Immigration issue is more than a wall in the sand

This post was published in The Wilson Times April 6, 2019.

Immigration has become the Gordian Knot of American politics, the issue that is impossible to unravel and keeps advocates on both sides tied up.

It wasn’t always this way. In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, immigration was viewed as an overall positive for the United States. The Statue of Liberty (dedicated 1886) symbolizes that national attitude: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free … .” In those days, unskilled immigrants could find jobs at decent wages. But the U.S. labor market has far fewer manual labor jobs and more jobs that require advanced training or skills.

In the 1980s, U.S. politicians realized that illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico and Central America, was reshaping America without any study, planning or control. President Reagan and Congress agreed on the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act to crack down on illegal immigration and provide a means for illegal immigrants already here to come clean and be naturalized as citizens.

The law created paperwork for illegal immigrants to apply for legal status and required employers to check the legal status of employees. The law granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants, but it did not slow the pace of migrants crossing the southern border. In fact, the migration accelerated, adding another 10 - 14 million illegals to the U.S. population.

Since then, Congress has been unable to find a consensus on what to do about the illegal immigrants already among us or the millions more who might cross the border illegally in the future. In his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump simplified the complex problem with three simplistic words: Build That Wall. For all his exaggerations and persistence, Trump has not found a solution to the issue. A wall can be breached, climbed over, tunneled under or blown up and cannot stanch the flow of illegal immigrants at a price Americans are unwilling to pay. (And Mexico has refused to pay for a wall, as candidate Trump promised they would.)

The basic problem is not people crossing the border illegally; it is the corruption, violence, poverty and economic hopelessness of Mexico and Central American countries that drives residents to risk everything for an opportunity to work and compete for the American Dream. The problem will not go away until those high-emigration countries improve the safety and economic opportunities of their residents. U.S. immigration policy should include helping those countries reform.

David Frum, writing in the April issue of The Atlantic, puts the immigration problem in perspective. Illegal immigrants are also swamping European countries. Like Mexicans or Salvadorans, these immigrants would rather live in a prosperous country than live a Third World existence.

Part of the problem has been the willingness, even eagerness of U.S. employers to hire immigrants, who often are more eager to work than native populations. Immigrants provide some positive benefits for the U.S. economy, and some negative effects as well. Immigrants contribute to the economy; their birth rate keeps the U.S. population from declining. Immigrants require more government assistance than native born, on average, in costs such as subsidized housing, medical care, specialized education and so forth. U.S. businesses can’t get along without immigrants, but illegal immigrants offer less help. The current policy of accepting low-skilled, poor immigrants has long-term negative impacts on Social Security and Medicare.

Frum suggests we need to reconsider laws on refugees and asylum seekers. If the criteria for asylum are fleeing violence and poverty, much of the world’s population is eligible.

Frum also provides a dose of reality for those on the left who claim Americans should welcome all immigrants because we are all neighbors: “Without immigration restrictions, there are no national borders. Without international borders, there are no nation-states. Without nation-states, there are no electorates. Without electorates, there is no democracy. If liberals insist that only fascists will enforce borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals refuse to do.”

Hal Tarleton is a former editor of The Wilson Daily Times. Contact him at haltarleton@myglnc.com.

-->

International borders have a purpose

When I was in high school, a teacher assigned a paper on how to prevent war. One student shared with me her paper that proposed the elimination of borders and nationhood. I didn't think her solution viable at the time, and this new century has proven that eliminating borders has consequences.

The European Union tore down the inconvenience and costs of international borders, allowing free movement of goods and people among all EU countries. That had its benefits as tariffs disappeared, passports became unnecessary and tourism expanded. But this removal of international barriers also has its consequences, as Europe is discovering in the hordes of refugees streaming into EU countries. The refugees come to escape wars and poverty in their native countries. They come for the opportunities available in wealthier EU countries, particularly Germany and Great Britain.

And there seems to be no end to the numbers of people who want to escape the horrors and deprivations of life in Syria, Sudan, Iraq and other nations. While some refugees are being welcomed, Europeans are beginning to realize that there are limits to the numbers of foreigners they can safely and economically accommodate. These foreigners are not French, German, Italian or whatever. They do not share the language, the customs, the history, the principles, the religion or the politics of their hosts. Large numbers of such immigrants will forever change the traditional standards of these host countries.

On the topic of U.S. immigration, someone has offered this: "Immigration without assimilation is invasion."

The drawing of international boundaries has sometimes been arbitrary, as it was after World War I and World War II, and immigration and invasion have transformed borders throughout history. But in a world of rapid international travel, international stability is needed. Immigration such as we are seeing across the Mediterranean from Asia and Africa to Europe is destabilizing, particularly when mixed with the sort of religious terrorism that results in the slaughter of innocents in Paris Friday.

Free access across international borders threatens to destabilize Europe and end the idealistic experiment in common borders and economies. We can talk about the "family of man," but in reality people are raised in very different traditions and have different standards and goals. If immigrants are not willing to abandon their old traditions and adopt the traditions and principles of their new country, they are not assimilating and will not be successful. In fact, they will bring with them some of the pathologies that made their native countries untenable.

International borders serve a purpose, as France has painfully discovered, and other countries will inevitably share that realization.