Immigration

I believe legal immigration is important for our country and am chagrined when politicians and media instigate angry disagreements relative to immigration.  It is critical to have fair, open discussion of the issues, acknowledging “inconvenient truths”. (Disclosure: both of my parents immigrated to this country legally.)

1.      Other than our few Native Americans, all of our families immigrated to the United States.  Why was our ancestors’ immigration OK, but not current immigration?  (Of course, you could argue that even Native Americans immigrated to this continent.)

2.      Immigrants understand the value of our freedoms and economy.  As any country ages, people whose families have lived in that country for multiple generations tend to take its advantages for granted.  Many people believe that various threats “could never happen here”, but such an attitude increases the risk that those problems occur.  Immigrants bring a very important injection of reality and appreciation.

3.      Immigrants have contributed mightily to our economy and scientific and other advances.  In so doing, they have created jobs for others.

4.      Immigrants often take jobs many US-born citizens don’t want.  Easily transferrable skills like caregiving, sewing and manual labor involve low-paid jobs.  Licensing barriers make it difficult for some foreign professionals to practice here after immigrating. 

5.      Nonetheless, if we refuse to acknowledge that some citizens lose jobs to immigrants and that pay for some jobs is depressed by immigrant competition, we fuel discord.  We should consider those citizens' situation and encourage them to increase their capabilities so they can find gainful employment and should improve our education system to serve them better.

6.      Immigration is part of the fabric of our ideals (“Statue of Liberty”).  We should continue to live our ideals, which are harmonious with all faiths and which help us build a more peaceful, cooperative society.

7.      Risk cannot be fully removed in life.  As we protect against some risks, we increase exposure to other risks.  The best way to protect ourselves is to respect each other and engage in open, fair discussion. 

8.      However, if we were to open our gates, letting anyone enter our country who chooses to do so, I think we would run into a number of problems.  I believe we have a right to determine who should be allowed to enter and who should not.

9.      Vetting can’t be 100% accurate.  In the case of Muslim immigrants, it is deceitful and destructive to pretend that vetting shields us from terrorism risk.  Even if vetting was 100% accurate at entry, Muslim immigrants are more likely to become radicalized later than other residents. Thirdly, children of Muslim immigrants are more likely to become radicalized than their non-Muslim peers.  I believe we should accept some risk, but recognize that we are doing so.

10.  It is not easy to be an immigrant or a member of the first generation born in a new country.  We could reduce our risk by welcoming immigrants more openly and helping them assimilate.

11.  Immigrants can help by alerting authorities to security risks in their community.  I don’t know how much this is being done.  Although I have an impression that more such cooperation should occur, I suspect there is significant cooperation of which I am unaware.

12.  I do not think we needed a ban on Muslim refugees and travelers.  However, I believe that the second travel ban was legal (perhaps the first).  Do you agree with the following arguments? 

• The travel ban for Muslim-dominant countries is illegal but the travel ban can proceed with Venezuela and North Korea.  From my perspective, the judge who made that recent ruling was guilty of religious discrimination.  He ruled that Muslim countries should have preferred treatment over countries with other or more diverse religions.

 

• The travel ban is illegal because it depresses university enrollment in Hawaii.

• The travel ban is illegal because it depresses tourism in Hawaii.

• The travel ban is illegal, regardless of what it says, because of what President Trump said during the campaign.  This argument takes the position that if a president creating an executive order (might it extend to promoters of laws, too?) expressed support for an illegal approach in the past year, then, ipso facto, his executive order in unenforceable, even if he instructed staff to create a legal order and even if the wording of the order is legal.  The court’s interpretation of motive trumps (pun intended) law.  That’s a scary theory.

13.  It is probably easy to reach agreement that we should be able to block entry to terrorists, criminals and other people who pose specific threats (the longer that list, the less agreement there would be).  The more challenging question is whether we should refuse entry to immigrants who meet our vetting procedures.  As we lack the vast uninhabited territory we had in the 18^th and 19^th centuries and as we have social welfare programs that are already unsustainable, I think it is OK to limit the number of qualified potential immigrants who are allowed into our country.

14.  If we block entry to some qualified immigrants, the question becomes how to decide which people to admit?  Do we leave it to chance or do we establish preferences?

15.  At least to some degree, I think we should establish preferences.  As we move down my list, priority becomes less reliable.  A lottery could be used to resolve tie scores, if necessary.  Some people at lower levels may have compelling situations that propel them upward in priority.

a.       At the top of my list would be people who have supported our efforts, hence are exposed to risk.  It is my impression that we have not been adequately loyal to some people who have been loyal to us.

b.      Spouses and minor children of immigrants should be allowed entry.  Absent special circumstances, other relatives should not get preference.

c.       However, in some cases under #a above, it seems appropriate to favor parents who could be exposed to retaliation.  Expansion to siblings, uncles, aunts, or cousins requires increasingly careful judgment. 

d.      People whose brave behavior has created risk of retaliation would be high on my list.

e.       People with skills we need in our country.  Perhaps these should not count against limits.

           f.    Victims of genocide.  I would not object to moving this above e), especially if the
                 immigrants under e) do not count against an overall limit.

16.  Amnesty is an issue on which most voters would agree if politicians would accept a simple compromise.  If you give amnesty without controlling your borders, the amnesty will attract more illegal immigration.  Thus, you need to gain control of your borders (and visa violations) before granting amnesty.  I believe a high majority of voters would support such an approach.

17.   I oppose sanctuary cities.  Immigration law is the responsibility of the Federal government and I believe local governments should not harbor undocumented aliens.  I understand that if people are in fear of deportation, they won’t report crimes.  We should have a respectful and fair system so they don’t have to unnecessarily fear deportation.  If we resolve the amnesty issue, as per the previous paragraph, this issue would greatly reduce.  The argument that "they won't report crimes" is a slippery slope that could justify not enforcing a lot of laws.

18.  If the national government fails to protect a state’s borders, I believe that state should be allowed to step in.  I’m not suggesting that a state should be able to override Federal immigration laws.  A state should not be able to unilaterally bar immigrants who satisfy Federal requirements, nor to admit people in violation of Federal rules or laws.  However, if people are illegally gaining admittance to the state, the state ought to be able to take actions to thwart illegal entry or stays if the Federal government is not performing its job well.

19.  Most of the “Dreamers” are deserving.  President Trump has taken a positive stance in this regard.  Rather than engage in illegal (or at best questionable) action, he has pressured Congress to take a stance.  While I don’t think I would have taken his approach, I respect it and recognize that it may well turn out more positively than what I would have done.  A permanent solution is preferable, however the solution should not open the flood gates for the Dreamers' relatives.

20.  Foreign policy can impact immigration.  Had a “safe zone” been created in southern Syria, immigration problems of the past few years would have been much smaller.

NFL Players Protesting by Kneeling during our National Anthem

I view the NFL player protests as follows:
 
1.      We want our younger citizens to be concerned about our country and to engage in helping it maintain and fulfill its ideals.
 
2.      We want such participation to non-violent and non-obstructionist.
 
3.      To me, kneeling is a respectful way to express one’s concern.  (One of our local players once rode a stationary bike while the anthem was played.  I don’t consider that to be respectful.)
 
4.      When they express their positions, others have an opportunity to disagree and engage.
 
5.      If they use their stature to draw children’s attention to an issue, they should accept the responsibility of listening to others who engage them positively.  Here in KC, the police invited protesting players to join them on patrol, which I felt was a very positive response.  (I don’t know if that has occurred yet.)
 
6.      An employer has a right to terminate an employee who is disruptive to team esprit, etc.  I would not terminate players for protesting by taking a knee.  Teams have a right to do so but I would urge caution.
 
7.      I think it would be WRONG for the league to ban such players.  That seems to constitute conspiracy to remove their ability to participate in their profession, for expressing their thought.