I don’t doubt there is some small group of Americans who honestly believe in open borders, and unlimited immigration. I also don’t doubt that there is some small group of Americans who honestly believe that all foreigners are bad, harbor truly racist attitudes, and want zero immigration. However, I simply cannot believe that either, or both combined groups actually represent anything more than a fringe minority. Unfortunately in our current political environment reasoned citizens are pushed and pulled to the extremes. These extremes come to define the debate, and common ground seems to slip away. This is MADNESS!!! If we are rational there is plenty of common ground.
So for starters…
To the extreme Left: To believe in enforcing current U.S. law, controlling our borders, and having some rational limits on the flow and screening of new, legal immigrants to the U.S. does NOT make someone a racist, protectionist, or lacking compassion.
To the extreme Right: To have compassion for those less fortunate, or wanting to provide safe harbor for those fleeing death, destruction, and tyranny are noble beliefs, and do NOT necessarily equate to a position of completely open borders.
To anyone who is so entrenched in rhetoric that they cannot work from that simple foundation: You should not bother reading any further. You should retreat to your bubble, and continue to think that everyone who disagrees with your point of view is evil. For the rest of us, I invite you to read on and participate in a rational discussion about the future of U.S. immigration policy.
Law Enforcement & Border Security:
Is it really that outrageous to suggest that as a sovereign nation we should control our borders, and enforce current law? Of course a border will never be 100% impenetrable, and there should be a rational limit on how much we spend on border security, but this is not a frivolous issue, and there is some justification for a reasonable investment.
The physical topography of the southern border precludes ANY one solution from being the correct solution for the entire 1,989 mile border. However, it seems eminently reasonable to suggest that through some combination of wall, fence, technology, and manpower we can and should get control of the vast majority of unauthorized crossings. I despise fear mongering, but this is about more than just immigration. There are legitimate concerns about drugs, gangs, terrorism, human trafficking, extortion, and other criminal activity. I am not suggesting that the majority of people crossing the border are engaged in those type of activities, I am suggesting that if only 5%, or even 1% are, then there are serious health, security, and economic threats to our country.
A Nation of Legal Immigrants:
Legal immigration is the foundation of our nation. Throughout most of our history we have seen a steady flow of immigrants from various parts of the world. There have been tremendous spikes (as many as 1.8 million in a single year in 1991), and considerable ebbs (as few as 50,000 many years, even as recently as the 1940’s). From 1820 to 1970, despite fluctuations, the average annual immigration rate over that period was approximately 400,000 per year. Since 1970 this has been on a steady rise, but even in the last couple decades we have maintained an average of less than 1 million per year.
*Source: Migration Policy Institute – Click HERE to see the full chart 1820 to 2015
Historically, most immigrants came here legally, and went through an extremely difficult assimilation period (individually and collectively). Most large waves of immigration resulted in some temporary level or form of discrimination. Regardless of color, race, religion, or reason for immigration, ANY time there has been significant influx of immigrants in a relatively short period of time, there is some backlash. Over time each of these groups overcame discrimination and other hardships, and through hard work and determination they learned to thrive in our country. Ultimately, they became an essential part of the fabric of our society. There is a symbiosis to the assimilation process. Not only do they adopt and adapt to our culture and language, in the process they enhance and enrich it by adding elements of their native culture to ours. That is the great American melting pot: Seldom pretty, never easy, but always ultimately inspiring and healthy for our nation!
How Much Is Enough?
Worldwide there are hundreds of millions of people who would do just about anything to come to our country. If we opened the flood gates, we would immediately be overwhelmed. Our economy would collapse, our resources depleted, and American culture would disintegrate. We would become a third world country overnight, which would ironically solve our immigration problem because nobody would want to come.
We see horrible images on the news. Injured and dead children, terrified mothers clinging to their babies, parades of desperate, hungry people fleeing death and destruction. There is untold suffering, worldwide. There always has been, and that fact isn’t likely to change in our lifetimes. We just have to remember that for every media worthy picture or video clip, there are a million more people in similar situations happening every day, everywhere. Images like this are valuable in illustrating the problem, but anecdote is a poor method of framing a serious policy debate. So, if we can step back for just a moment from those tear jerking anecdotal images, and ask ourselves some very real questions, I would like to start with this fundamental question: How many total immigrants (legal or illegal, refugee status aside) can we allow to come to America each year without overwhelming our resources, economy, and culture? 100,000? 500,000? 1,000,000? 2,000,000? 5,000,000?
The current population of the United States is approximately 325 million people. Our population tripled in size (from 100 to 300 million) in the last hundred years. The world population is approximately 7.4 Billion (with a B), with 1.3 billion living in abject poverty. 80% of the world’s population lives in relative poverty (as compared to the U.S). That is roughly 6 billion people! There are currently 65 million refugees in the world, every one of them fleeing death, destruction, and chaos. One current policy debate right now is that President Trump wants to reduce the number of refugees we accept in 2017, from 110,000 (a goal set by the Obama administration), to 50,000. In other words, we are wringing our hands over whether we take less than 1/10 of one percent, or less than 2/10 of 1% percent. The idea that we are going to solve the worlds problems, or make a dent in suffering through our immigration policy is fallacy.
It may be popular these days to beat up on America for our faults. We certainly have our fair share, currently and historically. Despite these faults, on balance, America has been a powerful force of good in the world. Our contribution to innovation and technology has had tremendous positive impact on the entire world population. Though we haven’t stopped every despot or oppressor, we have been a strong and stabilizing force, dramatically curtailing the worst forms of large scale carnage. We have modeled and encouraged a free market that has penetrated almost every country in the world. Even authoritarian regimes participate in, and are largely held in check by, a global free market of goods and services. Even setting our own self interest aside for a moment, we would do the world a disservice, in a futile attempt to solve the world’s problems by opening our borders.
Ultimately, I believe the real debate boils down to identifying what is a sustainable rate of annual legal immigration, and from there addressing how we prioritize applicants. Personally I believe that number should be somewhere in the 1,000,000 per year range (presently). I could see validity in an argument for less, or more, but that is where we should begin. How many?
Prioritization:
Once we determine how many, the next question is who? How do we prioritize? If we decide that we can take in a million legal immigrants per year, what criteria do we use to determine which million. Should it be based solely on refugee status? Should it be based on poverty levels? Should it be all from one country, or diverse? Should we be seeking the best and the brightest to harness talent? Should we focus on compassion, and just try to relieve the suffering of as many people as we can (even if only a fraction)? Should we be seeking only those who love our country, and have spent their entire lives dreaming of coming here, or should we take people who are only here out of desperation, who may have mixed or even bad feelings about us? Should we be conscious of our culture? Should we be concerned over compatibility of belief systems and likelihood of successful assimilation?
Honestly here I have less opinions than questions. I do believe that we should be considering all of the above, and very mindfully establishing immigration policy from a comprehensive perspective. Generally I think we should find balance between our interests, and humanitarian interests. I think we should absolutely give a lot of thought to cultural and religious compatibility and assimilation. Most important, we should be comprehensive and rational in the process. That is a managed system of immigration!
How To Address Those Who Are Here:
We do have a real dilemma on our hands. We have an estimated 11 million people here illegally. Each one of them decided (or at a young age their parents decided for them) that their desire to enter our country was more important than following our laws. Of course they felt desperate. However, for every one person who decided for themselves that they would unfairly and illegally jump to the front of the line, there are hundreds who were equally desperate, who didn’t get to come here, many of whom were actively trying to do so legally.
Let’s say 4 billion people worldwide would like to come here this year. 2 billion are absolutely desperate to do so (each one of them with a heart breaking story of poverty and desperation). So we decide that this year we can admit 1 million, but then half that number decide to take it upon themselves to enter illegally before we can decide who to accept legally. They ignore our laws, and force themselves into our country. Do I lack compassion because I think that the other 1,999,500,000 who didn’t break our laws deserved a fair chance?
That said, there is another side to this. Our nation bares considerable responsibility as well. We didn’t consistently control our border, and we have spent decades allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to pour across each year. We have been inconsistent, and hypocritical. We have an economic need for a workforce, yet don’t address the issue directly by adapting policy. Instead of coming together, hashing it out, and letting democracy determine what the policy should be, we ducked the hard issue. We looked the other way. We let local governments ignore U.S. law, and we have sent mixed signals. First and foremost we owe it to EVERY future immigrant to get our own house in order. We secure the border, we enforce the law, and we establish a rational, sustainable, consistent system of managed legal immigration. The ONLY way this works is if we do all of that either prior to, or simultaneous with addressing the dilemma of those who are already here illegally.
In that context, I would then personally be in favor of some sort of one-time, mass amnesty, granting permanent residency with no possibility of citizenship, based on simple criteria: They have been here for at least two years, have established roots (family, job, home, etc..), and have broken no U.S. laws in their time here, EXCEPT their illegal status and associated “lesser included” offenses. Example: Considering an illegal immigrant a criminal because they used fake ID to work is ridiculous. Yes they are here illegally, and yes that is a crime, but having a fake ID to obtain work should be considered a lesser included offense, not evidence of criminal behavior!
From there we deport actual criminals, and move forward with rational legal immigration policy, border control, and zero tolerance for illegal entry. Of course there should be some kind of review process for possible exceptional cases for very minor crimes, combined with extenuating circumstances. However, I think that should be difficult, and rare. I see no reason we should not have a tough stand on illegal activity. Going back to the idea that there are billions of people who would love that spot, to give favor to someone who first unfairly jumped the line, and then continued to break our laws? I say give one of the other billion people a fair chance to come here the right way!
Conclusion:
So those are the 3 big questions: How many, how to prioritize, and what to do with the those already here? Though I have given MY answers to these questions, that isn’t really the point of this post. The main point is to find a way forward. To get to the heart of the matter, and have a real discussion. Whether you like my answers or not, I hope I have at least provided a framework for further discussion. I invite you to comment below.
