Like most of my opinions and perspectives, I picked the name “only partially reasoned” for this site for a reason. My framework for immigration is fluid. Probably more so than most of my thinly considered insights.
I decided to pair tonight’s State of the Union and its teasing of its more-marketing-to-the-base-than-impact immigration policy with watching the Frontline expose on “Exodus: The Journey Continues”, the stories of refugees and migrants caught in Europe’s tightening borders.
The DACA Dreamers thing seems like an easy “let them stay”. At some minuscule 0.3% of the population that generally over-indexes on good citizen stuff, I could easily say “slow the roles, but booting them seems against national interest”.
I’m not really moved by “our country was built by immigrants” because over time it was also built by slaves, child laborers and coal and I don’t really want any of those to make a big comeback. I also believe that the vetting done for legal immigration (criminal record, sustainability) is effective. And it is rational to only let well educated, fast-to-contribute new residents in to build potential in our economy (although even now I meet people who think highly qualified Indians are stealing their jobs). My struggle in locking down a black-and-white turn-it-into-policy perspective comes in the consideration of the good-for-humanity the United States could be in a position to deliver, and maybe only at the sacrifice of the third 50″ TV in a home, or a couple of less luxury stadiums.
And then I watched Exodus. It all breaks down when the theoretical policies of intelligent, managed immigration meet “I’m starving in my home country” or “I’ll be killed” or “I’m trying to make the best life for my family.” You definitely do not get the sense that these immigrants are drawn to the Western opportunity in criminal activity or welfare-state support. In a time of great economic uncertainty, it is easy to point at immigrants as consumers-of-scarce-resources and I know there is a large swath of Americans who lose empathy-with-accents. I roll down Canal street in Manhattan and it doesn’t make me want to open more immigration to China because it barely seems like this group is contributing to the collective whole in the melting pot theory (except maybe in the form of taxes).
Now I am just rambling with no platform to stand on yet.
I knee-jerk go to things like “serve in the armed forces, after five years + honorable discharge, you’re in”, but that’s just a strategy that mimics other give-the-underclass-the-shitty-jobs mentality that I don’t enjoy. But, it’s also free choice that someone might be willing to do to gain entry.
Crap.
Okay, here’s the first line: if you have a job offer at not less than 10% below mean compensation, come on in. Tech companies will use this and attract just who we ‘rationally’ want. And I also think past immigrants will use it in small businesses to create a path to the US, and I feel good about letting an immigrant who is growing their business (and benefitting the US) hire in this way to create more US value.
Many more lines need to come. The Frontline episode is heartbreaking in its reveal of the faces of immigration and I am moved to firm up the perspective so to marry the reality of the individual, but the necessity of a large scale program.
Crap. One line is not enough. The title of ‘only partially reasoned’ seems overly generous.