Immigration ought to be a no-brainer. Control the border with Mexico. Decide who gets in and make it easier for them to do so legally. Deport the criminals. Grant legal status to my cleaning lady.
But nobody’s thinking along those lines, are they? Democrats want to adopt the same open-door policies that stimulated Brexit and are toppling governments in Europe. Some of President Trump’s policies make sense but are immediately branded as racist because that’s the only argument Democrats have. So nothing is going to happen until the situation becomes so intolerable that voters elect representatives who are willing to compromise. When that happens, they will need to consider issues no one is talking about.
The United States is a nation of immigrants because generations of immigrants have become Americans. This sets us apart from countries such as France, where Muslim immigrants have been excluded from the mainstream and live in enclaves where terrorists are sheltered from the police.
We used to be good at assimilating immigrants. In the 1970s we welcomed a million Vietnamese refugees (over the objections of Democrats). Those refugees were vetted in a multinational effort and temporarily housed on military bases, where they got a crash course in English and American citizenship and some learned to do manicures.
So it’s worth asking: What’s being done to assimilate the million or so immigrants streaming across the Mexican border this year? We know most of them disappear after they’re turned loose and won’t show up for immigration hearings. Where do they go? Are they integrating into American society in diverse communities, or are they populating Central American colonies in ethnic ghettos? Are they being encouraged to pursue the American dream, or are their advocates telling them they are victims of racism? Will they become hypenated Americans, as my Hungarian-American grandparents did, or will their ethnicity become the basis for grievance-mongering and plantation politics?
The first step to assimilate these folks is to identify them, weed out the criminals and grant legal status to the vast majority. If the objective is to bring illegal immigants out of the shadows and put most of them on a path to citizenship, it’s odd that some politicians don’t want to know how many people we’re tallking about: 11 million? 30 million?
The American immigrant tradition is based on two guiding principles: We welcome practically everyone (not without controversy),and we decide who gets in. That second principle no longer applies at the Mexican border, where smuggling cartels decide who enters the country.
Opening our borders to everyone who wishes to live here is unsustainable, as they’re learning in Europe. Victor Davis Hanson offers the gloomy hypothesis that unchecked immigration will taper off only when parts of the United States are indistinguishable from the Latin American barrios the migrants left behind.
If and when our government chooses to exercise authority over the border AND overhaul the legal immigration system, our representatives have some decisions to make and opportunities to consider. A starting point may be the “Statue of Liberty” standards once applied at Ellis Island: Admit immigrants who are healthy, able to support themselves and are not criminals or unaccompanied minors.
If we value diversity, why do we favor immigrants from Central America over those from Africa, Asia and Europe? And why do we bring in mostly unskilled immigrants when entry-level jobs are being automated and skilled positions go unfilled? A merit-based system like Canada’s would allow us to move medical and technical workers to the front of the line, with expanded guest worker programs for seasonal and agricultural workers. Perhaps our economy will offer more upward mobility if employers no longer have an unlimited supply of cheap labor.
We also need Armed Forces recruits because the majority of young Americans cannot pass the physical or drug test. Immigrants who meet the standards and speak English should be allowed to enlist and get a fast track to citizenship. (The Navy did this for many years with recruits from the Philippines.)
Limiting chain migration is a good way to bring in more workers and fewer dependents. I’d like to see an exception for family businesses, however, to allow immigrant business owners to bring in relatives to work for them. (Many of my favorite restaurants in Chicago probably are the result of chain migration.)
Our asylum system is a farce when overwhelming numbers of economic migrants are encouraged to file fraudulent claims. We need to close loopholes in the law and admit more genuine asylum seekers such as endangered Iraqi translators and Middle Eastern Christians fleeing genocide.
We also need to work with Central American governments to stem the flow of migrants. Nothing we can do will transform these failed states into prosperous democracies. (And no, they are not failed states because the United States harvested bananas, fought communists or went after druglords.) But cooperation still is possible. The Trump administration’s outreach to Mexico and Guatemala is a good start toward the kind of multinational initiative that resettled Vietnamese refugees in the 1970s.
One problem is that exporting poor people to the United States is a rational economic strategy for Central American governments. Migrants get jobs and government services in the U.S. that enable them to send more money to their families than they would earn at home. Actively encouraging its citizens to sneak across the border has been successful for Mexico, where remittances from Mexicans in the U.S. contribute more to the country’s GDP ($30 billion a year) than oil exports.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. The voluntary foreign aid of individual remittances, which dwarfs U.S. aid to Central American governments, helped Mexico grow its economy and eventually reduced the flow of migrants. We can’t expect these governments to change their economic model, but we can work with them to expand trade and regulate the flow of migrants. This will support our national interest as well as theirs and make the relationship less parasitic. Taxing remittances to fund border security and other initiatives is a good first step.
Fixing our immigation system offers many opportunities but will remain a big problem so long as our elected representatives refuse to solve it. The only question is how serious the border crisis will become before the voters force politicians to work together as a last resort.
Observations on immigration
Immigration ought to be a no-brainer. Control the border with Mexico. Decide who gets in and make it easier for them to do so legally. Deport the criminals. Grant legal status to my cleaning lady.
But nobody’s thinking along those lines, are they? Democrats want to adopt the same open-door policies that stimulated Brexit and are toppling governments in Europe. Some of President Trump’s policies make sense but are immediately branded as racist because that’s the only argument Democrats have. So nothing is going to happen until the situation becomes so intolerable that voters elect representatives who are willing to compromise. When that happens, they will need to consider issues no one is talking about.
The United States is a nation of immigrants because generations of immigrants have become Americans. This sets us apart from countries such as France, where Muslim immigrants have been excluded from the mainstream and live in enclaves where terrorists are sheltered from the police.
We used to be good at assimilating immigrants. In the 1970s we welcomed a million Vietnamese refugees (over the objections of Democrats). Those refugees were vetted in a multinational effort and temporarily housed on military bases, where they got a crash course in English and American citizenship and some learned to do manicures.
So it’s worth asking: What’s being done to assimilate the million or so immigrants streaming across the Mexican border this year? We know most of them disappear after they’re turned loose and won’t show up for immigration hearings. Where do they go? Are they integrating into American society in diverse communities, or are they populating Central American colonies in ethnic ghettos? Are they being encouraged to pursue the American dream, or are their advocates telling them they are victims of racism? Will they become hypenated Americans, as my Hungarian-American grandparents did, or will their ethnicity become the basis for grievance-mongering and plantation politics?
The first step to assimilate these folks is to identify them, weed out the criminals and grant legal status to the vast majority. If the objective is to bring illegal immigants out of the shadows and put most of them on a path to citizenship, it’s odd that some politicians don’t want to know how many people we’re tallking about: 11 million? 30 million?
The American immigrant tradition is based on two guiding principles: We welcome practically everyone (not without controversy),and we decide who gets in. That second principle no longer applies at the Mexican border, where smuggling cartels decide who enters the country.
Opening our borders to everyone who wishes to live here is unsustainable, as they’re learning in Europe. Victor Davis Hanson offers the gloomy hypothesis that unchecked immigration will taper off only when parts of the United States are indistinguishable from the Latin American barrios the migrants left behind.
If and when our government chooses to exercise authority over the border AND overhaul the legal immigration system, our representatives have some decisions to make and opportunities to consider. A starting point may be the “Statue of Liberty” standards once applied at Ellis Island: Admit immigrants who are healthy, able to support themselves and are not criminals or unaccompanied minors.
If we value diversity, why do we favor immigrants from Central America over those from Africa, Asia and Europe? And why do we bring in mostly unskilled immigrants when entry-level jobs are being automated and skilled positions go unfilled? A merit-based system like Canada’s would allow us to move medical and technical workers to the front of the line, with expanded guest worker programs for seasonal and agricultural workers. Perhaps our economy will offer more upward mobility if employers no longer have an unlimited supply of cheap labor.
We also need Armed Forces recruits because the majority of young Americans cannot pass the physical or drug test. Immigrants who meet the standards and speak English should be allowed to enlist and get a fast track to citizenship. (The Navy did this for many years with recruits from the Philippines.)
Limiting chain migration is a good way to bring in more workers and fewer dependents. I’d like to see an exception for family businesses, however, to allow immigrant business owners to bring in relatives to work for them. (Many of my favorite restaurants in Chicago probably are the result of chain migration.)
Our asylum system is a farce when overwhelming numbers of economic migrants are encouraged to file fraudulent claims. We need to close loopholes in the law and admit more genuine asylum seekers such as endangered Iraqi translators and Middle Eastern Christians fleeing genocide.
We also need to work with Central American governments to stem the flow of migrants. Nothing we can do will transform these failed states into prosperous democracies. (And no, they are not failed states because the United States harvested bananas, fought communists or went after druglords.) But cooperation still is possible. The Trump administration’s outreach to Mexico and Guatemala is a good start toward the kind of multinational initiative that resettled Vietnamese refugees in the 1970s.
One problem is that exporting poor people to the United States is a rational economic strategy for Central American governments. Migrants get jobs and government services in the U.S. that enable them to send more money to their families than they would earn at home. Actively encouraging its citizens to sneak across the border has been successful for Mexico, where remittances from Mexicans in the U.S. contribute more to the country’s GDP ($30 billion a year) than oil exports.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. The voluntary foreign aid of individual remittances, which dwarfs U.S. aid to Central American governments, helped Mexico grow its economy and eventually reduced the flow of migrants. We can’t expect these governments to change their economic model, but we can work with them to expand trade and regulate the flow of migrants. This will support our national interest as well as theirs and make the relationship less parasitic. Taxing remittances to fund border security and other initiatives is a good first step.
Fixing our immigation system offers many opportunities but will remain a big problem so long as our elected representatives refuse to solve it. The only question is how serious the border crisis will become before the voters force politicians to work together as a last resort.
Share this: