IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS:

KEEPING THE DEBATE CONSTRUCTIVE

SYNOPSIS: 

    The United States of America has serious immigration problems.
But Americans will embrace different solutions.
Can we work together toward whatever solutions
have the best chance of being adopted by the U.S. government?

OUTLINE:

I.  THREE MAJOR PROBLEMS REQUIRING IMMIGRATION REFORM

    A.  PROBLEMS AT THE BORDERS

    B.  FAMILY BREAK-UP CREATED BY IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS

    C.  ABUSE OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

II.  DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS OF IMMIGRATION

    A.  HANDLING DIFFERENCES OF OPINION

    B.  FIVE FORMS OF DEMONIZING 'THE OPPOSITION'

        1.  Attacking the person rather than the idea.

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

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

IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS:

KEEPING THE DEBATE CONSTRUCTIVE

by James Leonard Park

    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 the parents are citizens.
This would be especially relevant when the U.S. citizens are minor children.

    C.  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.

    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.

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.  DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS OF IMMIGRATION

    Anyone can propose 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. 

    A.  HANDLING DIFFERENCES OF OPINION

    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.

    In order to have constructive discussion of immigration reform,
we should resist the temptation to demonize those
who recommend a different solution than the one we favor.

    B.  FIVE FORMS OF DEMONIZING 'THE OPPOSITION'

        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 of us 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.  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.

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

    Being aware of the danger of 'global dismissal' helps us to guard against it.
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 more constructive discussion can respectfully disagree
with any particular position someone advances
without attacking the other person.

        4.  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.

        5.  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.

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

CONCLUSION 

    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.

Has reading this chapter changed your mind?

    Perhaps you came to the immigration debate with strong views
that might have been labeled either "pro-immigrant" or "anti-immigrant". 
Now, instead of automatically rejecting everything said by the opposition,
you are more willing to consider each proposal on its own merits.