Immigration Part 6: Why We Can't (or Won't) Fix Our Broken Immigration Laws

This post is part of my Immigration Series.

In the first part, I introduced the topic.

In the second part, I looked at the (lack of) regulation of Immigration from the founding of our country and the easy path to citizenship for white immigrants.

In the third part, I detailed the racist history of immigration restrictions dating from the Chinese Exclusion Act to the present.

In the fourth part, I looked at the realities of current immigration law, which provides no legal path to entry for the vast majority of those who wish to immigrate.

In the fifth part, I examined the openly racist goals of the Trump Administration.

***

Pretty much everyone on all parts of the political spectrum can agree that our current immigration laws are broken. They are not working. On the one hand, they seem arbitrary and ill suited to the current situation, making legal immigration impossible for many. They also leave groups like the Dreamers in legal limbo, with no good solutions. On the other, the laws are widely ignored in practice, leaving employers able to exploit vulnerable undocumented workers. It is kind of the worst of all worlds. As I noted in previous installments, the current laws essentially incentivize illegal entry - without a legal way in, people come however they can. And employers are all too ready to hire them, wink wink, nod nod.

The question then arises, if everyone agrees the laws are broken and need fixing, why don’t we fix them?

***

I have come to realize over the last couple of years that the reason our nation is so polarized and divided isn’t that we have lost civility in how we disagree about politics. The problem, rather, is that we have disagreements that go far deeper than mere politics.

Mere political differences are essentially about how to accomplish shared goals. We agree on where we want to end up, but disagree about the best path to get there.

In contrast, right now we are divided over what the goals should be. This applies to many issues. To pick just one, reasonable people can and do disagree as to the best way to make sure that people living in the wealthiest country in human history can access health care, food, and education. But right now, the disagreement isn’t about how, but about whether ensuring access is a proper goal at all. One side openly believes that some people should go without health care, food, and education. That isn’t a political difference; that is a moral difference.

Perhaps we can sum this up as follows: a political difference is disagreeing about how to further the common good. A moral difference is disagreeing about whether the common good should be a goal in the first place.

In the context of immigration, the problem is the same. We disagree completely as to what the goal of immigration policy should be. There is no reasonable compromise available, because the competing goals are mutually exclusive. They boil down to “should we be letting people in or not.”

In order to explore this, I am going to use the terms “Left” and “Right.” However, those terms are imperfect. They mostly apply to how American politics sorted itself before the rise of the Tea Party and Fox News. It is how I remember the debates from my childhood, teens, and twenties. These days, of course, immigration policy has sorted itself into a partisan issue. In addition, it is possible to be part of more than one group, particularly if one is not wedded to a particular party or platform.

Anyway, here are the four main groups, when it comes to immigration policy:

#1 Those on the Left opposed to immigration

#2 Those on the Left in favor of immigration

#3 Those on the Right in favor of immigration

#4 Those on the Right opposed to immigration

I will discuss each position in turn, and my view of whether that position embraces the possibility of compromise or reasonable discussion.

***

#1 Those on the Left opposed to immigration

This is an intriguing group, and one that gets some discussion in A Nation of Nations by Tom Gjelten, which I read recently. This is the one kind of opposition to immigration that I find morally defensible. On a related note, it is also the kind of opposition for which compromise and creative solutions are possible.

Here is the basic argument, put forth in various forms over the years. In a nation characterized by racism and discrimination, native-born minorities - particularly African Americans - can be the losers when immigrants come here. Racist employers may chose to hire immigrants (considered more “docile”) rather than African Americans. The challenges of incorporating immigrants can distract and take resources away from the ongoing battle for equality. As I said, these are real issues, where there are genuine competing interests and concerns.

However, this group has shrunk over time, and has become all but non-existent in the last few years. There are good reasons for this. First is kind of obvious: if the problem is racism and discrimination, then the cure is to fight against racist systems. To that end, minorities are more powerful when they cooperate than when they fight with each other. Again, some really great discussion of this in A Nation of Nations.

Another reason this group has shrunk is that it is open to reason and evidence. Thus, as it has become evident that immigrants don’t actually displace African Americans, and that minorities have gained, rather than lost, political power, the reasons for worry have evaporated. You can address rational concerns with rational solutions.

A further reason is that it is possible to address the concerns with reasonable policy. If there were displacements, then there are compensations. Work on the underlying racism, rather than point fingers. For those in this category, fixing the laws means looking beyond immigration to a holistic approach to dismantling racist systems.

In my opinion, these are all reasons why those on the Left have steadily moved toward greater acceptance of immigrants.

#2 Those on the Left in favor of immigration

Again, the Left/Right thing here is imperfect at best. Don’t get hung up on that part too much.

These are the “bleeding hearts.” For them, immigration is a good because it is good for the immigrants. For people who hold this position, merely talking about whether immigration is good for those already here is only seeing half the picture. Compassion and basic human decency require that we find ways of caring for those who are fleeing poverty and violence - or just seeking a better life. Those are basic human rights to those with this view. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I am in this category. And I am in this category because I am a Christian. If “love your neighbor” means anything, it means that you have to take the well-being of others into account in every decision.

Sadly, this is also the position that Conservative Christians - particularly white Evangelicals - are least likely to hold, in my experience.  

For those in this category, fixing our laws means taking the needs of immigrants into account. For those of us in this category, there are some areas where compromise is acceptable - the details of how we process people, how we detect bad actors, how we avoid creating unintended consequences or incentives for bad behavior. But the one thing we cannot compromise on is the underlying idea: human migration is a human right. Regardless of a person’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, everyone has a human right to pursue life, liberty, and a good life. 

 Some of us still believe this.

#3 Those on the Right in favor of immigration

I remember there being a lot of these back in my youth. In fact, during the Clinton years, the Republicans were actually the pro-immigration party. Remember that? Or do you at least remember Ronald Reagan? You know, the guy who supported amnesty for undocumented immigrants who had put down roots....that guy. 

This category overlaps somewhat with #2, but tends to include businessmen and women, employers, and innovators.

For those on the Right, there are two main arguments to be made in favor of immigration. First is a philosophical one rooted in libertarianism: freedom of movement, like other economic freedoms, is a moral and social good. Barriers to trade should be lifted, and people should go where things are best for them. This is kind of the Adam Smith philosophy of movement. It also is at the heart of the European Union idea of a single market. There are four freedoms: the free movement of goods, services, capital, and persons. They all work together.

The second argument is a utilitarian one: immigrants are good for a country. They bring new ideas, motivation (those who immigrate tend to be the risk takers), and diversity to a country. A country that walls itself off ossifies and declines. There is a mountain of evidence to support this, by the way. A quick google search reveals a plethora of articles to that effect from right-leaning (but reputable) media, such as the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Economist, and Business Insider. Heck, even the Koch brothers’ think tank promotes immigration as beneficial. And yes, you can find similar articles on centrist and left leaning reputable sources. The New York Times. The Atlantic. NPR. The list goes on. The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

This shouldn’t be a surprise. People coming to seek a better life where there is more opportunity are a good thing. It is also a sign that your country is attractive. We actually should worry if immigration trends reverse.

A note here: while highly skilled immigrants (such as H1B visas) tend to add an obvious value, “unskilled” workers do too. This too is logical. Anyone who comes here and works hard contributes positively. Period. Wealth is, as Adam Smith pointed out, based on what people contribute. Labor multiplied by productivity is wealth. That’s why what people are paid is a very poor measure of their contribution to society - which is their time, not what employers can get away with paying them.

For those in this category, fixing our laws would mean making it easier for people to immigrate, and easier for businesses to recruit workers from wherever they can. Compromises as to details are possible, and policy is expected to be driven by facts and evidence, not dogma.

Again, this used to be the dominant idea within the GOP, not that long ago. But something changed not that long ago. Which leads me to our final category.

#4 Those on the Right opposed to immigration

This is the group that currently controls our government. I believe the most significant political development of the last couple decades are the rise of the Tea Party and Fox News. The Tea Party was viciously anti-immigrant and openly racist from the beginning - and I say that as someone who was a Republican until five years ago. All it took was listening to the rhetoric, and it would very quickly go to “those people” this and “those people” that. The Tea Party was and is the 21st Century Ku Klux Klan for all intents and purposes.

The second development fed off of and fed the first. Fox News right now is openly racist, xenophobic, and hatemongering. From Bill O’Reilly (now departed, but very anti-immigrant), to Tucker Carlson (who basically spews anti-immigrant propaganda), to Ann Coulter (ditto), Fox is a cesspool of racism and hate. More than any other factor, I blame Fox for poisoning white Evangelicals against their fellow humans.

For people in this category, they are opposed to immigration because it means the “wrong” people coming in. And “wrong” mostly means brown-skinned people. (Immigrants from, say [ahem] Norway would be fine…) They may use code words like “demographics,” “assimilation,” “speak English,” and “culture,” but the core is the same. They do not want people who are different from them coming here.

For what it is worth, the overwhelming majority of those who claim to be “in favor of legal immigration, not illegal immigration,” are lying. All it takes to flush them out is to propose changing our laws to what they were in the mid-1800s. (When my ancestors came over.) That would virtually eliminate illegal immigration, because anyone who wanted to come in could go to an entry point, and get papers. With a few exceptions - one hand is plenty to count them - people will then pivot to some other argument why we shouldn’t have “those kind of people” coming in. Thus revealing the issue isn’t really legality - it’s xenophobia.

For people in this category, the solution - the only acceptable solution - is draconian enforcement to stop the influx of brown-skinned immigrants. Build that wall, they chant. Stopping immigration is the last hope for America, they preach. They defend separating families and traumatizing children - because “those people” should know better than to try to come here. 

 (If you aren't familiar with him, Geert Wilders is a neo-Nazi Dutch politician.

And, also obvious, Steve King is an American neo-Nazi politician.)

This is why there is no reasonable compromise or rational discussion to be had with this category of people. Their hate is by definition irrational. It is driven by the “lizard brain” - the animal part of them which fears “the other.” Because of this, it is no use to cite statistics showing the benefits of immigrants. They don’t care. It is of no use to appeal to their empathy - because they have already decided that people not like them are subhuman. Pictures of crying children in cages do not matter to them, because they want the “vermin” gone. The saddest thing to me is that so many of my supposedly Christian extended family, friends, and acquaintances have been so poisoned by anti-immigrant propaganda that they have actually defended the atrocities of the Trump Administration. (And honestly, the only people who I know who defend Trump on this are white Evangelicals and a few white Catholics and Mormons.)

The reason we can’t have a rational discussion about how to fix our broken immigration laws boils down to this then: for a large group - the one currently in power - the only acceptable solution is the Make America White Again, to stop the Browning of America, to close our borders to the dirty brown-skinned people, and Take Our Country Back. How do you compromise with that? How do you have a discussion that includes facts, evidence, and compassion? You can’t.

Even a few years ago, there were still Republicans (including the late John McCain), who pushed for “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” Whatever you thought of the specific details, the overall idea was good. The problem was that a comprehensive plan ultimately would require loosening restrictions so that more people could have a legal route in. That was unacceptable to the Tea Party, which punished enough of the Reformers by voting them out in favor of more xenophobic candidates. And thus died the best chance of the last 30 years to accomplish meaningful reform. Unless and until there is a change in enough people’s beliefs, we will remain in the current stalemate. That could (conceivably) go either direction. Enough xenophobes, and we build an expensive and ineffective wall, and spend resources brutalizing immigrants. But more likely in the long term is that demographic change will come. The old whites - and they are the most racist, statistically - will die, and be replaced by the young - who are far more likely to have friends who are non-white, immigrants, or LGBTQ. It’s a lot harder to vilify people you have relationships with. The older generation is terrified of change, and are having what I hope is their last racist tantrum. Perhaps we can keep them from doing too much damage to the world my kids will live in. The future isn’t just white, male, and old. It is also female, young, diverse, and cosmopolitan. That genie isn’t going back in the bottle, no matter how hard Le Toupee tries to push it back in.

***

In the next part, I hope to talk a bit about some ways I believe we can fix immigration law.