What Do I Think We Should Do About Immigration?

It occurs to me that I’ve written a lot about immigration without repeating often enough what I think we should do. I’ll remedy that. I think we should keep the total percentage of immigrants in the United States below 15% for reasons of social stability. I think we should make English the official language of the United States. I think that we should be accepting fewer immigrants only capable of taking low-wage jobs than we are presently. Our present population with whom they compete for those jobs just doesn’t need the competition.

I also think that we should greatly increase the number of work visas for which Mexicans are eligible. I think that we should continue to accept refugees and asylum-seekers, carefully and in limited numbers but we should limit refugees and asylum-seekers to actual refugees and asylum-seekers, both of which under present law require more stringent requirements than “things are bad at home”.

I think the Congress should act to further limit birthright citizenship. For example, “obstetric tourism” is an obvious abuse. Perhaps we should adopt rules more like those of most other countries in which at least one parent must be an American citizen. But those are for Congress to decide.

Those objectives would mean changing present law pretty substantially. We’d need to eliminate sponsorship and diversity quotas. We’d need to monitor travel and education visas much more closely than at present. And we’d need to enforce our laws more aggressively than at present.

I think that employer-level enforcement would be more effective than Trump’s wall.

10 comments… add one
  • Andy

    I agree with all of that except making English the official language. I don’t see any purpose for changing English from the de facto official language to the de jure official language. In other words, I don’t see what practical problem this change would solve.

    I’m skeptical of limitations on birthright citizenship without a lot of forethought and national debate. As I noted in a previous comment, the details can get complicated quickly as you add conditions for exclusion. Citizenship criteria should be clear and simple, not subject to the vagarities of Federal rulemaking.

    I don’t know how big of a problem “obstetric tourism” is – I’m pretty well read but I don’t hear anything about it. I’m skeptical of making potentially major changes to core Constitutional issues to fix relatively minor problems. I think the risk is too great.

    Other than those two issues, I agree with your list.

  • We don’t have a lot of factors that unite us. The English language is one of them.

    But the percentage of households in which a language other than English is spoken at home is rising rapidly and there’s a correlation between limited English on the part of parents and children’s difficulty in adopting English.

    Incentives matter. I want a flatter, more equal society and that means common adoption of the English language. Sam Hayakawa’s speech on English is a pretty good explanation.

  • Andy

    I understand that part of it, but I don’t see how making English the official language will have a positive, practical effect.

    In other words, I don’t see how such a law would actually increase English use at home or make society flatter and more equal, especially after factoring in the likely reaction against such a law (ie. people will refuse to speak English out of spite, states and localities who are against it will try to undermine it, etc.).

    Of course, much would depend on the details, particularly the level of coercion in any proposed law.

  • Gray Shambler

    I think that if you slow down the rate of immigration, and stop illegal entry, the language thing would take care of itself over time.

    Also, it’s always bothered me that Catholic social services sponsors and enables many thousand of immigrants under the disguise of charity and human kindness, when the main goal may only be recruitment and financial gain.

  • I think that if you slow down the rate of immigration, and stop illegal entry, the language thing would take care of itself over time.

    If we could slow down the rate of immigration, I’d agree. I think we’re likely to have 10-15% immigrant population for the foreseeable future. If that’s the case I think that the number of distinct linguistic enclaves is likely to increase and that’s a formula for a stratified society.

  • Gray Shambler

    High immigration rates are not politically sustainable. It’s a hot button topic that motivates voters and the main reason for Trump’s election, for Brexit, and Mercal’s near-demise. The Democratic party has all their money riding on a browning out the electorate strategy that can be perceived as anti-white. Even though most elected Democrat leaders are old and White themselves. Miscalculation comes in because minorities vote at much lower rates than Whites even if they tend to vote blue.

  • Jimbino

    The most offensive thing about our immigration policy is the blatant favoritism its “family reunification” shows to marriage and breeding. This is a form of nepotism that is discouraged by all our EEOC laws that favor merit over marital and family status in housing, employment a public accommodations. Imagine if you had to compete for an apartment or job where brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles and children of tenants were given preference. We will see how Harvard fares with its “legacy” admission preferences.

    Absent an immigration policy that favored pure merit, as those of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (pretend to) do, it would be fairer than what we now have to allow the non-married and non-breeders to have a distinct voice in choosing what aspiring immigrants are granted privileges.

    Our immigration policy, as it is now, clearly punishes Amerikans who are single and child-free, as shown by the fact that it’s often as hard as hell for a single foreigner, even your serious friend or romantic interest, to gain a tourist visa for a visit.

    And what personal stake can all the single and child-free Amerikans have in welcoming all those married couples with numerous children into the USSA?

  • Gray Shambler

    Our diversity makes us stronger. If you want a leg up, change your race, gender, or sexual identity. If that sounds snarky, you haven’t been paying attention lately.

  • steve

    GS- What are UE rates for minorities vs other races?

    Steve

  • Gray Shambler

    You want to rephrase that don’t you? Unemployment rates for minorities vs other races? Minorities such as whom? Japanese? South African immigrants? Vietnamese? Laotian?
    And who are the “other races” you pretend are not majorities? Blacks in DC? Cubans in Miami? Mexicans in Texas?
    The old anti caucasian paradigms don’t hold up. There are simply too many hopelessly poor, unemployed, uneducated, handicapped, elderly, drug addicted, and otherwise infirm Caucasian-Americans in this country to hold them up as the cause of other groups problems anymore. The blame game doesn’t hold up. This is still America, and you can pull yourself up, not by crying, but by trying.
    I recently found out my wife’s father was not born an American citizen. Although his ancestors may have lived here for 18,000 years, he didn’t gain citizenship until 1928. And the caravan says “immigrants have rights too” Well, sure, you have the right to try, to storm the gates, to tunnel under the wall, smuggle drugs, smuggle people, enslave and pimp Central American girls. But that’s all why we have laws, and the laws must be enforced.
    Or maybe I missed the point, I haven’t kept up on U.E. rates for Transgenders.

Leave a Comment