National Immigration: Finding Common Ground

There is currently a large political division in the U.S. regarding immigration to the U.S. On the one side are those who label themselves as ‘leftist’ or ‘progressive’ who believe a nation should have open borders. In essence, they say that anyone who wants to come to the U.S. should be able to just walk or fly into the nation, stay and be given and enjoy all the benefits that citizenship has traditionally provided.

On the other side are those who typically label themselves as conservatives who say all immigration must be strictly controlled and only those who will ‘benefit the nation’ should be allowed in, and any illegal immigrants currently in the nations should be removed immediately.

Those views represent the two sides of the issue and each person who leans towards the extreme position (less allowance for exceptions) on ‘their side’ are those who have a lot of trouble having a reasonable conversation with those on the other side of the issue.

The question is, is there an optimal or truly reasonable belief or policy regarding immigration to the U.S.? Let’s explore some ideas on this issue and try and find some common ground.

First, let’s look at perhaps the most important moral or ethical issue. A person or people can have two basic viewpoints or general approaches on treating other people. They can be either kind, compassionate, forgiving and willing to give the benefit of the doubt (gracious). Or, they can be unkind, un-sympathetic, unwilling to forgive and quick to judge harshly and put rules and law which primarily benefit them, over compassion.

I am not saying the two sets of characteristics are entirely mutually exclusive – and sometimes the approach should vary depending upon the person you are dealing with – but they do reflect two basic ways a person can tend to be. I would suggest that the former way of being is much more in line with the universal ethic given by The Light of the world of “treat others the way you want to be treated”. I would also suggest that this personal ethic or viewpoint or attitude or desire to treat other people is very much key in this discussion about immigration.

In terms of finding common ground, I think both sides can agree that any group of people who voluntarily come together have a right to agree on rules that they all agree to follow. This would apply to a small group of people who are neighbors or a larger group of people who form a nation/state. Whatever type of leadership/government they form, the people who make up the group should be able to agree on rules or laws that ALL people of that group must follow. Examples of rules or laws that people agree to would include that murder is wrong or stealing is wrong or unjustified assault is wrong, or lying to group leadership in order to get benefits is wrong, that the leaders actually doing leadership work should receive some compensation for their work, etc.

The basic principal to viewing and managing immigration should be this one – that any group of people should have the right to vet new prospective members to ensure they are willing to abide by the rules of the group.

If one can agree to the basic principle, then truly open borders – meaning there is no ability to vet people coming into the group – simply will not work. For example, imagine you have formed a neighborhood group with your neighbors and have agreed upon rules for things people can do or not do with or one their properties. Let’s say that one of the rules is that a neighbor cannot build a pig farm on their property due to the horrible smell it would create. Would it be fair and right if a person who was part of that group wanted to sell their house to a person who would not adopt the neighborhood rules and wanted to build a pig farm?

On a more fundamental level, open borders are not likely to work well since human beings are not basically good. No borders would be fine if all people were basically good, meaning they are not heavily influenced by a selfish nature, but that is not reality as is evidenced each day in this world. For example, if the U.S. switched to no-borders or purely open borders, would not the violent drug cartel people from Mexico, Central and South America want to come be closer to their customers or deliver their drugs more directly with less hassle and risk?

If one group/nation is perceived as having lots of stuff that people want (especially money and material security or people agreeing to and living by good rules), then isn’t there going to be many people wanting to join that group if their present group does not have those things? And why would it be reasonable to believe that only decent people will want to immigrate to that group/nation which is perceived as having more money and material security than other groups/nations? In fact, that would be an unreasonable belief. For example, thieves don’t prefer to steal from poor people for they are perceived as having nothing worth stealing.

The fact is that many people in this world would like to live in the U.S. due to the money making opportunities and material abundance and relative freedom of this nation. So the question is, what would be the best way to handle the many millions of people who want to immigrate to this nation? Almost all reasonable people agree that the current system is not working well and is generating many problems.

This author provides the following solution.

Principle One: View of Government Immigration Managers

The best ethical characteristics for would be people who are both law abiding as well as kind, compassionate, forgiving and willing to give the benefit of the doubt (gracious).

Principle Two: The Correctness of Vetting

Any group of people should be able to vet prospective new members who wish to join their group. The U.S. is a group of people – a nation state. Therefore, it is reasonable for the citizens of the U.S. to vet new prospective members/citizens.

Principle Three: The Character Profile of a Good Immigrant

Any nation should want only good people to immigrate to their nation. The basic characteristics of prospective immigrants should be that they are willing to work; that they respect the rule of law and thus plan on keeping the laws; that they value virtues like kindness and respect for people; that they are strongly against illegal and immoral behavior.

Principle Four: The Character Profile of a Bad Immigrant

People who are bad – they don’t respect rules or laws; they are quick to lie or steal or hurt others to get what they want; they don’t believe they should have to work to contribute to the group, but rather just take from others – will always be destructive to any group and thus should not be welcomed into any group of people who want what is good and right and a group ought to be able to reject those people and prevent them from joining the group.

Principle Five: Willingness to Change to Participate in the New Nation/Culture

If I really want to join another group of people because I judge the current group of people I am with or living among as deficient compared to the group I want to go and be a part of – then I ought to be willing to adopt the new groups ways of believing and doing things, including their rules and language. In particular, if they speak another language, then I ought to learn that language in order to communicate with the members of my new group.

On the basis of those five basic principles, a nation should build its immigration policies and process.

The following would be process requirements for people wishing to join the group which is the nation state of the U.S.

First, that people coming into a nation are decent, rule or law following human beings and to prove that, they agree to a background check with the nation they are immigrating from. Furthermore, they agree to a probation period of X years. Any criminal activity within the first X years of being in the U.S. will result in immediate deportation with no chance to return. Those caught trying to return will be incarcerated in a very minimalist, unpleasant prison until they agree to not enter the country again.

Second, that the people coming in will agree to live by the rules and laws of the nation they want to immigrate to. That is to say that the laws of the nation they immigrate to will be freely adopted and followed and any beliefs or traditions that they hold from their previous group that contradict or nullify those laws will be rejected (an example of beliefs or traditions that would have to be rejected, would be a Muslim who believes in Sharia law).

Third, that they agree to speak the majority language of the nation they want to immigrate to. If they do not speak English, they will have up to X months (duration to learn will vary based on age and ability) to get basically proficient in English. You can never achieve unity on any matter – nor can you work together to bring good – if you cannot communicate with your neighbor.

Forth, that if they cannot find work within six months and cannot support themselves, they will start working for the local government doing whatever work needs to be done in order to earn the money they receive from the group/nation/government.

Last, in order to receive any government benefits, they must comply with the prior four principles.

Obviously if there is a group/nation that is perceived as better than where a person currently lives, they will likely want to immigrate to that group/nation. That, combined with the fact that people do not naturally want to submit to the rule of law (look at how nations are doing who don’t have a strong ‘rule of law’ ethic), will result in many attempting to enter the group/nation wrongfully or illegally. Therefore, if the group/nation does not have a way to prevent wrongful or illegal entry, the proposed system will not work.

In other words, if millions of people choose to ‘storm the weak, ineffective gate’; and by so doing they reject the rightful process that currently exists to process immigrants; they are not exhibiting what is necessary to be a good and helpful member of the group. In other words, they are not respecting the prospective group’s new member process, and thus they are demonstrating a lack of discipline or poor character regarding the rules necessary to be a good member of the group.

On the other hand, if people are truly being wrongly persecuted or abused in the group/nation they live in and they seek refuge in the U.S., those cases should be evaluated as asylum candidates who submit to a different membership process than non-persecuted immigrants. The primary problem with the asylum issue, is whether people are truly persecuted or abused, or if they just want to leave their current group/nation for other reasons. Sadly, due to this truth of The Light, “And this is the condemnation, that people love the darkness rather than the light“, many lie for selfish reasons and try to take the easy route instead of trying to change things in their existing group.

As I said earlier in the article, showing compassion to people is really important. Equally important is that the people receiving compassion appreciate it and deeply respect the receiving peoples/groups rules for how the group works and the principals/rules/laws that make the group good and valuable. I would recommend erring on the side of letting more people in but with a simple vetting process as generally described in this brief article.

Addressing Popular Errors in the Current U.S. Immigration Debate

• It is not necessarily ‘racist’ to want to control immigration. Valid reasons to control immigration are given in this article. Ultimately, a group of people or a nation have limited resources and the citizens of that nation ought to have the right to decide how to spend those resources. To claim someone is a ‘racist’ because they want to enforce, reform, improve or change immigration policies or processes (unless what they advocate is clearly ‘racist’, meaning the argument or policy recommendation is based on one race being superior to another) is both fallacious and destructive. Those who use ad hominem (name calling like “racist” to people who are not making racist claims) methods are those who are rejecting reason and graciousness and are actively participating in a push for destructive anarchy.

• If you cannot control immigration (vetting prospective group members), then you cannot have a controlled immigration process and immigration policies would be meaningless. The only way to control immigration in a situation where two nations exist next to each other and share a border; and one nation is viewed as ‘superior’ (generally defined as economic opportunities and relative political freedom) to another nation and many people from the ‘inferior’ nation want to immigrate to the ‘superior’ nation; is to have a barrier that can stop illegal immigrants on the border between the two nations. Again, if you cannot control immigration, you cannot have a policy or process for prospective member/citizen vetting or immigration.

• • The term “illegal immigrant” suggests that their ‘person’ is somehow illegal. They might be a good, moral person who is not breaking any laws other than the law they broke to enter the nation. And while a nation is free to label someone as “illegal” who crosses into their nation without authorization, the act itself is not immoral unless it involved destruction of property or harm to human life. To describe or label a person due to a law they broke in the past is not gracious practice and most people would not want to be treated that way. For example, how many people would be called ‘illegal drivers’ who had some traffic violation? Undocumented immigrant is a suitable term and should be used to describe people who are in the U.S. illegally but who are good, moral people not breaking other laws. “Illegal Immigrant” should be reserved for immigrants who are in the nation illegally AND who have no intention of adopting the five principles above.

This important distinction – between moral, hard working immigrants (undocumented immigrants) and those who practice lawlessness and seek to take from others (illegal aliens) – is almost completely ignored in this debate, and the reason it is largely ignored is due to so many people in the U.S. becomingmoral relativistsand not being able to make that critical distinction.

• Receiving benefits and privileges and resources from the government of the nation (and thus from the tax payers) should be reserved for tax paying citizens with very few, clearly defined exceptions. That is only just and right and fair. If a person does not pay taxes, they should not receive benefits that exist due to people paying taxes, nor should they enjoy other privileges of citizens. To give non-citizens the things that citizens worked for or contributed to is unjust and will only serve to remove incentive to becoming a citizen.

• Many people came to the U.S. and complied with the U.S. immigration policies and process in order to become citizens. It is entirely unfair and unjust to them that they had to go through that process – which takes years, often decades – if they could have just walked into the nation and received all the benefits and privileges of citizens. Thus, the injustice of an uncontrolled immigration ‘process’ and the many millions of undocumented immigrants and getting benefits and privileges that formally only citizen were given (including those immigrants who complied with the law and attained their citizenship legally) will lead to friction and contention among people living in the U.S., particularly between the undocumented immigrants and first generation immigrants who earned their citizenship lawfully. The new undocumented immigrants who entered the nation illegally and did not go through the process are at fault for this tension and are responsible for deteriorating conditions and escalating tension and even violence.