I applaud the efforts of many Dartmouth students to increase awareness of the plight of illegal immigrants, but I write to express my dismay at the lack of proposals for better immigration legislation. Promoting awareness and protesting bills such as HB 4437 is not enough; to cause real change, protesters should develop pro-immigrant legislation and present it directly to legislators.
At the immigration discussion led by geography professor Richard Wright and anthropology professor Lourdes Najera on the evening of May 1, a student who sat behind me asked, "We've talked a lot about the problem. What do you think should be the U.S. immigration policy?" Wright replied by saying "Let us step back for a moment ..." then summarized the different issues that need to be solved, such as how to help immigrants displaced by war as well as those displaced by poverty. Najera's answer to the same question also made me more aware of the problem and helped me empathize with the immigrants, but did not propose a solution. I hoped Wright would say "It's a complex problem, but we should start out by tabling HB 4437, then give amnesty to all illegal immigrants in the country who..." and then describe the details of a solution.
The marches and protests that occurred across the nation on May 1, like Wright's answer, raised awareness but did not propose solutions. From reading and discussing the news, I conclude that the May 1 demonstrators generally believe that, first, America is a nation of immigrants, and thus we should give recent immigrants respect. Second, they believe that we should make immigration easier and finally, we should never make HB 4437 a law. Since the protests did not specifically advocate new legislation, I predict that the only legislative consequence of the May 1 protests will be the rejection of HB 4437.
The protesters have expressed outrage over U.S. immigration legislation, but history shows that outrage alone is not enough to cause change. Consider the tragedies in Darfur and Bhopal. Both heart-rending tragedies have been unfolding for years and, sadly, continue today. America could stop starvation and genocide in Darfur with several billion dollars in food aid and the deployment of several thousand marines. Despite the extreme need of the victims, aid is not forthcoming. Politicians argue that yes, three billion dollars could save several thousand lives in Darfur, but $3 billion could also help cure cancer, feed poor Americans or send people to Mars. Additionally, action in Darfur would probably result in the death of several American soldiers, and would cause America to assume responsibility for making peace in any similar future conflict. Thus, while it is relatively easy to get Americans to feel outraged, it is a lot harder to get Americans behind a specific policy. Admittedly, empathy for recent immigrants is lacking in some areas of the United States, and the May 1 marches helped solve this problem. Once empathy and outrage exist, though, considering the costs and benefits of specific new legislation is the needed next step.
Since no one has presented a comprehensive policy to deal with the costs of immigration reform, I shall display my own ignorance and foolishness by doing so myself. I suggest the following:
As a general principle, the United States should admit immigrants who will make this country a better place to live, or whose need is sufficient that the government feels obligated to help them. Implementing this principle requires the following: First, give work permits to all immigrants with jobs, job offers or education scholarships in the United States that are sufficient to financially support them and any family they bring with them, and give immigrants and their families citizenship after they have worked here for 10 or more years. Perform background checks to ascertain applicants are not terrorists or criminals. Admit or reject all applicants within three months. Second, have a separate program to admit people displaced by poverty or war, and admit those whose need is sufficient to merit United States. Third, phase in the increased immigration over a period of years to ensure that communities can cope with the increase.
I support substantially increased immigration, as I (foolhardily) propose above, because I think it will improve our economy and enrich most Americans. Immigrants want to work for American companies, and if would-be immigrants are kept out of the United States, some American companies will take the work to them. The ideal solution to immigration would be to improve the economies of all nations to the point that there is no reason to emigrate to the United States, but this would require vastly improved efficiency of production. Not only does the U.S. standard of living consume, by a popular estimate, six times what is sustainable, but the U.S. per capita domestic product is roughly six times the worldwide average per capita domestic product. If more people are to have high-paying jobs, then everyone must have more productive jobs, and the United States, with a stable government and extensive infrastructure, is a good environment for creating additional highly productive jobs. The downsides are the cost of integrating immigrants into U.S. communities, and the removal of many skilled people from less developed countries that immigration entails.
How can a program like this be fleshed out and implemented? The American people do not have time to collectively understand the issue and form a mass opinion on it; there are many issues clamoring for people's attention and other worthy causes that must be worked on. Thus, the development of a policy should be mediated by a small group of Congressmen, economists, geographers and lawyers who have firsthand experience with immigration and the training necessary to develop and implement a complex new law. This small group of experts should develop a policy that is acceptable to most Americans and that avoids xenophobic or economically flawed biases held by many people. The experts should discuss their proposal on television, and hopefully inspire several celebrities to speak out in support of it. If all this occurs, the United States would gain an effective immigration policy. The difficulty lies in finding people with sufficient knowledge to agree on a good solution and with sufficient popularity and leverage to make it happen.
What can Dartmouth students do to help create a better immigration policy? Many students are helping end discrimination against immigrants here in Hanover through raising awareness about the issues. To significantly influence policy, however, students must appeal directly to state and national congressmen, and should propose specific legislation backed up by expert opinion and sound argument.
