Thomas Sowell, in his opinion column titled "immigration evasion", writes that on the issue of immigration, "words have been twisted beyond recognition in political rhetoric", and that many of the arguments raised are "frivolous rhetoric and slippery sophistry". It would be good if Sowell were trying to help solve these problems, by using rational arguments and using words with plain meaning in his own writing on the issue; instead, his own column is one of the worst examples of evasions, slippery rhetoric, and twisting of words.
Sowell writes: "what is a guest? Someone you have invited. People who force their way into your home without your permission are called gate crashers. If truth-in-packaging laws applied to politics, the Bush guest worker program would have to be called a “gate-crasher worker” program." Into whose home is Sowell claiming illegal immigrants have forced their way without the owners' permission? His statement evades the fact that those illegal immigrants are employed voluntarily, by business owners who invited them to work; they have not forced their way into anyone's home or business.
Sowell's hidden premise, the only way to make any sense of his statement about "gate-crashers", is that he rejects the idea of private property. Sowell evidently believes that businesses in the United States should be owned, not by private owners, but by the government; workers who take a job from a private owner should be regarded as "gate-crashers" if they did not first have permission from the government, since the government is the business's real owner. If that is what Sowell believes, then he should apply "truth-in-packaging" to his own writing, by openly stating that he is a socialist, and that his argument is based on socialism as its premise.
Sowell goes on to write that "None of the rhetoric and sophistry that we hear about immigration deals with the plain and ugly reality: ... businesses want cheap labor. What millions of other Americans want has been brushed aside, as if they don't count." Here Sowell is twisting words to evade the concept of a free economy. In a free economy, businesses have the right to freely hire workers under any terms that both sides agree on; they can look for the cheapest labor that they can find voluntarily; if "millions of other Americans" want to interfere with this free market process, by forcibly keeping non-union-members or foreigners out of the job market, then they are "brushed aside as if they don't count". It is only in a socialist economy that the hiring decisions of a business would be made by "what millions of other Americans want", instead of by the mutual agreement of employer and employee. Sowell engages in a lot of slippery rhetoric to avoid stating his meaning plainly: that he regards the principle of a free economy as "ugly".
Finally, Sowell writes that "People who get caught illegally crossing the border into the United States pay no penalty whatever. They are sent back home and can try again. What if bank robbers who were caught were simply told to give the money back and not do it again? What if murderers who were caught were turned loose and warned not to kill again?" Here Sowell is twisting words to evade the concept of individual rights. Classical liberals, who believe that there should be no laws against actions that don't violate anyone's individual rights, are a minority; but most people in political discourse still recognize the difference between violation of individual rights and "victimless crimes". Even those who favor laws against marijuana use, gambling, or illegal immigration, recognize that there is a difference between these "crimes" and crimes that actually violate someone's rights, such as murder or bank robbery. Sowell wants to completely obliterate this difference; to equate illegally crossing the border with murder or bank robbery, is to discard the concept of individual rights, so that the only relevant question about an action is whether it violates the law, and so marijuana users, illegal gamblers and illegal immigrants can be treated the same as murderers and bank robbers.
Those of us who support economic freedom and individual rights, have strong reasons to be dissatisfied with much of Bush's record as president; but his "guest worker" proposal is one of the few things he's doing right. Immigration restrictions have no justification, and while the "guest worker" program doesn't go nearly far enough in freeing up immigration, it is a significant step in the right direction and should be strongly supported. Since I am an immigrant, this is the one current political issue of deepest personal meaning to me.
In the past, Thomas Sowell has been an advocate of a free economy. And while he was never a consistent classical liberal, he has been sympathetic to individual rights. His comments on immigration imply that he has now changed his views, and has converted to socialism and to a total rejection of the concept of individual rights. If so, then the best thing he can do to help "discuss the issue in clear, plain terms" is to openly announce his conversion, rather than evading it or leaving it to implication. Above all, he should stop trying to pretend that the "evasions", "twisting of words" and "slippery rhetoric" are coming from the other side.