I’ve mentioned before that I rarely read articles in the National Review. They’re generally just too much for me. However, in the light of my post of yesterday I found the title of Jason Lee Steorts’s piece, “What Is Our Responsibility for the Undocumented Population?” suggested it was probably relevant to it so I checked it out. Imagine my delight to find that his position, as reflected in the following paragraph, approximates my own:
I think that immigrants to the United States should learn English for their own good and for the sake of social cohesion, and that we should be patient and helpful while they do so. I think that illegal immigration is undesirable and to be prevented, through means that do not destroy the lives of the peaceable illegal immigrants we have already allowed to settle here. I think that practical indifference to illegal immigration, often motivated by the best of intentions, has created a huge limbo population that is highly vulnerable to populist predations and partisan manipulation. I think that assimilation — defined in terms of assent to the Declaration of Independence rather than adoption of cultural contingencies — is necessary and good. I think that our immigration priorities should be broadly “merit-based,†in part to help ensure that those who come can lead dignified lives; but I also think that not all skills are designable with credentials, that the willingness to immigrate to a skilled, prosperous country is itself the manifestation of a skill of character, and that what looks to us winners of the birth lottery like an undignified life might be vastly preferable to penury and disease and unpredictable, unavoidable, unimaginable crime in a developing country. I think it is often better for refugees to resettle in countries similar to the one they fled, provided they are safe there, but that this is not an excuse to refuse giving whatever help we uniquely can; and if you say that it’s unfair to help some people if we can’t help all of them, I’ll have to quote the story about the starfishes on the beach at you.
He characterizes the italicized portions as “anathema” to many of the right. For all I know that may be the case.
I said “approximates” which means that the views are not identical to my own. I would add the following observations:
- I think that the slow growth or actual decline in wages among those without high school educations suggests that the United States does not, in fact, have a great or rising demand for workers without educations, particularly those who cannot speak English.
- I think that a large number of immigrants from a single country is itself an impediment to assimilation.
- I think that very few of today’s immigrants “assent to the Declaration of Independence” and most are just looking for a raise. A small number are looking for a handout or prey.
- Failing to take affirmative steps to learn English suggests a lack of commitment if not a lack of assent and is likely to consign those who make that choice to permanent status as second class citizens.
- I think that consigning a large percentage of the population to a status as second class citizens is not an act of virtue.
- I think that we have a much, much greater obligation to native-born blacks, the descendants of slaves, than we do to illegal immigrants and whatever obligation we have to illegal immigrants we are unable or unwilling to honor both obligations.
Finally, the “one size fits all” approach to immigration we presently apply is particularly unsuited to the United States. We actually should have two immigration policies: one for Mexico and one for all other countries of origin. We should have a guest worker program that allows substantially more Mexicans to work here than is presently the case.
I should note that I wouldn’t be concerned about immigration at all if we were presently managing immigration. We aren’t so I am.
I agree with all of the above, though I would not have a special policy towards a given nationality unless it falls under foreign policy / national security concerns. I think one of the lessons to be drawn by the Durbin-Trump debacle is that proposing special treatment for a nationality opens up some of the worst aspects of domestic politics.
Simply expanding and reforming farm visas would probably mean more Mexican workers simply because of proximity. But I tend to think that farm labor shortages mostly stem from attempts to compete with third-world agricultural prices by replicating third-world wages and labor protections.
The United States is the only country in the world that shares a 1,500 mile land border with a country with a per capita income less than a quarter of its own. The unique pull forces and the proximity provide a special circumstance that requires special consideration.
I found his piece to be a combination of noble aspirations and Norman Rockwellesque worldview. Who among us wouldn’t agree with that portrayal.
But then you bring some sober reality in your dot points, which almost destroys the foundations of his essay. We can all be politicians and announce we are unequivocally for good things, and steadfast against bad things. Actions are harder.
It ought to be a sufficient argument that sovereign nations can determine who they let in, and that it must be done legally. As a practical matter, the propaganda labeled Dreamers probably should be let stay as noted yesterday. But after that, its hard, at least for me, to make a strident argument for anything other than greatly reduced and legal immigration. A pause, if you will.
The Democrats, preening for the cameras while hoping for votes, will make their tired old arguments. But every poll, such as they are, that I have seen indicates Americans are ready for a pause to figure things out. I think Chuck and his minions have a tough hill to climb.
A substantial portion of his primary audience thinks that all illegal immigrants, regardless of age or circumstances, should be hunted down and deported. I’m not so sure they’d draw the line at illegals.
He highlights some portions of that paragraph because they’re controversial for his primary audience.
Just as a side note I suspect that there are many, many more illegal immigrants in the country than the official estimates would suggest.
You’re right: We don’t have a functional immigration system.
If we had a system that functioned like say, Canada’s, where the people have a reasonable expectation that an immigrant would be a net positive for economic growth, then I’d say we should let in as many immigrants as possible – if nothing else, it’d leave MORE money for other priories (like a strong social safety net).
The problem is that enough of the population is now “anti-immigrant,” even if they wouldn’t be competing with higher-skilled immigrants that such a system would let in, AND it ignores the difficult problem of what we do when ~4% of our country’s total population isn’t here legally. Kicking them out ranges from impractical and economically disruptive (they’re not here doing NOTHING) to cruel (as in the case of the Dreamers).
In fairness it’s easier for Canada to have a functional system than it is for us. Canada is 1,000 miles from the nearest country with a substantially lower median income. We act as a buffer for Canada. Plus their population is much smaller and they’re socially more cohesive.
Still, you play the hand you’re dealt. We’re playing our hand very poorly at this point.
I don’t think that’s true, Dave.