Question the status quo on immigration policy!

[Boojatta]

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of refugees in the world. That suggests that, among the refugees of the world, there are many people who could be good citizens.

Some refugees primarily focus on their own particular experiences, merely wish to have ordinary lives, and have no interest in any instances of injustice that are significantly different from their own experiences. If these refugees are completely peaceful and they are eager to work, then they can be satisfactory citizens. However, why not begin by taking in those refugees who understand and care about the principles of ethics and politics that were used to transform a collection of European imperial colonies into the United States of America?

What is the meaning of an immigration policy that tries to calculate the estimated economic benefits that an individual might provide for the USA? Shall the US open the door to anyone who earns the income of a celebrity, even if he or she has the moral character of a Richard Nixon? If the US ignores the morally upstanding refugees of the world and gives preference to those who offer nothing but the possibility of a little material gain for America, then why should America expect to receive refugees who care about anything that defines America? Is the US dollar the only thing that matters in your definition of America?

Now consider the opposite issue: immigrants who are allowed to break the law because they earn low wages. Do you want to hire those immigrants? The rule of law is more important than your desire for cheap labor. Learn something called "market discipline." Establish adequate pay scales, safe working conditions, and consistent management policies so that people who can legally work for you are willing to do so. You are offering adequate pay? Great! Then advertise it. If you conclude that American workers are too spoiled for you, then you are free to try relocating somewhere like Turkmenistan. There may be a lot of corruption there, but you don't like rule of law very much anyway, do you? Turkmenistan achieved independence from the USSR in 1991 and now, as an oppressed business person, you can join them and achieve independence from oppressive conditions in America.

What is the meaning of an immigration policy that focuses a lot of attention on who an applicant was born into a relationship with? Note: the question is not who an applicant's relatives are. You are related (through marriage) to your spouse, but you weren't born into that relationship. If your main claim to respect and recognition is based on who you were born into a relationship with, then your surname might be a synonym for "shrub."

There is not necessarily any reason to consider who is related to an individual immigration applicant. Yes, it might matter. For example, if the individual chooses to associate with violent criminals or white collar criminals and those criminals happen to be relatives, then the individual's relatives are relevant. However, they are relevant because they are associates, not because they are relatives.

Now the short version:
1. Don't accept someone as an immigrant just because that person has skills in some occupation.

2. Don't allow the law to be broken simply because a person is willing to work for low wages.

3. Don't judge a fellow human being based on who that human being was born into a relationship with.

"Don't, don't, don't." So far it is all don't! What should be done? Here's a novel idea: focus on two related issues: the character of the individual and the individual's respect for the principles that are the basis for the US system of government. Note: you can't truly respect something until after you have some knowledge of it.

Some countries have refugees who don't even have status as refugees. Establish treaties with them. Establish treaties with countries that are willing to take in refugees for a long but temporary period of a few years. US officials can investigate refugees who want to be immigrants while those refugees are outside of the USA. The only risk for America is the risk of making a poor selection, but that is a risk that always exists, regardless of the specific immigration policy.

If you were born in the USA, then you did nothing to earn your citizenship. Remember that before you boast about what you have earned using your status as a citizen. Then remember that there are many refugees in the world.

Perhaps you are the kind of person who would never become a refugee. Perhaps you are too pragmatic to do anything risky. If you had been born in China, would you have driven a tank over peaceful protesters in Tiananmen Square? I don't think the military in China consists of people who joined voluntarily. So would you be a draft dodger (which is risky) or would you tell us that you were "just following orders"?

[Boojatta]

1. Lots of threads about immigration have been started lately.

[AlphaCentauri]

2. 4. Don't accept someone as an immigrant just because that person

claim political asylum but never fought for their own freedom