It seems as though we're seeing a trend on the anti-Trump side of things to equate country of origin with race. In effect, if you are from X country, then you must be Y race.
While this may have some degree of truth, it's not really a worthwhile conclusion in the context of immigration policy.
What Trump seems to be saying is that we need to eliminate the current country based quota system in favor of a system that prioritizes other factors.
The problem, as I see it, boils down to this. If you are in favor of the country based quota system, and if you are arguing that country of origin equals race, then you are essentially arguing for a race based/racist system. Personally, I fail to see how basing anything of value on one's race is helpful in any way.
To my mind, there are four broad categories of immigrants.
1. Refugees, these are people who are motivated by humanitarian issues, be they persecution, war, famine, natural disaster etc. Like the guy I know who was forced to leave Africa because some members of the religion of peace decided to kill him for apostasy. These cases should be decided on a case by case basis and be unrelated to anything but alleviating suffering. The refugee status should also not necessarily be premanant.
2. Immigrants who add value to the US. These are people who bring specific skills, educations, or qualifications to the table and who should be evaluated based on the need for those skills and talents.
3. Those who are simply seeking undefined opportunity. This category is pretty broad and undefined, but should take into account the ability of the immigrants to (eventually) support themselves and their willingness to assimilate. There should most likely be some sort of cap on the total per year, but this shouldn't take race or country of origin into account.
4. Those who seek to immigrate for nefarious purposes.
The common factor is that we should move away from these race based (country ot origin) quotas and towards a system that is focused on individuals and case by case approval.
While I understand the necessity and desirability of immigration. The fact is that unless the skilled, motivated, high level people are willing to stay and work for the betterment of their country of origin, then those countries are going to continue to decline. Which doesn't really help anyone. Why shouldn't the goal of US (and the rest of the world) be to strengthen and improve the situation in these countries that will allow the people to be safe and successful where they're from? Wouldn't a stable, strong, responsible Haiti be in the best interests of Haitians as well as with the rest of the world?
I was talking to a young Haitian ophthalmologist once, and I asked him why he didn't join his family members in the US and pursue his studies and practice there where it would be more lucrative and easier. His response, "I'm Haitian.". He is the kind of people that these thrid world countries need to keep, because they're the hope of better things.
As long as we keep focusing on the symptoms, we'll never cure the disease.
7 comments:
I would add that it is important to discontinue conjoining refugees with immigrants as these are distinctly different issues. That means your categorical breakdown regarding types of immigrants is now three, with refugees being its own issue. The fact that refugees, or those who seek sanctuary (as the word is actually defined...not as leftists abuse it) are under direct, imminent threat to their lives. It is that threat to life and limb that from which they seek refuge. Abusing the protection granted such victims as a pathway to citizenship must not be allowed. When the threat is gone...back you go.
"Immigrant" is a different animal altogether. Blurring the line complicates any discussion of reform.
So hard to proof read when posting from cellphones. Jeez.
I agree, that’s why I separated them out and pointed out the less than permanent nature of their status. They do fall under the broad category of immigration law, nonetheless I grant your point.
It’s kind of amusing to see the quotes from dems, who sound just like the GOP on immigration. Without context, it seems likely that at least some of this is simply pandering and therefore, stupid lies. I guess they get a pass on those stupid lies. Either that, or they’re lying now.
Wow, I’ve made multiple on topic comments and gotten nothing.
1. The moral theory that nations have the right to self government.
2. The moral theory that allows governments to pass laws and regulations.
Given your prior insistence that morality is not universal and objective, but is a subjective construct of individual societies, renders your quest for an objective moral standard ridiculous to say the least. According to your definition of morality, the fact that a society makes a collective decision means that decision is de facto moral.
These two questions go back to the question I’ve asked you at least twice, with no answer.
Who is advocating for completely closed borders?
Because the two questions in bold don’t represent anything that in any way represents any actual policy.
I guess it all goes back to the 3 questions you’ve dodged since November. Your inability to answer those, combined with the two bolded questions above raise questions regarding your knowledge of immigration law and policy
Even though I’ve answered the absurd, self refuting, questions I suspect the above will get deleted despite Dan’s assurances otherwise.
Art, again good point. Literally hundreds of thousands of people from other countries have the opportunity to work in the US, which seems to be exactly what Dan is talking about. The various visa options (H2B, etc) allow yearly travel across the border for people to work.
But we’re all advocating a “closed” border, because Dan says so. We’re advocating virtually the same policy as both Clintons, P-BO, Schumer, etc have been advocating for years, and a much more open door policy than FDR (speaking of real closed borders), but let’s not let those pesky facts get in the way.
I’m sure the family of the San Francisco women who was killed by one of the fine folk who was just excercising his liberty of returning after being deported will be reassured by the throw wide the doors policy being advocated here.
I’m sure this’ll get deleted too, even though it’s not off topic.
Post a Comment