By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, May 19, 2019
Having chain-migrated his way into the White House and a
little bit of political power, Donald Trump’s son-in-law is shopping around an
immigration plan. And if you can get past the hilarious juxtaposition of the
words “merit-based” and “Jared Kushner,” it’s a pretty good one.
As things stand, the majority of immigrants to the United
States (the majority of legal immigrants, anyway) qualify for entry on the
basis of having a family member legally present in the United States. This is
the mechanism behind what is known as “chain migration,” in which one member of
a family provides entry to another, who provides entry to another, who provides
entry to another, and so on.
In contrast, a small share of immigrants — about 12
percent — enter the country on the basis of a job offer or the possession of
certain skills or education that make them desirable to employers. (Others
enter as investors, coming in as potential employers rather than potential
employees.) These are everything from doctors to software developers.
Kushner’s agenda is to reverse those proportions,
reducing the number of entrants through family-based immigration and loosening
up restrictions on highly skilled workers. The plan would also eliminate the
“lottery,” the visa system under which 50,000 applicants are selected randomly
(almost randomly, anyway) in the name of diversity, albeit a kind of diversity
that excludes Canadians, Englishmen, Indians, Brazilians, Nigerians, and many
others. It is difficult to think of a worse criterion for the admission of new
Americans than randomness.
The Democrats already have declared the proposal dead on
arrival, in part because it does not address the status of those illegal
immigrants who were brought to the United States as children — and because it
contains funding for border-wall construction, a formerly unobjectionable
policy that has since Donald Trump’s election inspired lively opposition among
Democrats, who wish to deny the president a symbolic victory. An E-Verify
mandate would be a more effective policy, but a border wall makes a better
backdrop for a press conference.
Consider this proposal in terms of first principles.
There are few genuine advocates of “open borders” in
American politics, but it is not the case, as our talk-radio friends sometimes
insist, that no nation has ever thrived without well-policed borders. Victorian
England, for example, had practically open borders — they did not even require
a passport for visitors. But there are good reasons for border controls,
ranging from public health to national security. The Democrats may insist that
“no person is illegal” in front of some audiences, but they have not yet
adopted open borders per se in their party platform, and many of their
blue-collar and union constituents are very hawkish on immigration, especially
illegal immigration.
If we agree that a polity has the right to decide who
joins it and on what terms — and genuine self-government is inconceivable
without such an assumption — then it follows that a polity has the right (and
possibly the duty) to look after its own interests in deciding on standards.
Because of our lamentable racial history, we Americans tend to be very touchy
about anything that looks, sounds, or smells like “discrimination,” though we
accept readily enough that Ireland is not engaging in Jim Crow–style racism in
giving preference to would-be immigrants with an Irish grandparent, that India
is not showing invidious bias in giving preference to immigrants of Indian
origin, etc. We get all torqued up over the politics of language, but who would
think the authorities in Japan or Iceland wicked to privilege fluency in their
native languages?
Being Americans, we apparently care a great deal less
about culture and a great deal more about money. And so many immigration
reformers have settled on largely economic metrics for evaluating applicants.
There is not anything inherently wrong with that, though the calculations there
can be a little tricky. The people who own software companies think we need
more immigrant programmers; the people who work as programmers often have other
views. Many countries with the kinds of health-care systems Democrats would
like to impose on the country have attempted to address their subsequent
physician shortages through immigration rather than, say, paying doctors more.
As it happens, the buyers and the sellers in any given market often see things
very differently from each other. In any case, the considerations touching the
$200,000-and-up labor market are different from those of the $35,000-and-under
market.
It’s complicated, but the general idea is a good one: The
United States has interests of its own, some of those interests are economic,
and immigration should serve American interests first and foremost, with
humanitarian concerns and other considerations subordinated.
But while we should be skeptical of the federal
government’s ability to fine-tune the labor supply, we should not shy away from
asking it to do one of its fundamental jobs and secure the border and the ports
of entry — and finally get control of illegal immigration. The debate on
reforming legal immigration would proceed with more ease if the government were
to address the lawless conditions at the border, which are a problem in and of
themselves and which also diminish its credibility in the broader question of
immigration management.
Unrealistic? Maybe. But no less unrealistic than
deputizing Jared Kushner as the ambassador for merit-based living.
No comments:
Post a Comment