The immigration issue in this year’s presidential campaign boils down to two extremes: “Build a wall” and “let everybody in.” I keep thinking of the Casey Stengel quote: Can’t anybody here play this game?
The United States used to be good at the immigration game. For most of our history, we had a national consensus that (a) We need immigrants to strengthen our country; and (b) We decide who gets in.
By the time my grandparents arrived from Hungary in the early 1900s, immigrants went through a well-organized screening at places like Ellis Island. Our government was fussy: Only those who were healthy and able to support themselves were allowed into the country. Those who were not admitted (including unaccompanied children) went back across the pond immediately without lawyers or immigration hearings. The feds also tried to screen out Anarchists (that era’s terrorists) with no more success than the Europeans are having in stopping jihadists.
We still need immigrants to avoid the aging-population problems of Europe and Japan. But at a time when a labor surplus and job shortage have depressed wages for unskilled workers, adding millions of mostly unskilled immigrants to the workforce may not be the path to prosperity. We also have forfeited the ability to control who gets into the country and stays here. Whether or not we deport criminals or give my cleaning lady a path to citizenship is irrelevant so long as immigrants continue to cross the border illegally or overstay their visas without consequences.
Some countries manage immigration the way we used to. Canada matches immigrants to workforce needs and gives preference to skilled workers. So Democrats who threaten to emigrate if Donald Trump is elected may not get in. We can do something similar by re-thinking our approach to immigration, regaining control over our borders and setting up some sort of virtual Ellis Island to welcome immigrants who will build the economy.
The immigration issue nobody is talking about is assimilation. European multiculturalism has invited migrants to bring their traditions and cultures with them but has not assimilated them as full-fledged citizens. The result has been multi-generational Muslim ghettos and Sharia-law enclaves that have produced terrorists rather than hyphenated Frenchmen and Belgians.
The United States, by contrast, has been good at assimilating immigrants. Ethnic identity and culture run deep in places like my hometown of Chicago, but the Americanized kids and grandkids of immigrants intermarry with other ethnic groups. Everybody is Irish on St. Patrick’s Day and Mexican on Cinco de Mayo.
So when we bring in refugees from the Middle East – and we should – we need to leverage our national expertise in assimilation. Security screening and delegating resettlement to nonprofit agencies are not enough: We’re seeing ISIS recruiting in a few immigrant enclaves in the U.S. such as Somali communities in Minnesota, and that should be a wake-up call.
Instead of dumping refugees on unwilling communities, the feds need to partner with state and local governments to provide a path to assimilation. That means resources for schools, social services, and a bunch of Syrian-American community workers to help immigrants get settled and join our society. We especially need to educate refugees in American customs and enforce our laws to avoid the kind of migrant rape crisis Germany is experiencing.
We’ve done this before. After the Vietnam War, around a million refugees from Southeast Asia passed through refugee camps that gave them a crash course in American customs, job skills and the English language.
There’s a national-security aspect to assimilation, too. No amount of security vetting, much less a ban on Muslims, will stop the occasional terrorist – any more than the Ellis Island screening prevented an anarchist from assassinating President McKinley. Assimilating refugees rapidly will reduce the appeal of ISIS, and establishing strong community connections will make it easier to root out the inevitable terrorists.
Deciding which immigrants to admit is only the first step. We also need a broader process to smooth the transition from immigrant to hyphenated American.
So far, I’m not seeing thoughtful solutions from either party. The Democrats still favor open borders to bring in new Democrats, and I’m not voting for Trump unless he promises to deport Justin Bieber.
Where’s Ellis Island when we need it?
The immigration issue in this year’s presidential campaign boils down to two extremes: “Build a wall” and “let everybody in.” I keep thinking of the Casey Stengel quote: Can’t anybody here play this game?
The United States used to be good at the immigration game. For most of our history, we had a national consensus that (a) We need immigrants to strengthen our country; and (b) We decide who gets in.
By the time my grandparents arrived from Hungary in the early 1900s, immigrants went through a well-organized screening at places like Ellis Island. Our government was fussy: Only those who were healthy and able to support themselves were allowed into the country. Those who were not admitted (including unaccompanied children) went back across the pond immediately without lawyers or immigration hearings. The feds also tried to screen out Anarchists (that era’s terrorists) with no more success than the Europeans are having in stopping jihadists.
We still need immigrants to avoid the aging-population problems of Europe and Japan. But at a time when a labor surplus and job shortage have depressed wages for unskilled workers, adding millions of mostly unskilled immigrants to the workforce may not be the path to prosperity. We also have forfeited the ability to control who gets into the country and stays here. Whether or not we deport criminals or give my cleaning lady a path to citizenship is irrelevant so long as immigrants continue to cross the border illegally or overstay their visas without consequences.
Some countries manage immigration the way we used to. Canada matches immigrants to workforce needs and gives preference to skilled workers. So Democrats who threaten to emigrate if Donald Trump is elected may not get in. We can do something similar by re-thinking our approach to immigration, regaining control over our borders and setting up some sort of virtual Ellis Island to welcome immigrants who will build the economy.
The immigration issue nobody is talking about is assimilation. European multiculturalism has invited migrants to bring their traditions and cultures with them but has not assimilated them as full-fledged citizens. The result has been multi-generational Muslim ghettos and Sharia-law enclaves that have produced terrorists rather than hyphenated Frenchmen and Belgians.
The United States, by contrast, has been good at assimilating immigrants. Ethnic identity and culture run deep in places like my hometown of Chicago, but the Americanized kids and grandkids of immigrants intermarry with other ethnic groups. Everybody is Irish on St. Patrick’s Day and Mexican on Cinco de Mayo.
So when we bring in refugees from the Middle East – and we should – we need to leverage our national expertise in assimilation. Security screening and delegating resettlement to nonprofit agencies are not enough: We’re seeing ISIS recruiting in a few immigrant enclaves in the U.S. such as Somali communities in Minnesota, and that should be a wake-up call.
Instead of dumping refugees on unwilling communities, the feds need to partner with state and local governments to provide a path to assimilation. That means resources for schools, social services, and a bunch of Syrian-American community workers to help immigrants get settled and join our society. We especially need to educate refugees in American customs and enforce our laws to avoid the kind of migrant rape crisis Germany is experiencing.
We’ve done this before. After the Vietnam War, around a million refugees from Southeast Asia passed through refugee camps that gave them a crash course in American customs, job skills and the English language.
There’s a national-security aspect to assimilation, too. No amount of security vetting, much less a ban on Muslims, will stop the occasional terrorist – any more than the Ellis Island screening prevented an anarchist from assassinating President McKinley. Assimilating refugees rapidly will reduce the appeal of ISIS, and establishing strong community connections will make it easier to root out the inevitable terrorists.
Deciding which immigrants to admit is only the first step. We also need a broader process to smooth the transition from immigrant to hyphenated American.
So far, I’m not seeing thoughtful solutions from either party. The Democrats still favor open borders to bring in new Democrats, and I’m not voting for Trump unless he promises to deport Justin Bieber.
Share this: