Some Thoughts
on the Immigration Issue
2007-08-R6
(Copyrighted
2007
by Don M. Tow)
The immigration issue has always been an important
topic for the
U.S.,
which historically has been essentially a country of immigrants.
From early on in the history of this country,
it has also been an ambivalent issue, ranging from idealism to realism
associated with human behavior and shortcomings.
For example, on the one hand, when the Statue
of Liberty was erected in 1886, it contained the famous
inscription ''give us your tired,
your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
On the other hand, in 1882, four years before
the erection of the Statue of Liberty, the U.S. Congress enacted the first
immigration restrictions, specifically excluding "paupers, ex-convicts,
mental defectives and Chinese."
Because the immigration issue has significant
impacts on so many aspects of life in the U.S.,
ranging from the economy to taxes to national security, I
would like to
discuss some of my thoughts on this issue.
Before discussing some of the specific issues on
immigration, first I want to state three general principles that I use to
guide the discussion of these issues.
These
principles are:
-
Immigration can be beneficial to both the immigrants and the host
country
-
A
country has the right to impose immigration restrictions
-
Immigration restrictions should be fair, and not favor selected
racial/ethnic groups or biased against selected racial/ethnic groups
The
U.S.
is a country of immigrants.
Aside from the Native Americans, all Americans
are immigrants or descendants of immigrants.
If it weren’t for the continuous inflow of
immigrants, the U.S.
would not have become such a rich and powerful country.
By allowing many foreign students to be able to
continue to work in this country and convert their foreign student visas
into permanent residency, the U.S. is taking the cream of the crop from
foreign countries while not needing to invest the large amount of resources
needed to raise these high-potential students from the time they were born
to the time they graduated from high schools or colleges.
Similarly, by giving higher immigration
priorities to technical and business professionals who have already
established their credentials as bona fide contributors to society, the
U.S.
is again taking the cream of the crop and taking advantage of the resources
already spent by the foreign countries to groom these contributors to
society.
Taking the cream of the crop from foreign countries is
especially important, as world competition and the U.S.’s
ever-increasing standard-of-living continue to rise.
The
U.S.
must then move up the economic food chain by focusing more on work
activities that require more specialized skills and more creativity and
originality.
The more manual-intensive or routine
manufacturing work activities will be taken up more by those countries with
a lower cost-of-living and therefore cheaper labor.
It is therefore not a coincident that the
richest and most powerful country in the world is the country that has
accepted more legal immigrants as permanent residents than the rest of the
world combined.
However, as the competitive playing fields
between industrial and emerging market countries have been leveled (as
described in Thomas L. Friedman’s book
The World Is Flat: A
Brief History of the Twenty-first Century),
the desire
to come to the U.S. to study and to work has,
relatively speaking, decreased.
For example, as Taiwan’s standard-of-living
continues to rise and more high-end technical and business jobs become
available in Taiwan, the number of college graduates from Taiwan coming to
the U.S. to attend graduate school and then to continue to work permanently
in the U.S. has decreased significantly during the last 10-15 years.
At the opposite end of the work spectrum, there is
also another advantage to the U.S. to allow people to come to this country
to work, as permanent residents, or as temporary workers, or even as illegal
aliens. There
are a lot of manual-intensive and low-paying jobs, e.g., jobs of seasonal
farm workers in California,
which may not be attractive enough to get enough Americans to fill those
jobs.
Explicitly or implicitly allowing foreigners
(including illegal aliens) to work on these low-paying jobs helps to keep
the American economy moving and also helps to control inflation.
When the American economy is booming, the issue
of temporary workers and illegal aliens may not be a significant issue.
However, when the American economy is
experiencing stagnation or recession, the issue of temporary workers and
illegal aliens can become very significant.
As a matter of fact, most of the controversy
with respect to the immigration issue revolves around the illegal aliens,
including the social services
provided to family members of illegal aliens.
From the above, we can conclude that in general,
immigration can be good for both the immigrants and the host country, i.e.,
it can be a win-win situation.
On the other hand, the host country should also
have the right to restrict immigration, especially when the circumstances
are no longer a win-win situation.
For example, depending on the economy, the host
country should be able to reduce the number of immigrants allowed into the
country.
The host country should be able to forbid certain
people to migrate to this country if there is creditable evidence that these
people may pose security threats to the host country.
More importantly, the taxpayers of the host
country should not be obligated to provide free education and medical
benefits to illegal aliens or their children, especially if they have not
been paying their share of the taxes.
According to the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States),
the
U.S.
currently has approximately 7.5M illegal aliens (or 12M when including their
households), and another 700K-850K more predicted for each coming year.
As this continues, if free education and
medical benefits are provided to illegal aliens and their children, the
burden on the
U.S.
taxpayers could be significant, especially with an increasingly aging
population with more retired senior citizens with fixed income and less
working young adults.
This is of course a difficult and complex
issue, because there is also a humanitarian aspect to the issue:
Why should the children of illegal aliens be
penalized for the actions of their parents while these children are living
in the
U.S.?
It also seems to be common sense that there should be
good communications among the various federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies with respect to crimes and potential violations of
immigration laws.
When a crime has been committed, and a local or
state law enforcement agency has a suspect in custody who is or might be an
illegal alien, you would expect that local or state law enforcement agency
would contact the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) agency to look into that.
Not only that this is not routinely done, many
local and state enforcement agencies have instructed their agents not to
contact ICE.
As a matter of fact, according to Wikipedia,
many cities, including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago,
San Francisco, San Diego, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Detroit,
Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland,
Oregon, and Portland, Maine, have
adopted “sanctuary” ordinances banning police from asking people about their
immigration status.
This, perhaps, may be partially due to a
concern for racial profiling.
Although a host country should have the right to
impose immigration restrictions for the benefits of its citizens, these
immigration restrictions should be fair.
They should not favor selected racial/ethnic
groups or biased against selected racial/ethnic groups.
Unfortunately, that has not been the case
historically with immigration restrictions passed in the U.S.
Earlier, we have already mentioned that the
first immigration restriction law passed by U.S. Congress in 1882 explicitly
excluded "paupers,
ex-convicts, mental defectives and Chinese."
We may be abhorred at such blatant racial
discrimination, but such blatant racial discriminations had occurred
repeatedly, so that American immigration policy had for many years strongly
favored immigration from Western Europe over immigration from
Asia.
It was not until Congress passed the
Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (the Hart-Cellar Act)
that the U.S.
abolished the national-origin quotas.
From then on, immigration preferences were
given to relatives of legal residents of the U.S.,
instead of giving preference to immigration applicants from certain
countries.
Having the right immigration policy
is important for the progress of a country.
It could be a win-win situation for both the
immigrants and the host country.
The U.S.
has benefited greatly from a large number of immigrants, often picking the
cream of the crop without needing to spend the resources to nurture these
high potential people in their early years.
Nevertheless, the
U.S.
should also have the right to impose restrictions on immigration, especially
when circumstances do not result in a win-win situation.
The amount and kinds of restrictions could vary
with time and circumstances.
However, to be consistent with the lofty
objectives of the great country that is the
U.S.,
these immigration restrictions should be fair, and should not discriminate
against selected racial/ethnic groups.
The immigration issue is a complex
and difficult issue.
I certainly do not claim that I have a solution
to the issue.
In my opinion, a comprehensive solution should
have the following characteristics:
-
In general, it should
benefit both the immigrants and the host country (the host country as a
whole, and not just a small number of interest groups)
-
It should allow the
host country the right to restrict immigrations, and the restrictions could
vary with circumstances, but must be fair and not discriminatory against
certain racial or ethnic groups
-
It
should provide effective security at the border and adequate enforcement of
immigration laws within the border.
It should require adequate and effective
communications among various federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies
-
It should contain a
well-defined guest workers program, including specifying the taxes they need
to pay and the social benefits that they are entitled to (and also their
family members if they are legally allowed to live in the host country)
-
It should not require
the host country’s taxpayers to pay for the education and medical benefits
of illegal aliens and their household members
-
It should not provide
blanket amnesty to illegal aliens, or reward illegal aliens over applicants
of legal residency
-
To some extent, it
should also take into consideration humanitarianism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments (or questions) from
readers are welcome.
Please specify whether you want to share your comments with only the author
of this website or with the other readers. If it is the latter, your
comments will be posted in the appropriate "Comments" page.
Please send them via an email to
[email protected].