How Much Immigration is Too Much and What Kind of Immigration Should We Have?

I read two important pieces of literature over the weekend:  David Goodhart’s “The Road To Somewhere:  The Tribes Shaping British Politics” and David Frum’s article in The Atlantic “How Much Immigration is Too Much?”  

This reading underscores for me how complex these questions are, how difficult getting the right answers to them have been, and how important it is to the future of our nation and indeed Western civilization that we do so.

There is no question that the rate of immigration has increased significantly over the last 50 years in the United States, in Europe and in developed countries generally.  From a low in 1970 representing about 5% of our population in the United States and 5 million immigrants, the numbers have increased to 15% of our population and 45 million immigrants.

The causes of the change are multiple, including the elimination of what had been very restrictive immigration policies, new family friendly policies allowing more relatives of U.S. citizens to come in, the entry of Eastern and Central Europeans to Western European countries (particularly Germany and U.K.) following adoption by the ECM of European-wide citizenship and the sharp increase of immigration into the United States from Mexico, Central America and, most recently, China and Southeast Asia.

Unless we change our immigration policies, particularly as they apply to family relationships and the definition of “asylum,” there will be a continued increase in immigration in the United States with a continuation of the political and economic pressures this represents.

There are familiar and altogether correct arguments for immigration in this country.  After all, we were all immigrants in the beginning.  And as you look at the last century and more, a large percentage of our entrepreneurs, Nobel scientists, etc. were first-generation immigrants and, of course, welcoming immigrants has become part of the country’s ethical morae.

Today, being for or against immigration has become a bumper sticker carrying broad-based ideological implications touching on one’s openness to cultural diversity, openness to free trade, as well as the feeling of being “left behind” or not.  Immigration likely was the defining issue in the election of President Trump and for the Brexit vote in the U.K.

There is the risk that liberals (like me) can embrace an unthinking broad immigration policy without thinking practically and specifically about what constitutes the right amount and what kind of immigration for the years ahead.

It is a tragedy that our federal government has been unable to come to grips with reaching sensible decisions on these issues.

In  my mind, these decisions will include:

1. Recognizing that for the close to 11 million undocumented workers who are in the country (most of whom for more than 10 years), we must define a legitimate path to permanent residency and then citizenship.

2. We must provide an immediate path to citizenship for the so-called “Dreamers.”

3. We must have a disciplined, sound basis for distinguishing between individuals and families seeking asylum based on genuine threats to life and those who are simply, if understandably, seeking a better way of life.  Like it or not, we cannot accommodate all the people in this latter category.  Making this distinction will admittedly not be easy.

4. We probably need to limit the degree to which extended family members can immigrate.  They should be limited to the closest members of the family, certainly spouses and likely children.  I do not believe siblings or more distant relatives should be covered.

5. We should look at some form of “merit” system of the kind Canada uses to assure that a large percentage of immigrants will be able to achieve a sustaining economic life.

6. We should invest prudently in helping countries provide healthy sanctuary in their own countries or nearby countries for people who are displaced by civil war as in Syria.

Similarly, we should invest to improve the rule of law and living conditions in those countries where large numbers of individuals are seeking to leave for good and valid reasons.  Central America probably ranks highest on that list.  I recognize this will not be easy and needs to be done in concert with other nations.

I am sure the particulars I am identifying here are incomplete and may be incorrect in some cases.  But they articulate the nature of the decisions that we must address to confront this genuine, overarching issue.