IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS:

KEEPING THE UU DEBATE CONSTRUCTIVE

SYNOPSIS: 

    As Unitarian Universalists, we will probably agree that
the United States of America has serious immigration problems.
But we might embrace different solutions.
Can we work together toward whatever solutions
have the best chance of being adopted by the U.S. government?

OUTLINE:

I.  FOUR MAJOR PROBLEMS REQUIRING IMMIGRATION REFORM

    A.  PROBLEMS AT THE BORDERS

    B.  PROBLEMS CREATED BY ARIZONA LAW SB 1070

    C.  FAMILY BREAK-UP CREATED BY IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS

    D.  ABUSE OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

II.  UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISTS CAN EMBRACE DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS
            TO THE PROBLEMS OF IMMIGRATION

    A.  HANDLING DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AMONG UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISTS

    B.  TEN FORMS OF DEMONIZING 'THE OPPOSITION'

        1.  Attacking the person rather than the idea.

        2.  Saying that the other person is not really a Unitarian Universalist.

        3.  Attempting to silence the author of ideas we reject.

        4.  Appeal to principles already articulated.

        5.  Finding one wrong idea,
              we dismiss everything else that person says.
 
        6.  Claiming that the proponent of a particular policy
              is really supporting the whole program of an opposing party.

        7.  Emotional responses left-over from previous debates with opponents.

        8.  Appeal to authority.

        9.  Appeal to orthodoxy.

        10.  Intellectual conformity—following positions already taken.

CONCLUSION


IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS:

KEEPING THE UU DEBATE CONSTRUCTIVE

by James Leonard Park


I.  FOUR MAJOR PROBLEMS REQUIRING IMMIGRATION REFORM

    A.  PROBLEMS AT THE BORDERS

    The United States of America has serious border problems.
Millions of citizens of other countries
have entered and stayed in the USA without permission.

    Stricter border enforcement
—more border patrols, fences, walls, electronic surveillance, etc.—
have forced people who wish to enter without permission
to seek even more dangerous routes.
This has resulted in many deaths of would-be immigrants
when they try to cross deserts without proper preparation.

SOLUTIONS:

1.  ABOLISH NATIONAL BORDERS.

    Should we open our borders,
allowing everyone to enter who wants to live in the USA?
People could live wherever they like.
Should 'immigration' be like moving from California to New York?

2.  STRENGTHEN U.S. BORDERS.

    Should we create stronger borders,
thereby making it more difficult to enter the USA without permission?
Because many citizens of other countries enter with temporary visas
but later decide to stay indefinitely,
we would also need to strengthen the processes
by which we make certain
that visitors return to their homelands as agreed in their visas.

3.  REDUCE THE MOTIVATIONS FOR IMMIGRATION.

    Should we reduce or eliminate the reasons
for immigration-without-permission?
This could include improving the lives of people in their homelands
so that they are not so impelled to emigrate to the USA.
This would be an entirely constructive use of U.S. tax-dollars.

4.  A NEW NATIONAL IDENTITY FILE FOR EACH PERSON IN THE USA.

    Should we require every person living in the USA
to be registered with a new National Identity Bureau?
If the public facts about each of us were collected in a National Identity File,
including a recent photograph such as used for driver's licenses and passports,
then many foreign nationals would voluntarily return to their homelands.
And many who were previously tempted to emigrate without permission
would revise their plans for unauthorized immigration.



    B.  PROBLEMS CREATED BY ARIZONA LAW SB 1070

    In 2010 the state of Arizona passed a law intended (among other things)
to allow state and local police to detain suspects questioned for other reasons
if they could not prove that they were citizens of the USA.
Some parts of the law were immediately suspended by the courts.

SOLUTIONS: 

1.  ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST ARIZONA.

    One response from various organizations was to boycott Arizona.
And the UUA Board of Trustees recommended that the 2012 General Assembly
be moved to some other state as a way of punishing Arizona.

2.  ENCOURAGE ARIZONA TO CHANGE ITS LAW SB 1070.

    But the 2010 GA, meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota
embraced another solution—changing the 2012 GA to a Justice General Assembly,
which would go to Arizona as originally planned
but focus on the problems of immigration.


    C.  FAMILY BREAK-UP CREATED BY IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS

    Often the rigid enforcement of immigration rules and regulations
results in nuclear families being broken up
because not all members have permission to live in the USA.
We know heart-breaking stories of families broken apart
by the deportation of family members who are not U.S. citizens.

SOLUTIONS:

1.  ADMIT ALL FAMILY MEMBERS TO THE USA.

    Whenever any member of the family is a U.S. citizen,
all of his or her relatives can also come to live in the USA.

2.  ADMIT SOME FAMILY MEMBERS TO THE USA.

    Only some close relatives will be accepted.

    Family connections beyond the nuclear family (Mom, Dad, & the kids)
would not be as important.
Every would-be immigrant would be evaluated by the same criteria.
Distant family connections would not count as much
in deciding which applicants would be permitted to emigrate to the USA.

3.  ENCOURAGE SOME FAMILIES TO RE-UNITE IN THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

    Even if some family members are U.S. citizens,
it might be best for all of the family to be kept together
in the country where most of them are citizens.
This would be especially relevant when the U.S. citizens are minor children.



    D.  ABUSE OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

    One peculiarity of U.S. law and practice grants automatic citizenship
to all babies born within the United States of American and its territories.

    Sometimes pregnant women have come to the USA
specifically for the purpose of giving birth to U.S. citizens.
For example, a regular service has been established in China
which for $15,000 will fly pregnant Chinese women to Los Angeles,
arrange for their accommodations in hotel rooms and hospitals
so that when they give birth, their children will be automatic U.S. citizens.
One selling-point for this service is that
when the baby is old enough for college,
he or she can attend a U.S. institution of higher learning
while paying the lower rates available to U.S. citizens.
This saving will more than pay for the added cost of giving birth in the USA.

    Citizens of Mexico have also been known to abuse this law:
When they give birth inside the USA,
they have established a foothold by having a U.S. citizen in the family.
This child might later be used to facilitate legal status for the parents
—and later other family members.

SOLUTIONS:

1.  ABOLISH AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP FOR CHILDREN OF FOREIGN NATIONALS.

    Not all countries of the world have birthright citizenship.
Quite often the children born to foreign nationals
also become citizens of the countries where their parents are citizens.
The same applies to American woman who give birth overseas:
Their foreign-born children automatically become American citizens
because of the citizenship of their parents,
no matter where the children were born.
Born in the USA: The Easy Way to Become a U.S. Citizen.

2.  KEEP BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FOR ALL BABIES BORN IN THE USA.

    This would not really be a solution to the problem.
But the USA could openly welcome all who take advantage of this law.
If a birth takes place within the USA, that child is a U.S. citizen.


II.  UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISTS CAN EMBRACE DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS
            TO THE PROBLEMS OF IMMIGRATION

    We UUs can propose various kinds of immigration reform,
but only the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President
can actually change the laws that will shape immigration
for the next period of American history. 

    Thus, there is actually no reason to attempt to achieve
a unified UU view on immigration.
Let all views be expressed.
And perhaps the solutions that have the widest appeal
will ultimately become the new law of the USA.

    As there will be vigorous national debate about  immigration reform,
there will also be a variety of solutions advanced within the UU movement. 
Let us hope that we will handle our differences of opinion
better than the politicians,
who will tend to exaggerate and overstate their opponent's positions
in order to score political points.
 

    A.  HANDLING DIFFERENCES OF OPINION
            AMONG UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISTS

    The actual changes of U.S. laws with regard to immigration
are likely to be somewhere between
having national borders that are completely open
and borders that are completely closed.

    After considering each proposed change of law in some detail,
most UUs will probably find themselves somewhere in the middle.

    If this is true—that we will generally favor moderate changes—
then we must resist the temptation to demonize those
who recommend a different solution than the one we favor.
Instead, we might seek common ground
—moderate changes we can all embrace.
And such changes are more likely to become law.

    B.  TEN FORMS OF DEMONIZING 'THE OPPOSITION'

    The following are a few kinds of inappropriate argument.
We will be able to avoid such pitfalls
if we can identify them in advance.
The following principles could actually be used
by any discussion of immigration reform,
especially on the Internet,
where the most negative comments frequently appear.

        1.  Attacking the person rather than the idea.

    When we read ideas that we disagree with,
we might be tempted to say that the other person is "crazy".
But such attacks on the mental abilities or soundness of the opponent
adds nothing to the discussion.
Real policy suggestions should create reasonable discussion of the options.

    For example, some UUs will favor blanket amnesty but others will not.
The resulting discussion should focus on the pros and cons of each solution
rather than attacking any advocate of a solution we reject.

        2.  Saying that the other person is not really a Unitarian Universalist.

    This kind of response arises from an assumption
that all right-thinking UUs will agree with us.
If anyone takes a different position on any issue,
then such persons do not really belong in our camp.

    Unitarian Universalists have not agreed in advance to think alike
about any issue of public policy.
And a thinker who takes a less-popular position
does not thereby cease being a Unitarian Universalist.
   

        3.  Attempting to silence the author of ideas we reject.

    Sometimes, instead of addressing the issues,
we will attempt to 'turn off the microphone'
that is being used to spread ideas we reject.
If the author is a columnist for a newspaper we read,
we will encourage the management to terminate that column.

    If a UU thinker has been using some electronic means of communication,
such as a UU e-mailing list, a website, or a Facebook Page,
the 'silence the author' response might appear in the form
of attempting to exclude that person from future discussions.

    Constructive discussion means taking all suggested solutions seriously
and dealing with each according to its merits.
What is gained by attempting to silence some voices in advance?

        4.  Appeal to principles already articulated.

    We might believe that an issue has already been settled
as the result of past discussion
or as the result of an official resolution
created by the some part of the UUA.
In this case, we will find ourselves quoting the statement
and trying to show that (when properly interpreted)
the position we are criticizing falls outside the official position of the UUA.

    In more orthodox religious movements,
this would be called "appealing to dogma".
For example, if you cannot find a good basis in the Bible,
then that form of thinking must be wrong.

    But Unitarian Universalism has no dogma—about anything.
Even past principles officially articulated are always open for discussion.
How else would we make any progress?

        5.  Finding one wrong idea,
             we dismiss everything else that person says.

    We would hope that this would never happen in UU circles,
but being aware of this danger will help us to guard against 'global dismissal'.
It is very likely that we will find something we disagree with
in the writings or comments of any particular person.
But would that be a reasonable basis
for rejecting everything else ever said by that person?

    But this is often the way that political discourse moves:
People who wish to demonize a political opponent
find the most outrageous statement ever uttered by that opponent
and then make it the basis for rejecting that person entirely.

    Political advertising misuses
the most foolish action or statement of the opponent
as a means of encouraging the voters to reject him or her. 

    But we UUs can respectfully disagree
with any particular position someone advances
without attacking the other person.

        6.  Claiming that the proponent of a particular policy
             is really supporting the whole program of an opposing party.

    We human beings tend to classify and label people too quickly.
We know what to expect from persons well known to be in opposition.
But we might be too quick to jump to the conclusion
that this person is a secret member of the opposition.

    For example, in the coming debate about immigration,
we might label someone as being 'anti-immigrant'
if he or she supports registering foreign nationals living in the USA.

    Labeling people is often a way of dismissing everything they say.
But rational discussion of policy options one-by-one
can be quite independent of whoever first proposed each solution.

        7.  Emotional responses
             left-over from previous debates with opponents.

    If we have been involved in the immigration debate for some time,
we might have developed some anger
at people we see opposing our own positions.
And this background anger might spill over onto anyone
who happens to remind us of past debates.

    However, sometimes, this left-over anger is completely misdirected.
The new suggestion might differ in meaningful ways
from the other policy proposals that made us angry.
Can we set aside prior anger
and examine each new proposal on its own merits?

    Whenever we feel anger rising, we should ask ourselves:
Is this anger about the present proposal or about something in the past?

        8.  Appeal to authority.

    When we read a policy-suggestion we do not like,
we might be tempted to dismiss it as not having proper authorization.
Most religious organizations do have sources of authority.
They might have a holy book or a religious hierarchy.
But UUs do not believe in any sources of unquestionable truth.
So no view on any issue can be declared anathema. 

    Instead of dismissing some idea as uttered without authority,
we will have to discuss each proposed solution
on the basis of its likely outcomes if enacted into law.

    Concerning changes to U.S. immigration laws,
why should we assume that only certain persons have authority to speak?

        9.  Appeal to orthodoxy. 

    Especially among UUs who started their religious journey
in a faith with more centralized authority,
we might notice some subtle appeals to orthodoxy. 
Do we detect a hidden hope
that there might be an absolute position on some moral question?
Are advocates of some particular solution
searching past statements to discover the UU 'straight truth'?

    But Unitarian Universalism is remarkable open-minded and free of dogma.
Thus, each new moral question must be addressed using reason
rather than appealing to established 'truths' from the past.

        10.  Intellectual conformity—following positions already taken.

    Even if we UUs do not have any official orthodoxy,
we might sometimes develop an unofficial party line.
If we perceive that most UUs take a certain moral stance,
we might assume that all right-thinking UUs would follow suit.

    But the best of UUism encourages independent thinking.
We are not bound by the beliefs
of any former or current generation of UU thinkers.
Instead of attempting to discover what others think,
we are encouraged to think for ourselves.

    Immigration reform should be discussed on the merits of each proposal,
not attempting to follow patterns established in the past.

    Even resolutions passed by wide margins by our General Assembly
can later be revised in the light of new evidence and new thinking.

CONCLUSION

    The Unitarian Universalist debates about immigration reform
will probably mirror the national debate.
But we can resist the tendency to polarize the positions.
The news media will always say that such-and-such a proposal
was put forward by one political party or the other,
but votes from both parties will be required to pass anything.

    If we identify with one party,
we should resist the tendency toward us-and-them thinking
—rejecting everything proposed by the other party.
Compromise is going to be required
in order to create a new national immigration policy
and the laws and regulations to put these reforms into action.

Created November 29, 2010; revised 12-2-2010; 1-14-2011; 3-10-2011; 5-19-2011; 11-30-2011;
4-5-2012; 9-18-2012; 7-30-2013; 8-2-2013; 8-7-2013; 8-26-2013; 10-24-2013;
9-5-2014; 6-3-2015; 4-5-2016; 11-19-2016; 1-30-2017;


This appeal for keeping the debate constructive and positive
has been adapted to become Chapter 5 of Orderly Immigration: Creating a New America:
"Immigration Problems and Solutions:
Keeping the Debate Constructive".

Would you consider joining a free Facebook Seminar
discussing this book-being-revised?

See the complete description of this first-readers book-club:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/ED-IMM.html

AUTHOR

    James Park is an immigrant
who has benefited from living most of his life in the United States of America.
His Unitarian Universalist connections are detailed here.
He has started a collection of UU sermons on immigration reform,
of which this on-line essay is one part.

    If you would like to explore the various forms of 'demonizing the opposition'
more deeply, you might read The Flame-Catchers' Handbook,
which was developed to promote constructive discussion on the Internet.

Further reading

Solutions that Work:
A Policy Manual for Immigration Reform
This is a 50-page discussion of specific reforms
that the American Immigration Lawyers Association would like to see.

Lessons from The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
Produced for the Migration Policy Institute,
this 8-page summary and analysis explains what worked and what did not work
in granting amnesty to 3 million foreign nationals beginning in 1986.

Structuring and Implementing an Immigration Legalization Program:
Registration as the First Step
This 34-page policy brief from MPI explores how to register
12 million unauthorized foreign nationals now living in the USA.

Focusing on the Solutions:
Key Principles of Comprehensive Immigration Reform
A 21-page policy paper produced by the Immigration Policy Center
exploring common-sense solutions to the well-known problems.

Go to the beginning of this website
James Leonard Park—Free Library