Big Lizard's Fundamental Theorem of Immigration

Dafydd ap Hugh at Big Lizards takes a look at why people immigrate, legally or otherwise. And at which of those immigrants we want to keep, legal or otherwise.

Why does some particular foreigner come to reside here? Is it (1) because he wants to assimilate into America and become a real American? Or has he some other reason? For example:

2. To marry or move in with an American resident or citizen;
3. To work in a field unavailable in the immigrant's homeland;
4. To make some money and then go home again;
5. To suck up American welfare;
6. Or to engage in violence, terrorism, drug dealing, or some other terrible criminal behavior.

The only noble reason to immigrate here is the first, the intense desire to Americanize.

The next two reasons -- to live with a loved one, or to work in a career that requires a more capitalist environment -- are at least not ignoble; they're potentially valid reasons, depending on other circumstances. But if the immigrant is at least pro-American, immigration for these reasons will still benefit America.

And therefore?

Immigrants who come here for Americanization, cohabitation, and career employment can be very beneficial to the United States, and we should encourage them. But immigrants who come here for other reasons -- including as "guest workers" -- cause far more harm to the country than any benefit they bring, and we should bar them. This is the Big Lizards Fundamental Theorem of Immigration.

Here is the crux of my argument: Unless the immigration laws line up with the Fundamental Theorem of Immigration, they're lousy guides to whether specific immigrants are good or bad for America.

Sadly, that is precisely the situation we're in right now: We encourage immigration, both temporary and permanent, from poor people who have no interest in becoming Americans, no real family connections here, and no job prospects; and we discourage potential immigrants who would make the very best naturalized citizens, especially liberty-loving immigrants from former Eastern European countries, persecuted Christians from Africa and the Moslem countries, and capitalist entrepeneurs who want to start businesses here. Thus, an enormous number of legal immigrants are worse for the country than a great many illegal immigrants.

If our immigration laws allowed in only Islamic pilgrims from Iran, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, and barred everyone else, Dafydd makes the point that most people would prefer to live next to an illegal immigrant entrepreneur from the Ukraine rather than a legal imigrant from Yemen.  To the extent that our laws encourage people who immigrate for the wrong reasons, and discourage those who immigrate for the right ones, the laws are bad.

This is where Mark Steyn and many other conservatives go wrong on the immigration issue: They are so caught up in the mythology that every illegal is a "criminal" -- not in the purely technical sense, but as most people use the word -- that they miss the more important distinction between good immigrants and bad immigrants.

 

I can agree with that on what Dennis calls the micro level.  On the macro level, however, where laws can and do operate, the presence of illegal immigrants means the system is broken.  If we can't keep immigrants out of the country, it doesn't matter if the set of "legal" immigrants corresponds with "good" ones -- we forfeit the ability to select.

 

I agree that we need to let in "good" immigrants, but first we need to demonstrate the ability to keep out immigrants who haven't gone through legal channels.  Once we have a functional wall, then we can discuss when and for whom we open the door.