IMMIGRATION PART II: THE ENDURING PROBLEM OF BEING DESIRABLE

Let’s start with an acknowledgement that sometimes gets lost in discussions about immigration: the US has what much of the world wants. Some call it the “American Dream;” others call it the “Land of Opportunity” or “Milk and Honey.” That’s why people come here.

Consider the opposite problem for a sovereign nation: people trying to escape. (Some governments actually created structures to prevent people from leaving, for example,  the Berlin Wall.) Even today, some autocratic countries create strong disincentives to retain citizens, like not allowing them to take their assets out of the country.

With that in mind, we can start from a position of positivity, understanding that despite the perpetually dissected flaws of this great country, it’s still one of the best places in the world.

US immigration law is complex, and there is much confusion as to how it works. Immigration law in the United States has been built upon the following principles:

1. reunification of families;
2. admission of immigrants with skills that are valuable to the US economy;
3. protecting refugees, and
4. promoting diversity.

The body of law governing current immigration policy is called The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA allows the US to grant up to 675,000 permanent immigrant visas each year across various visa categories. On top of those 675,000 visas, the INA sets no limit on the annual admission of US citizens’ spouses, parents, and children under age 21. Additionally, each year the president is required to consult with congress and set an annual number of refugees to be admitted through the US Refugee Resettlement Process. 

President Biden’s plan, in rough outline:

The US Citizenship Act of 2021 was introduced on February 18, 2021. The bill calls for broad immigration reform based on three key pillars: (1) family reunification; (2) responsible and effective border management; and (3) economic growth and strengthened labor force. Specific reform measures include:  

1. Creating a path to citizenship for “Dreamers,” Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries, and 11 million undocumented individuals currently living in the United States;
2. Extending automatic citizenship to children with at least one US citizen parent, regardless of the biological relationship to that parent;
3. Changes to immigrant visas: The bill tries to balance the economic benefits of increased immigration with concerns for US workers;
4. Changes to nonimmigrant employment-related visas;
5. Increased aid to Central America to address root causes of migration;
6. Changes to Border Policy;
7. Changing the word “alien” to “noncitizen” in immigration laws
8. Embrace diversity. Includes reintroducing the NO BAN Act which prohibits discrimination based on religion and limits presidential authority to issue future ban. Also increases number of Diversity Visas to 80,000 from 55,000.

The previous administration’s policies generated tremendous controversy, and this proposal is likely to do the same. Among the inherent ironies to any policy shift, is the fact that existing laws are enforced inconsistently or sporadically based on each administration’s priorities. This includes individual state policies, which are sometimes in contrast to federal agendas (think sanctuary cities).

The media tends to foster friction. Audiences are captivated by controversy, outrage, and emotional appeal, most of the time packaged as a Right / Left battle. Many times, it’s exactly that; however, many common interests lie beneath the disagreements.  

For example, left-leaning political leaders have been accused of loosening restrictions, wanting more immigrants – including “undocumented,” because it increases the Democratic voting base. But right-leaning political leaders have also been accused of the same desire in the past—just for a different reason: capitalizing on cheap labor.

The debate rages about the net cost/benefit of immigrant populations; do they absorb more than they contribute? Do they put a downward pressure on the cost of labor? Do they bring entrepreneurialism and innovation? Are they contributing to the tax base? Are they willing to take on jobs that Americans aren’t willing to? Do they commit more / less crime than the general population? Do the answers to the above questions break down differently demographically, by country of origin? Should that matter?

And ultimately, do we agree on the priorities upon which our immigration laws are founded:  “1. The reunification of families; 2. admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy; 3. protecting refugees; and 4. promoting diversity?”  If yes, should they be prioritized differently?

Of course, the devil is in the details. For example, what is the definition of “family?” The new proposal “extends automatic citizenship to children with at least one US citizen parent, regardless of the biological relationship to that parent. The new definition of “spouse” would include “permanent partners and allows sponsorship of them by citizens and permanent resident as a qualifying relative for immigration purposes.”

The Right then accuses the Left of twisting definitions to suit their own agenda— increasing immigration. In turn, those that argue for stricter restrictions are accused of xenophobia or outright racism; they are said to selfishly protect what they have, build walls to keep others out all while ignoring their own ancestral roots and migrations.  

It’s hard to debate in good faith if the proponents of opposing arguments on either side are demonized. No, they’re not totalitarian communists nor fascists.

And let’s face it: How much time do any of us devote to deeply understanding the nuances of immigration, or any sociopolitical issue that appears in the headlines, saturating our social media feeds? Understanding that most are designed to be provocative, superficial, and emotional to generate sympathy or outrage, do we spend time researching various sources to assess what is being fed to us? Who has that much time? Yet, to be an informed citizen, isn’t it our responsibility? Or do we choose to simply absorb points of view that align with our own, reinforcing our own bias?

These broader questions extend beyond the confines of immigration and are perhaps the subject of a future essay. But perceptions of immigration controversies are driven by provocations which mostly obscure what’s truly important: We have an incredible country, and people come here from all over the world, to participate in our society, or even cynically, get their piece of the pie. That is a problem of abundance.

I remember when Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The Act’s most significant effect was that it allowed immigrants who had entered the US illegally before Jan. 1, 1982 to apply for legal status, provided they paid fines and back taxes. This provision — which Reagan himself referred to as “amnesty,” allowed roughly 3 million immigrants to secure legal status after paying $185, demonstrating “good moral character” and learning to speak English. This issue is not democratic nor republican. It is American.

I will attempt to answer some of these questions in part three—the last in this series exploring the foundations and challenges of immigration policy. But I will give you one fact to ponder: the U.S. population growth rate has consistently fallen from 1.5% in 1950 to 0.5% in 2021. Fact – countries who have population declines face falling GDP and deflation; legal immigration may be part of a healthy long-term economy. 

Until then, I suspect many of you have answers to some of the questions I’ve asked and would like to share. Perhaps you’re an immigrant yourself, or your parents are. Undoubtedly, you know immigrants and have anecdotes that may add color to the conversation. And of course, going back countless generations, we’re all immigrants who walked from the cradle of Africa to cover the four corners of the Earth. 

Your opinions and perspectives formed by varied experiences will inform and broaden my own. I hope you share them with me. Thanks in advance!