue of how the country should address the divisiveness of the issue. Rose was apparently more interested in making a statement than in probing that issue.
The caller to "Washington Journal", who said he was from Henderson, Nev., near Las Vegas, complained about the lack of enforcement of immigration law.
"When they say people are taking our jobs away, they are. I can go to Denny's. I can go to Wendy's. I can go to everywhere my children used to go when they got out of school and have jobs during the summer. Now they can't because there's illegals working there."
I would have liked to know how the caller knew that the workers were illegally in the country. No one should jump to such a conclusion. But there is no doubt that the restaurant industry has long been a magnet for illegal immigration. The eagerness of many restaurant owners, especially in the fast food industry, to fill their work schedules with illegal immigrants has palpable consequences for young Americans, who are now unemployed in record numbers. That is one of the reasons we need to be serious about setting limits and then enforcing them.