COMMENTARY The principles of immigration
When Thomas Jefferson wrote that we have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” he set an example for the whole world, not just Americans. Likewise, as Americans, we embrace the free market as the universal economic foundation of human progress. A crucial part of that is the freedom of movement and the ability to live where you want, to move to economic opportunity, for example. Additionally, Christianity, like most religions, charges its followers to welcome strangers and help those in need, and immigrants, especially refugees, are clearly in those categories. So in an ideal world, we would have unlimited migration, letting people move to economic opportunity and flee persecution. But to paraphrase Buzz Lightyear, “We’re not in an ideal world, are we?”
Concerns about immigration focus on three areas: undocumented immigrants who work for low wages, competing with low-wage American workers, which both keeps wages low and makes it harder for native-born Americans to find work. Second, H1B visas are issued to skilled workers in fields companies claim they cannot find enough native-born workers to fill; computer programmers from India are one example of this. And finally, an influx of immigrants can overwhelm the native culture, essentially transforming an area into the immigrants’ country of origin. These are not unreasonable fears, but their ill-effects can be mitigated, and the advantages of immigration outweigh the costs.
The biggest problem with undocumented workers is that because they are outside the law, they can easily be exploited (hired for short term work and not paid, e.g.), which makes them much cheaper than legal workers. Providing a way for immigrants to work legally would limit the ability of employers to exploit them, and having a livable minimum wage would mean immigrants could not undercut native-born workers on price. Some employers argue immigrants work harder and are more reliable, but that’s not a bad thing. It just means native-born workers need to step up their game.
Many immigration opponents argue they do not oppose immigrants, just “illegal” immigrants; they are not xenophobic, they just want people to obey the law. Fair enough. But what if the law makes it almost impossible to immigrate legally? Immigrants who don’t fit in special categories from some countries may have to wait decades to immigrate legally (the State Department’s current report shows it is processing applicants from the mid-1990s in four of the five family sponsored categories for immigrants from Mexico). To immigrate to the U.S., generally you must have a relative already living in the U.S. or an employer to sponsor you; the exceptions are officially recognized refugees. So unless you fit one of these categories, you cannot immigrate to the U.S. And since each country has the same maximum number of allowed immigrants, immigrants from countries without many applicants (Norway) can immigrate quickly, while those who come from countries with many people interested in immigrating to this country have long waits (Mexico, India, the Philippines). The “diversity lottery” derided by President Trump provides a very small window for people who don’t have family or employers to sponsor them.
How we treat immigrants says a lot about us as a nation. The importance immigrants have played in our history have made America unique; diversity is one of our strengths, and the reason we have a more dynamic economy than most. We should not let fear encourage us to betray our principles; we must develop a system that makes well-regulated legal immigration possible and provides a path to citizenship for those who are already here, so they can come out of the shadows. Efforts focused on deportation and barriers to entry may seem necessary, but will ultimately prove costly and create more problems than they solve.
Many people argue that life in America is good, and we don’t want to ruin it by bringing in a bunch of people, so we should be very picky about who we allow in. Essentially, that is running America like an exclusive club; it’s not unreasonable, but it’s not who we are. America is a country that bet on “Joe six-pack,” not the elite. America made tremendous gains when we provided public education for everyone, rather than relying (as most countries did) on an exclusive education available only to the elite. The very concept of a government run by “the people” was the radical, founding principle of our nation. We should not abandon those principles now.
According to George Washington, we are not a country that only caters to the successful, but we provide opportunity for those who aspire to success:
“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights and previleges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” (1783) We need to live up to our principles.
Kent James is an East Washington resident and has degrees in history and policy from Carnegie Mellon University.