In his recent speech at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, D.C., former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy pitched his case for reduced U.S. legal immigration, but defended a system that would still continue to import foreign laborers to compete with and displace American workers. In remarks that sought to distinguish his vision of “national libertarianism” from “national conservatism,” Vivek laid out a plan that would bring in “high-quality” foreign worker immigrants.
Ramaswamy did stress immigration restriction measures that the NatCon audience cheered. He naturally condemned all illegal migration and the ongoing border chaos. He rejected chain migration for extended family reunification, i.e., the motor of the current legal system, as not serving the U.S. national interest. Vivek spoke out forcefully on the need today for large scale deportations, vigorous domestic enforcement of immigration laws, and even the end of jus soli birthrights for illegal immigrants (which currently makes their babies born on U.S. territory American citizens).
All good stuff, but where Mr. Ramaswamy and his national libertarianism vision parted with many at NatCon was in his plan to keep the door open to importing more foreign workers. Amazingly, Vivek still advocated the need for such a program, despite decades of massive immigration, legal and illegal, which has left the country with a foreign born population of over 51 million, 15.6 percent of the total.
That is the highest level in our history; when America in 1924 hovered close to the 15 percent mark, it was the basis for a national pause that ended mass immigration.
Under the Ramaswamy plan, only foreign worker immigrants who were “high quality” would be accepted. For Vivek, high quality essentially meant his legal immigrants would be screened to ensure that they held a solid knowledge of American history and civics, and an ability to speak English. A flaw in Vivek’s plan is the assumption that a foreigner’s skill in passing a high-school level civics test and knowing something of the English language equates with growing up with American values.
Moreover, Vivek did not even pause to make a thorough normative argument on why America should constantly be importing foreign labor of any kind. He did assert, rightly, that the United States must be viewed as more than a giant economic money-making zone, yet the basic justifications for his plan were all tethered to a short-term business analysis, one that had only the perspective of labor and capital.
This is a regrettable approach that lands Vivek squarely on Wall Street, with other billionaire entrepreneurs, far away from the concerns and values of Main Street conservatives.
. . .