Immigration Assumptions And Omissions

"1.I don’t believe Americans grasp how racist the origins of immigration law truly is. For nearly the first entire half of the nation’s history, there were not any relevant immigration restrictions — if you were of the “right” race (white) and “right” religion (Protestant Christian). There literally was no issue with Waspish folk coming and going. The first immigration restrictions were levied against Chinese migrants and those of Southern European (and Irish, who shared the “wrong” religion, Catholicism). It also coincided with pogroms and mob violence against such groups that were viewed as poisonous intruders. So when anti-immigration lobbyists trumpet this “rule of law”, they’re really resting on an ugly legacy.

2.Even today, while we’ve shed most of that ugliness, there still remains great injustice in immigration law. For certain countries of origin (Cuba), if you plant your feet on US soil, you’re automatically legal. Not so for all the other Latin American nations, most of which features governments of a far more oppressive nature. Or if you can throw a baseball, brandish a hockey stick, or shoot a basketball exceptionally well, you’re in. Or if you’re blessed with abundant wealth. I concede, that for many Americans, this framework of immigration law is a natural democratic consensus on who is worthy to enter, but to a Jesus follower, it is backwards to the truth of the Gospel.

3.An oft-repeated argument against more open immigration is one of economics — that the costs of adding people is staggering and would be a drain on the nation’s coffers, and especially detrimental to lower and middle class workers. But this is a vivid illustration of faulty zero sum economic thinking — that there’s a static economic pie, and more folks carving out slices means less for all. Truth is, the economics are much more dynamic — vibrant immigration means more economic activity (growing the pie), greater velocity of money (multiplying the pie), and a larger pool from which creativity and innovation can arise. In fact, it’s a large part on how America attained greatness. And today, in the US (as well as other western nations), we have a growing imbalance in the ratio of younger workers to older retirees. Wouldn’t more open immigration be a natural sensible treatment?

4.It is pointed out that America already has the most generous immigration policy in the world. This is true, but I am disturbed that this trope is brandished against meaningful reform. That because the US is better than most (or all) other countries, we need to do nothing (or focus on punitive measures). But that would be like nations in the 19C refusing to abolish slavery (or apply any other social justice remedy) because we’re more humane than those other countries already in how we treat slaves, the downtrodden, etc.

5.Capital, money, electronic bits can move freely across political borders in the 21C. Why should human beings be treated less than? The human right to migration should be as fundamental as the right to freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination on grounds of gender, race, religion, or sexuality."


Via azspot.net