writes this op-ed for the neoconservative WSJ:
Restrictionism is part of the protectionist creed and historically has been embraced by big labor and others on the political left.Mark Krikorian deconstructs his silly opinions, and explains that conservatism really does believe in restricting the use of immigrant workers. To support this, he quotes Phyllis Schlafly and Milton Friedman. Also:
Newt Gingrich's comments in support of a temporary worker program and the legalization of undocumented immigrants who establish deep roots in the country have angered restrictionists on the right. ...
But are they ideologically correct in their attacks? Is restrictionism — the philosophy that proposes that government severely restrict the entry of immigrant workers our economy clearly needs — really the conservative position?
He then waves the bloody shirt of unions, saying that immigration limitation “historically has been embraced by big labor.” Uh, “historically” is the operative word here; the AFL-CIO and the SEIU are firmly in the open-borders camp. ... The short version is that when American unions were animated by American patriotism, they opposed amnesty and unlimited immigration, just as they opposed corporate rope-sellers doing business with the Soviet Union. ...This is part of the Neoconservative - Paleoconservative Conflict. Most conservatives believe that American policy should advance America. The WSJ supports multi-national corporations that have no national allegiance and that consider borders a big nuisance. The neoconservatives also hate American patriotism and exceptionalism.
Alfonso then goes to argue that free immigration is the same as free trade. This is a tired argument, but needs to be repeatedly rebutted.