A Modern Approach Towards Immigration Reform

Immigration is one of the single most divisive subjects facing our people today, but it doesn’t have to be so. Its divisiveness stems from our peculiar need to sacrifice our individual thought at the altar of groupthink, parroting whichever extremist perspective fits the agenda of our chosen politics. Immigration concerns are not as tricky as other issues like capital punishment and abortion, which have little room for compromise. A person can’t be half dead or half pregnant, so when we choose to apply them it’s all or nothing. Extremists might be more outwardly passionate about immigration (they always are about everything), but this is just one more issue that cries out for centrist sanity and cooperation.

When most Americans think of immigration, they tend to do so from one bandwagon or the other. Both are crowded and leave little room for thought expansion, pushing invaluable instruments off the edge to litter the parade route. While contemporary Liberals seek to open our borders to any and all who would like to enter, their Conservative counterparts would often wish to lock them down completely. Neither of these extremes is very progressive, and both are unreasonably divisive.

Extreme opponents of any amount of immigration forget that we all (with the exception of Native Americans) are either immigrants or descended from them. The strength of our nation grew directly from its diversity and inclusion, which set a standard for the world to follow and inspired the best and brightest to commune in a place where they would be free to allow their ideas to blossom into realities. That approach permitted America to develop at a rate unequaled in human history; there is no denying that fact.

Extreme opponents of any type of immigration control ignore the negative statistical realities which accompany such policies. When someone points out higher rates of homelessness, economic strain, culture clashes, diseases, and crime which go hand in hand with unchecked immigration, they are labeled racist by default. So to not be a racist is to ignore or deny those issues? How many of these finger pointers donate their own time and money at our southern borders to assist in this monumental task? How many have come up with better solutions, other than soaking the wealthy to pay for the needs of millions? Everybody recognizes there’s a problem, but their solutions are always conveniently borne by somebody else.

So what do we do about immigration in America? Our parties have politicized it to the extent that neither of their extremes is acceptable. Locking innocent humans behind fences can’t be the answer; besides lacking humanity, it offers no long-term practical solutions. It’s just a temporary Band-Aid to put the issue on hold for the next administration, and has been utilized as such by both political parties. If you think not my party, then recall the Trump presidency if you’re on the right. If you’re on the left, recall the media outrage about Trump over leaked pictures of caged migrants, followed by media silence and misdirection when it was discovered that those pictures were actually taken during the Obama presidency. Neither party is exempt from this.

America seems to be split between a belief in equal opportunity for all citizens and equal opportunity for all period. Republicans often point out that Democrats are more open to unrestricted immigration and easy access to voting rights for new arrivals because a preponderance of migrants will require social welfare services which are more heavily supported by Democrats. This results in a rapidly growing Democratic voter force beyond any organic growth from within. The right views this tactic as a political agenda achieved at the expense of the workforce and economy, and despite obvious humanitarian concerns, they have a point.

Unchecked immigration adds millions of people without personal resources who need food, shelter, and medical care, and most have those needs provided for them while many American citizens remain in poverty. Its numbers are too great for our system to adequately handle, and countless migrants fall through the cracks to gain entry without vetting for infectious diseases or criminal background, let alone skills or education. Additionally, the promise of entry and care leads many to attempt what is a dangerous journey, often with children, which subjects these migrants to atrocities at the hands of their handlers (or coyotes), horrible transport conditions, and potential drowning when crossing bodies of water on makeshift devices.

As always, balance is essential. An entire populace shouldn’t be forced to accept these sacrifices en masse when they had nothing to do with the problems which led to mass migration, but neither should all asylum seekers be punished for the actions of some.

The policies closest to compromise bring us to Canada, specifically their Provincial Nominee Program. Applied to states instead of provinces, it would allow each state to decide for themselves what immigration criteria work best based upon their own views, budgets, available space, etc. Their citizens could vote on statewide policy, knowledge of which would be publicly available. The borders would be closed to prevent the chaos and inhumanity which run rampant there, and remove the incentive for aspiring migrants to risk the lives of their families. Prospective immigrants would apply to whichever state they prefer based on everything from local migrant requirements, to climate, to location of other family members, to proximity to the mountains or oceans - whatever priorities are important to them.

Red states would have to play ball, if only to avoid a lack of comparative population growth and the accompanying lost congressional seats. Blue states would likely set the initial entry bar low and make adjustments quietly as they felt the effects. Some basic federal standards (like clean criminal history and basic language and work skills) could be a minimum benchmark for entry which would satisfy many with concerns about the benefits of immigration while not being overly restrictive.

More importantly, this would allow our divided people to feel that everyone will have different options state by state where they can feel comfortable. They will not feel subjected to policies on a national level with which they disagree, since everyone gets a turn to feel slighted as those policies seesaw back and forth with each change in administrative party. Immigrants will often gravitate toward where they feel most wanted, and citizens will feel that their views (whatever they are) have a home somewhere. America should be about compromise.

Zephareth Ledbetter is the author of “A White Man’s Perspectives on Race and Racism”, available as an ebook at smashwords.com/books/view/1184004