I found the juxtaposition of the two immigration essays you published recently an interesting contrast.

Jonette Christian provided a thoughtful and well-reasoned argument about how mass immigration is contrary to helping the poor and middle class (“Maine Voices: Immigration policy needs national consensus, thoughtful discussion,” Jan. 8).

As automation and technology replace human labor, policies increasing the supply of workers through immigration will drive down wages and correspondingly increase strains on the social safety net.

Alan Caron’s argument, setting aside the derision, insults and insinuation of racism, seems to be that because immigration worked in the distant past, we should keep it up (“Proposing rules attacking immigrants, LePage forgets his own heritage,” Jan. 9).

It’s almost as if the last 100 years never happened.

So on the one hand is a logical argument based on supply and demand in the modern economy, and the other a grab bag of dreamy rhetoric and wishful thinking, seasoned with ad hominem attacks and invective.

That seems to capture the essence of the immigration debate.



Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.