By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Donald Trump’s immigration agenda is pretty good. Pity
Donald Trump is in charge of it.
As he draws near the end of his first year in office,
President Trump has delivered approximately squat: no Obamacare repeal, no tax
reform, no economic turnaround, no radical reconfiguration of trade relations,
no big check from Enrique Peña Nieto to pay for a border wall. Bupkis. Nada.
Jack. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Diddly. Sporting lint in the way of accomplishments.
But it was immigration that galvanized the Trump
movement, and there is still time for the president to get that right.
Unfortunately, that means there’s still time for him to get it wrong. And with
the headlines of the moment keeping the dancing rage monkeys of radio and cable
news busy mouthing excuses for 32-year-old assistant district attorneys who
hook up with underage girls while Mom is inside the courthouse for a custody hearing — well played,
Republicans! — it is easy to forget that immigration is the one subject upon
which the Trump administration has developed something like a coherent and
substantive policy agenda.
Item No. 1, after the horrifying act of terrorism in New
York City that the nation seems to have almost entirely forgotten in the course
of two weeks, is getting rid of the “diversity lottery.”
The diversity lottery is emblematic of our wrongheaded
thinking about immigration. Here’s the way it works: Countries that have sent
lots of immigrants to the United States (more than 50,000 over five years) are
put on an exclusion list, and the rest of the world gets to enter an immigration
sweepstakes in which first prize is an immigration visa for the United States.
Those are much coveted, because there aren’t a lot of other ways for people who
do not already have family in the United States or highly prized work skills to
immigrate. So, Canadians are out of luck, along with Mexicans, Colombians,
Vietnamese, Indians, and those pesky Englishmen who have for generations been
packed into the squalid Anglo-Saxon ghettos that mar so many of our otherwise
fair cities with their tea and cricket and ironic diffidence.
On the other hand, the Trump administration complains,
the diversity program has been used to bring in 30,000 new permanent residents
from countries that are designated state sponsors of terrorism by our
government. Beyond the State Department’s naughty list, the Trump
administration is skeptical about immigration from the Islamic world in
general, and not without reason. The Islamic State groupie who carried out the
Halloween terror attack in Manhattan was here on one of those diversity visas —
not the lottery we want to win. With all due respect for the glorious cultural
and scientific achievements of Uzbekistan, we can do without that kind of
diversity.
Immigration is one of the few areas where the policy
agenda actually could use a dose of Trump’s “America first” politics, daft and
dim as his application of it often is. Even in a world full of unhappy places,
horrifying governments, refugees, genocides, crimes against humanity, poverty,
oppression, and persecution, the obligation of the government of the United
States of America is to the people of the United States of America, not to the
people of Uzbekistan or Syria or Burma. The United States does more than any
country in the world — in the history of the world — to help the poor and the
oppressed around the world, both through government action and through private
endeavor. But immigration policy isn’t philanthropy, and it isn’t meant to be.
It may be the case that the United States would benefit
from the immigration of a few thousand Indian doctors, South African
entrepreneurs, and highly educated and highly skilled people from around the
world. The Islamic State terrorist who murdered those people in New York was a
trucker and Uber driver. There isn’t a national crisis upon us related to a
dearth of truckers, and no one expects one.
Beyond the diversity lottery, the Trump administration
wants to limit or eliminate “chain migration,” the process by which new
immigrants are able to sponsor the immigration of family members from back
home, who in turn sponsor more family members, etc., in an exponential
progression. Oversight of that isn’t exactly robust, and fraud is not uncommon.
It has resulted in, among other things, an aging immigrant population: One in
five family members brought in through chain immigration is more than 50 years
old. The entitlement-based case for high levels of immigration — that young
workers will support federal programs for aging Americans — doesn’t hold up
very well when you throw in a lot of grandparents.
Policymaking is an activity dominated by highly educated
professionals. It is not entirely lost on the Right’s newly energized populists
that immigration is skewed away from those who are likely to compete with the
lawyers and professors who dominate the public-policy discourse, and takes a
much more generous view of the immigrants who are likely to be cutting their
lawns or driving their Ubers. That should probably be reversed. Highly
productive societies need highly productive people, which in the 21st century
means highly skilled and educated people. I am not very confident of the
government’s ability to foresee exactly what the labor market needs — this many
software engineers, that many architects — but as I travel around the country,
I do not see any great shortage of poor people, and there does not seem to be
much of a case for importing them.
Ending the diversity lottery, reducing chain migration,
choosing immigrants with American interests foremost in mind: There’s a lot to
be said for Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. Too bad some idiot entrusted it
to Donald Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment