Senator Marco Rubio is siding with Myron Magnet against me and what I understand to be the positions of Gordon Crovitz, and John Cochrane in the debate discussed in an earlier post here about whether to focus on high-skilled immigrants or on welcoming all (non-terrorist) immigrants, regardless of their skills. From a report by NPR:
"This nation — no nation — is capable of sustaining or absorbing mass migrations."
Rubio said that even the law regarding Cuban immigrants needs to be modernized in order to reflect changing times. He'd like to see more migrants granted legal status based on job skills, as opposed to giving preference more often to those who have family ties or who are seeking asylum.
"I fully recognize that's how my parents came in 1956, but the country and the economy is fundamentally different than it was 60 years ago," he said, "and our immigration laws have to reflect this."
I've got to say I find this disappointing. If not even Marco Rubio, the senator son of an immigrant hotel bartender, is going to stand up for unskilled immigration, what a sorry state the political debate over the issue is in. And what is he talking about that no nation is capable of absorbing mass immigrations? Has the senator from Florida, with its large Jewish population, ever been to Israel? Does he know anything about American history? Has he ever been to New York City?
I acknowledge that America is different than it was in 1956, but in many ways we are stronger, not weaker, with lower tax rates, a larger population, a stronger military, better technology, and a larger GDP. And I don't think whatever differences we have with the America of 1956 are "fundamental."