Immigration: some perspective

I want to post what I think are a series of factual statements about immigration and the United States. I will support those statements with opinion, but the statements themselves I believe are factual, or follow logically from previous statements.

I want to be clear at the outset that I support efforts to control and manage immigration -- I am not an "open borders" advocate.

But I think our immigration policy needs to be rational, reasonable, humane and in keeping with American traditions and values -- and our current practices are not.

I would be interested to hear where in this series of statements people disagree.

#1: America is a nation built by immigrants.
This should be a no-brainer. It is who we are. American complaining about immigrants is the most ironic thing I've seen in a long time.

And it wasn't just wealthy or skilled immigrants, either. It was everyone. Proving that you can build the richest, most powerful country in the world out of other people's castoffs. Which suggests that nobody is really a "castoff".

#2, America is the richest, most powerful nation on the planet.
Again, this should be a no-brainer. It should ALSO mean that if anyone can afford to welcome and absorb immigrants and refugees, it's us. We should be accepting immigrants and refugees in proportion to our wealth and population, and be confident in the knowledge that they make our country STRONGER in the long run, not weaker. America should be a leader in this area, not the pathetic follower we are.

#3, America is generous, humane and confident. American is NOT tribal, scared or racist. We are a beacon for freedom, democracy and human rights around the globe.
These values are what should inform our actions.

#4, for most of this country's history, there was no such thing as an "illegal alien."
Up until 1924, restrictions on immigration were the exception, not the rule. We essentially had completely open borders. Bans tended to be racist one-offs, like the ban on Chinese immigration in the late 1800s, and a 1917 law that excluded immigration from nearly all of Asia.

In 1924, another racist-inspired law established a system of visas and quotas for various regions and countries, with the goal of restricting immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe -- the "undesirables" of the day. That's essentially the system we use today, just with different countries viewed as "undesirable".

I'll leave you with two takeaways from this:
-- The idea of "illegal immigration" is a relatively recent concept, and one with a very racist history behind it. Keep that in mind when deciding how much we should demonize illegal immigrants.
-- Most of us should be very glad that our current immigration system wasn't in place when OUR ancestors came over, because if it had been, most of us wouldn't be here.

#5, most of us would be illegal immigrants if we were in their shoes.
You live in a poor country, surrounded by corruption, weak or non-existent democracy, and gang violence that threatens you and your family. You would do ANYTHING you could to secure a safer, better future for your children. Even if that includes leaving everything you've ever known and undertaking a dangerous thousand-mile journey to a new country where your reception will likely be hostile. They are not criminals: they are people in no-win circumstances, trying to find a way out.

#6, illegal immigrants demonstrate the personal qualities that have built America.
It takes guts and hard work to embark on a massive life change like that. That kind of gumption and willingness to take risks is exactly WHY America is the most powerful country on the planet -- we've always attracted the people willing to leave behind everything they knew, start over in a new and alien place, and work hard to improve their lot in life. That does not mean we should just let them in -- again, I'm not an open borders advocate. But it should inform how we view and treat them.

#7, we rely on immigration to keep our population young and growing.
We admit 1 million legal immigrants a year. That may sound like a lot, but we're a country of 327 million, so that represents just 0.3% of our population.

Our population growth is very small: just 0.6% a year:
https://time.com/5485023/census-us-population-growth-2018/

So we RELY on immigration to keep our population barely growing.

Further, immigrants are generally far younger than our median age, so immigration is what will let us avoid the aging crisis faced by countries like Japan.

#8, our barriers to legal immigration are embarrassingly high.
If there were reasonable legal avenues for would-be immigrants, then we would be justified in telling illegal immigrants to "wait your turn."

But there aren't.

We have cut refugee admissions from a pathetic 110,000 a year under Obama to an embarrassing 30,000 under Trump. These aren't economic migrants; these are people fleeing war and repression.

As far as regular legal immigration, the backlog is unworkable.

Because we do visa restrictions by country, some would-be immigrants (notably, those from India) have to wait up to 10 YEARS to apply for a green card.

According to the Cato Institute, there are currently 675,000 would-be immigrants who will likely die before they get a legal slot:
https://www.cato.org/publications/p...tas-have-doubled-green-card-backlogs-are-long

That article notes that those 675,000 represent 14 percent of the current backlog, meaning the total backlog is 4.8 million people, and growing. That's a FIVE YEAR backlog, and it's only getting worse.

So for a lot of people, standing in line for legal immigration simply isn't a viable option. Now put yourself in a would-be immigrant's shoes. What would you do? Shrug and give up? Of course not. You would do whatever you had to in order to secure a safe and better future for your kids.

#9, bullying poor countries into accepting would-be asylum seekers is disgusting.
So now we're starting to shade into opinion statements, but ones I feel are logically supported by what has gone before.

People who advocate harsh measures against illegal immigrants often claim they are an economic threat, and that dealing with them is an intolerable expense. If that's true for us, the richest country on the planet, how much more of a problem are they to the poor countries we're bullying into holding them for us? It's pathetic and small, not to mention unjust. We are better than that.

#10, we don't address the root causes of illegal immigration.
Again, more opinion, but it seems obvious: if you want to cut down on illegal immigration, it helps to address the reasons they are fleeing their home countries in the first place. Most people would not choose to leave their homes, families and friends if they didn't have to. Things have to be pretty intolerable for that to happen.

For a fraction of the cost of barriers and border enforcement, we could help countries like Honduras deal with their economic and gang problems, giving people reasons to stay home. That's not charity; it's self-defense. And it's self-defense that serves to reduce human misery, not increase it.

WHAT IT ALL MEANS
Here's what I think we need to do:

#1: Expand legal immigration.
The details would need to be worked out based on data, but if we doubled the legal immigration cap to 2 million a year, we could eliminate the backlog in a few years and give people a reasonable shot at coming here legally, thus making it rational to "wait your turn".

#2: Increase our refugee cap.
This is basic humanity. People seeking asylum have, IMO, the strongest claim to being admitted, as long as they can demonstrate why they need asylum, so having an arbitrarily low cap is deeply inhumane. We can help more refugees without raising the overall immigration cap: we can just let refugees make up a slightly larger percentage of the overall immigration flow.

#3, address root causes.
See above.

#4, treat illegal immigrants humanely.
Whatever we do, we should treat illegal immigrants in accordance with American values: meaning we treat them humanely, fairly and with dignity. We understand that they are people seeking safety or a better life, not some invading army to be treated like the enemy.

-- Stop demonizing them.
-- No more family separations.
-- Focus incarceration and deportation efforts on the least-desirable illegals, notably those with meaningful criminal records. Stop arbitrarily deporting random, law-abiding illegals who have done everything we've asked while they await a hearing.

#5, provide the resources to process illegal immigrants in a timely manner.

This means two things:
-- Provide enough immigration judges so hearings occur quickly.
-- Provide enough incarceration facilities to hold people until their hearings.

From a humane point of view, we should only incarcerate people if we have the facilities and supplies to handle them. If we are unable to incarcerate everyone, we should explore other options:

-- The quick deportation process pioneered by Bush and Obama, where we emphasized catching border-crossers and deporting them back across the border, often within hours. This was derided as "catch and release", but it was effective, especially when the program was modified so that the deportation took place hundreds or thousands of miles from the original crossing point.
-- releasing them into the care of family members, with methods to keep tabs on them and ensure they show up for hearings. The vast majority of such people show up for their hearings, and we could use things like ankle bracelets to enforce that if we wanted to.
-- releasing them into the care of non-profits set up for this sort of thing -- groups that help provide housing and food for immigrants awaiting hearings.

Okay, I'm done. Thanks for reading this far.

 

We are a nation of immigrants (my family came from Scandinavia, England, & Germany between 1850 and 1900). We need immigrants not to grow, but just to maintain what we have. Current Americans aren’t having enough babies.

But uncontrolled, illegal immigration from the third world is national suicide.

We need to seal the border. Then we can talk about expanding legal immigration with a merit-based system.

 

I've got a better idea. Let's deport every single person who is in the country illegally and then take a look at our immigration policies. For legal immigration, having been here illegally should disqualify you for legal entry. This problem needs a cut and dry approach, once the deportations are complete we need to strengthen our immigration laws to only include those who can financially support themselves and have valuable skills. We need to have violently expensive fines for employing anyone who manages to sneak into the country. Legal immigration should also be limited to those seeking to assimilate and become a citizen. The vetting process should not cost the prospective immigrant a cent but make them responsible to provide absolute proof of eligibility. Applications for immigration should be made and processed and approved before they leave their home countries, no exceptions. If we had done this long ago we wouldn't have any of the problems we have now. Illegal immigration does nothing for America and pretending that it does, doesn't solve the problem.

 

There are two things about immigration that I wold bet the vast majority of Americans are unaware of: Because of the large number of immigrants from primarily Europe between 1880 and 1920, an immigration ban was established in 1920 that lasted until 1965, in order to allow that extremely large immigrant group to fully assimilate into the U.S. culture. This wasn't too difficult, because Europeans had much in common with Americans. Also, the U.S. Constitution states of both the POTUS and Congress are responsible to prevent 'an alien invasion of the states of the union!' Congress needs to put partisan politics aside and step up to the plate!

 

More and more people are seeing Progressive/Socialist/Communist policy as directly and purposefully being built to damage the American economy.

More and more people see this as a targeted attack to bring down the "system" in order to rebuild their own under a Communist system.

America is waking up to this nonsense and 2020 is going to show just how little respect Progressive have left

The new Gallop poll shows there has been a -7% swing in the number of people who "call themselves Democrats or Republicans"

7% of those that voted last year would be about 7.2 million votes.

Good luck Progs

 

In the late 1800's and early to mid 1900's, we DESPERATELY needed unskilled labor to fuel westward expansion and the burgeoning industrial revolution. For that purpose, the marketing slogan of "give us your poor, huddled masses...." was a perfect way to convey and promote that need. Do not be fooled however, it was never anything more than a marketing slogan to achieve our desired aims.

That time has passed, and that marketing slogan does not still apply. We no longer have a need for additional unskilled labor. In fact, we have far too much of it already. We have become a society of haves and have nots, and the last thing that we as a country need is to import more have nots that will strain our government resources and drive down wages for our current have nots by further devaluing them via an increased supply of unskilled labor.

Our goal should be to maximize the standard of living for our own citizens, NOT to increase the standard of living for the rest of the world at the expense of OUR citizens. The goal of our modern immigration policy should be to bring in those with skills that enhance our economy and create a net positive to our tax base, as opposed to the reverse.

 

So far so good!

As I said, I don’t argue for open borders. But let’s not be dramatic; illegal immigration, as it stands now, is not a threat on the order of “national suicide.” All talk like that does is make it hard to actually address the problem.

Even if it were possible to “seal the border” — and it’s not — that approach makes no sense. The two issues are correlated, so it only makes sense to solve them together. It certainly makes no sense to refuse to talk about one unless the other is achieved first.

 

America also has more poverty than any other developed country in the world, and that probably goes a little bit hand in hand with it also having more diversity than any other developed country in the world.

People seem to want to keep comparing America with other developed countries in the world and draw comparisons, but the reality is, in many ways, America is more like a Third World country existing side by side with a First World country.
That view can explain a lot of things and seeming paradoxes when it comes to social statistics and economic indicators.

 

How is that a better idea? We have neither the resources nor the ability to locate and deport 11 million people. And again, it makes no sense to insist on doing so before taking a look at our immigration policies, because the two are simply different facets of the same problem.

For me, that depends, If our current immigration system is broken, and I think it is, then we shouldn’t penalize people who feel they have no choice but to try something else. Again, you would do the same in their shoes. So maybe send them to the back of the line, but not bar them entirely.

Why? History has shown that even the “huddled masses” turn out to be a net benefit to the country. America was BUILT by people who were not succeeding in their home country, and so came here seeking opportunity and a better life. There is no reason to think that has changed.

Why?

[quote[Legal immigration should also be limited to those seeking to assimilate and become a citizen. [/quote]

Not sure what you mean by this. Please explain.

What does this even mean?

I feel like you didn’t even read my OP. The above is simply not feasible in many cases, under our current broken system.

Again, not sure what problems you’re referring to here. Please elaborate.

Yep, you clearly didn’t read the OP.

 

Er, please quote the part of the Constitution that says that....

 

Off-topic paranoid rant noted, I guess.

 

The descendants of those “unskilled” laborers are the citizens of today, making up the richest and most powerful nation on the planet.

You measure the value of immigrants on a generational time scale. On those terms, Even “unskilled” immigrants are a net plus.

In large part because such immigrants are self-selected for guts, moxie and work ethic, which is more important than whatever specific skills they have at the time of admission.

Never said otherwise.

We attract a fair share of the best and brightest. But I think you are being myopic, and need to take a longer view. In the long run, immigrants of all sorts are a net plus. And that means we have a win-win: by increasing legal immigration, we strengthen our country while making it easier to fight illegal immigration.

 

Isn’t it more obviously related to us having the stingiest social safety net in the developed world?

And one of the least-regulated economies and a political system dominated by money, thus explaining why we have the highest level of wealth inequality in the developed world?

 

Sure, I'll take it on.

False. America was built by people born and bred in the United States. Immigrants contributed, of course, but 90% of the heavy lifting was done by people born in this country. Of the founding fathers, only one, Alexander Hamilton, was born in a foreign country. The same can be said for most of the rest of our major historical figures.

The US takes in more immigrants every year than every other nation on earth combined. Only when Europe was being flooded with Muslims during the earlier part of this decade was that not true, and it's been true now since the early 1970s. We need to put a stop to it, not make it worse. Immigrants are ripping this country apart, not making it stronger.

We cannot continue to be a beacon for freedom, democracy, and human rights by taking in 50 million immigrants who do not share our values of freedom, democracy, and human rights. Socialism is now favored by 40% of young people, and not a coincidence, 40% of our young people are Hispanic and black.

Selective history. For about half of this nation's history, we've had tightly controlled immigration, and things haven't gotten bad until those years when immigration was out of control, first during the late 1890s and early 1900s until the 1924 law closed the border, and then again now since the 1965 law throwing open the border to Hispanics.

Not our problem. If you want to fix things for those people, fix their countries, don't have them come here.

Breaking the law is not an American value. If they want to come here, they need to apply to come here legally like millions of others did before them.

50 million of those are now immigrants. That's 15.3% of the population. And most of those we're admitting are at the low end of the IQ scale and end up taking more in welfare and government services than they contribute in taxes. They are making us poorer, not richer.

We can already see what the long-run effect is like from European countries, and the outlook is poor. Instead of contributing, those millions of immigrants rely on native paid taxes for survival, and when they get old, they have no retirement, so they are reliant on Social Security. Poor immigrants make the aging crisis worse, not better.

Again, not our problem. Something like half of the world's 7.5 billion population would like to come here. We simply can't take them.

The idea is to make it less desirable to risk the trip. If trying to come here illegally through a third country means you're going to be stuck in that third country, maybe, just maybe, you'll think twice about it.

Most of those countries reject American advice and assistance. And too often American help is based on false notions of economics, like when Democrats are in office. Or tied with strings they don't want to agree to, like liberal social policies.

Jesus H. Christ, we're trying to reduce immigration, not make it worse.

Most of the people currently applying for refugee status don't actually qualify because they aren't in any actual political danger back home. We don't need to increase our refugee cap.

About the only thing I agree with, but foreign governments are notoriously resistant to American "advice".

They are an invading army and need to be treated as such.

You're mischaracterizing "catch and release". Catch and release wasn't deportations, it was allowing illegals to stay here without being in custody while their claims were being processed. Nine times out of ten, they disappeared, never to be found again, so they couldn't be deported. Trump ended the policy, which is why we have so many more people in detention now.

 

Cant reply at length on mobile, butnid love to discuss in detail when a keyboard is available.

Overall some very good points. But without getting into it in total I think one thing we forget is that our system is fairly well managed and it is designed to be humane, but the overwhelming numbers of illegal Crossings and legal appearances along with the insane numbers already here make it appear to be mismanaged and inhumane.

 

False. Hispanics have now formed a second underclass in the United States next to blacks, and will remain a second underclass for the foreseeable future. And this is why:

No it doesn't. The social safety net does not and will not ever reduce poverty. Poverty among men is overwhelmingly the result of low IQ and/or addiction and mental health issues. Poverty among women is overwhelmingly the result of low IQ and/or having children out of wedlock.

We have one of the most regulated economies now thanks to the reams and reams of federal regulations. We came in at #12 in the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. And our "wealth inequality" is almost entirely created by the millions of immigrants who come here and work for less than minimum wage. If we shut off the flow of immigrants, the income levels of the poorest Americans would shoot up rapidly as businesses were forced actually hire Americans to do the work.

 

Obviously you are here to promote immigration, and I think most any and all kinds. Immigration is not a right, it is a privilege that we have the right to control and grant- just as you have the right to control entrance into your home, or a seat at your table. The reasons for that are both obvious and sound, and are exactly the same reasons as apply to entrance to the nation.

Times change- conditions change. When there are open seats on the bus, you can seat more people. When the bus is full but entrance is uncontrolled- you wind up with a situation like often seen in pictures from India where people are riding on the roofs and hanging on the sides. That does not improve the situation; it worsens it.

At a time when immigrants were needed, America had tens of millions of acres of undeveloped land, and it was in the best interests of the nation to bring people to that land, utilizing it for farming, ranches, building new cities- and producing both goods and tax revenue. Most of those people were proud as well as poor- and hard working, seeking only a way to build a place for themselves. Homesteading however came to an end when the land was all taken and put to use. Today's immigrants can have things to offer- but that doesn't mean all who would come here do. We have been the most generous nation when it comes to immigration, but at this point, we are often seen as a place to take what has been built rather than one to come to and build. I think we have both the right and the duty to be selective in our immigration policies- toward the goal of preserving the best interests of the nation, rather than becoming the "greener side of the fence" for everybody in the world who wants to eat our grass instead of watering their own. Most of the countries that immigrants are coming from have problems that exist and persist because of the people who live in that country. Those people could change that, build their nations into better places to live- but that takes a lot more commitment than moving to a place where others have already created it. It takes character. The character of the world's human race has not improved over the last century or two- it has declined substantially, and continues to do so.

Big difference between going to a place where you can build for yourself, and one where you can benefit from the efforts of those who have already done the building.
Immigration must NOT be unrestricted; it must be qualified.
Failing to do so is a sure way to degrade the nation- and an insult to all who have come here properly, worked honestly and contributed to make America what it is.

 

this is not hard

 

Why do we group the illegal immigrants in with the legal immigrants when we speak of those wanting to immigrate here? There is a difference but too many liberals see them as just one group. Like any country we have the right to choose who we want to live among us. If we vet the people we will be more prepared to keep the criminal elements out.

 

Unfortunately- when you give most needy people a fish, they will expect another one tomorrow- and find no reason to learn how to fish, because you are there to feed them; the fact you have done so is the proof that you accept that responsibility. The greatest kindness is to help people learn to help themselves, not be a person dependent on others and unable to have respect for themselves. Sometimes that means doing nothing for them at all- leaving them no alternative but to do for themselves; and watching them discover that they actually can.

 

You DINKY DAU

 

Yes they are who became the citizens of today. When they came, we desperately needed unskilled labor. That time has passed. Unskilled labor is no longer a need, in fact we have far too much of it. What we need are people with skills that are sought in the new technology based economy. The absolute last thing that we need to do in today's climate is to bring in more people that will occupy the lower end of the economic scale which will serve to further drive down wages and exacerbate income inequality.

Our responsibility is NOT to the world's poor, it is to our current citizens. What is best for our current citizens is to bring in immigrants that will help to drive our economy into the 21st century. On the whole, the 21st century economy requires an education in order to succeed.

What is best for our current citizens is that new immigrants maximize the "net" that they bring. I could argue with you the notion that current unskilled immigrants are a net plus and in order to make that claim it simply depends on how you choose to define net plus. However you define it, an educated engineer is going to be a FAR greater plus both immmediately AND generationally, versus an unskilled immigrant, and the calculation is not even close. The children of that engineer are also going to have a far greater chance at success versus the children of the unskilled immigrant. No matter how you choose to make the calculation, a FAR greater plus is achieved with an educated immigrant and their offspring. Our responsibility is to our current citizens, NOT the world's poor. What best serves our current citizens is to bring in people that are going to more effectively propel our economy. Educated immigrants propel our economy to a FAR greater degree that their unskilled/uneducated counterparts. There is nothing there to argue.

As I said above, no matter what variables you choose to measure in order to claim that all immigrants are a net positive, if you use those exact same variables, the positive is FAR greater with educated/skilled immigrants versus unskilled. Our responsibility is to maximize the standard of living of our current citizens, NOT to maximize the standard of living for the world's poor.

 

That also translates into immigrants composing a much larger percentage of the younger demographic than they do as a percentage of the total population as a whole.

As I explained in this thread, take the percentage of immigrants out of the population as a whole and double that, and that is about the percentage of immigrants who make up the total population in the country under the age of 40, the people who are having families.

 

Related thread some might be interested in: White population smaller in newest generation than in older generations