Politics and Culture

Standard Asymmetric disclaimer

If you want to start an argument, bring up immigration. Even more then the war in Iraq, immigration works people up to an emotional state that I, frankly, find disturbing at times. Yet, even with all of the time and passion devoted to debating the subject, nobody gets it right. Listening to the news in my car, I mostly shake my head as I listen to the same clichés and counter-clichés, all of which, to use another cliché, fail to see the entire forest. I’ll discuss these flawed arguments below as well as humbly offer the Asymmetric/Modcon solution which is honest, error-free, and palatable to sixty per cent of the population. Some of my solutions, like border enforcement, you’ve heard before, but one difference is that my argument judges each immigrant as an individual who affects our country in a unique way instead of as part of Mr. Immigrant, a creature consisting of 30,000,000 human beings.

I’ve broken down the typical-and wrong -arguments into four categories. The first two are dishonest and the second two make a crucial mistake that prevents them from providing a complete solution. The first dishonest group favors illegal immigration and consists of people who aren’t concerned with its impact on the United States. Regarding illegal immigration as an appropriate mechanism for global wealth redistribution (Martin Sheen) this group may, in fact, prefer that immigration damage the United States, at least economically. These anti-Americans (America as it exists ) overlap with the twenty percent who wish to see us lose in Iraq and their misleading goals disqualify their arguments from serious consideration.

The other dishonest group feels that an influx of people from what they deem an inferior race would change the United States for the worst (Buchanan), and their lie is often formulated in the phrases, “we’re equally concerned with illegal immigration from Canada.” Although I hope their numbers are much smaller than the verifiably large group of dishonest pro-illegal immigrationists, they do exist. I’ll exclude them from this discussion as well (besides, my solution makes their point moot).

Of the two acceptable positions, both commit the same error. The pro-amnesty side sincerely believes that illegal immigration benefits the United States and, as evidence, often cite illegal aliens’ many desirable traits e.g., hard working, family-oriented, and religious. They’re partially correct. Nobody can deny that these personal virtues exist in the illegal immigrant community, but by making this argument proponents commit an intellectual sin as great as those who give mountains of statistics showing illegal immigrants to be disproportionately criminal, non-academically inclined, and poor. The sin, of course, is stereotyping, and the absolute truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants fall within the extremes of human behavior in some sort of bell curve fashion like people within every other group. Whenever somebody argues immigration and introduces statistics to prove their point, the answer should always be, “well, some of them do and some of them don’t.”

Because of the diversity within the immigrant and potential immigrant population, the Asymmetric plan would have no quotas based on country of origin, preferences to extended families, or any appeals to any group characteristics whatsoever (except for humanitarian reasons). Certainly, no arguments would be advanced based on ethnic generalizations. Potential immigrants would apply, be evaluated using some fair criteria (immigrants to Ellis Island had to learn how to read and be free of disease), and accepted or rejected as individuals.

Logically, anything we do to increase the proportion of hard-working, law-abiding immigrants loved by at least sixty per cent of Americans necessitates some kind of orderly process which means eliminating the de facto unilateral system we have now whereby illegal immigrants, some of whom may reside on the wrong side of the curve in either skills or social disposition, choose to come here without permission from current residents. And, that means a border with integrity which, in turn, entails measures to stop illegal crossings. In other words, any successful immigration policy starts with enforcement.

Besides benefiting native-Americans by assuring a higher-quality immigrant, my plan would help legal immigrants by reducing anti-immigrant sentiment and increasing the pride immigrants have in their adopted country.

People betray their own naiveté’ (I’ve recently allowed myself the use of French words) when they claim that any ill-feeling Americans have towards immigrants results from racial hatred. Although my plan would not stereotype, people still do and they’re not all idiots. They see a pattern of behavior repeated within populations and they form opinions. Instead of insisting that others ignore these patterns or, as is more common, ignore the bad patterns and embrace the good ones, groups need to take some responsibility for their own reputation. Since most people I know in Los Angeles are Hispanic, I’ve often fielded questions like “why don’t they want us?” or have argued with those decrying what they see as bigotry. I ask them to imagine somebody from someplace like Singapore driving down certain American neighborhoods and seeing graffiti on the walls or gang members walking the street. "What would you think?" I ask.

Now, assuming that it’s normal for people to want the best for their country, Americans like immigrants they think make their country better and don’t like those they think don’t. Los Angeles is home to immigrants from all over the world and the vast majority of them are not White. For the most part, Asians, Indians, and Arabs do well in their new nation and aren’t responsible for a disproportionate amount of what most consider bad behavior so Americans welcome them. Is it any wonder why little anti-immigration anger is directed at those groups?

Most resentment Americans have for Latinos comes from the feeling that Latinos take advantage of the United States and its generosity without appreciating either the country or the generosity. Some Americans also feel that many Latinos harm the United States by committing crime, requiring special resources in school, and disproportionately utilizing public assistance (a harm they feel could have been avoided had immigration laws been taken seriously). Remember, I only bring this up to explain the current environment and how to solve it not to insult people. A legal-only immigration policy would eliminate feelings of exploitation by Americans and the individual-based quality-control measures would lessen immigrants’ negative behaviors. Once Americans start seeing each separable Latin-American immigrant as an asset to their country who met criteria set by the American people, they’ll welcome these individuals as well. The emphasis on each immigrant’s individual worth would go far in eliminating the kind of bigotry of which people complain.

Finally, in what first appears to be an irony, but makes sense upon further reflection, I’ve noticed that immigrants who came to the United States when it was acceptable for Americans to have ethnic prejudices and immigrants had access to few social programs, are, generally, more inclined to be patriotic. The reason for this is pride and is a strong element in my plan. As most people take pride in accomplishment, most immigrants would take pride in having met American immigration standards rather than realize that they’re amongst a group distinguished either by their access to coyotes or their sheer determination (yes, that can be a good thing, I admit).

In conclusion, America is in the enviable position of being a country good enough that people would risk their lives to walk upon its ground. We should leverage this fact to form an immigration policy that benefits both legal immigrants and Americans by focusing on individual quality.

What to do with the millions of people in the country illegally? That’s another essay.