By Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, February 26, 2015
A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Obama’s
executive order that overrode existing immigration law. The result is more
acrimony and chaos.
It is a good time to remember that there are more than
just two types of immigration — legal and illegal. There also exist liberal and
illiberal approaches to immigration.
Take liberal immigration. It is governed by laws passed
by Congress and signed and executed by the president. Nearly all Americans
accept that no individual can pick and choose which federal statute he chooses
to obey, depending on his own perceived self-interest.
Liberal immigration would be entirely legal,
meritocratic, and ethnically blind. Skills and education would matter more than
proximity to the border or political clout.
The numbers of immigrants would be balanced by liberal
considerations: the need for skilled newcomers to avoid dependency on American
society, and concern that their arrival not harm the economic aspirations of
poor working citizens.
Liberal immigration would aim at rapidly integrating and
assimilating immigrants in accordance with further classical-liberal
principles. America is not a multicultural society where appearance is
essential to our characters, but a uniquely multiracial nation bound by common
values where race becomes secondary.
In contrast, illiberal immigration would be the opposite
of the above.
A president by fiat would nullify existing laws and order
federal agencies to ignore them. Or he would issue executive orders contrary to
both his prior promises and to the Constitution.
President Obama did not, as he alleges, override Congress
because it failed to act on immigration. Instead he ignored it because Congress
would not act in a particular fashion that he found ideologically akin to his
own beliefs.
Illiberal immigration would also mean that new arrivals
could ignore the cost, time, and inconvenience of applying for visas. Instead,
they would simply enter the U.S. illegally and not be transparent about their
illegal status.
Illiberal immigration would turn policy away from
ethnically blind considerations to focus on ethnic criteria.
It would assume that the enforcement of federal
immigration law and the making of immigration policy should react to particular
ethnic and political lobbying groups.
Illiberal immigration would not concern itself with the
impact of arrivals on the host country, especially the costs incurred by the
public or the effect on the wages and services of the poor and working classes.
Also, illiberal immigration would seek — both explicitly
by political intent and implicitly by sheer numbers — to undermine easy
assimilation, in hopes of creating bloc constituencies with group concerns
rather than individual concerns.
Illiberal immigration would encourage romance for, not
disappointment with, the country left behind. And it would result in demands
on, rather than gratitude to, the newly adopted country.
The reason why immigration is now a mess is not because
there are no liberal solutions, but because there are so many illiberal
stumbling blocks.
Many Americans are willing to allow some sort of
exemption to the immigrants residing here illegally. Such an exemption would
offer a pathway to permanent legal residency to the majority of immigrants here
illegally if some liberal criteria were first applied.
First, close the border to illegal immigration to prevent
recurrence of these problems. Texas authorities report that 20,000 foreign
nationals have crossed the state’s southern border with Mexico in just the last
two months.
Ensure that those who have committed crimes in the United
States, or who have no history of work but instead only a record of dependency
on entitlements, return to their nations of origin.
Those who have just illegally arrived in cynical
anticipation of amnesty should likewise return home to go through the process
legally.
Make immigration a meritocratic system that does not take
into consideration the particular country of origin or ethnic background of the
would-be immigrant.
What is holding up legislative compromise and what drove
President Obama’s executive order is illiberal opposition to what most
Americans see as a liberal compromise.
The advocates of open borders apparently do not wish an
end to easy entry without regard to the law.
They do not wish to deport foreign nationals who have
broken U.S. laws, or who have no history of productive employment, or who have
just arrived in anticipation of amnesty.
They do not wish to reform legal immigration to a completely
meritocratic system that might not necessarily favor the current preponderance
of arrivals from Latin America and Mexico — and thus might not enhance the
political clout of ethnic operatives.
And they most certainly do not wish to end admission to the
U.S. on the basis of cheap labor. To do that would increase the wages and
bargaining power of working Americans.
The solution to the immigration mess is not to threaten
militancy if a particular political agenda is jeopardized. It is not to slam a
federal judge who demands adherence to the law. And it is certainly not to
scapegoat a generous host for not agreeing to political demands of guests.
The answer instead is simply to act legally — and
liberally.
No comments:
Post a Comment