I have often said that if I ran for Congress and were
elected, I would introduce two bills. The first would reduce the tax code to a
single 8.5-by-11-inch sheet of paper (assuming for the moment that some of us
still think in terms of sheets of paper) Anyway, Bill No. 2 would reduce the
immigration code to three sheets. That involves live human beings, and it’s a
little more complicated.
Immigration is back to being the top issue in our border states , and the
crisis we’re dealing with now is the flood of those fleeing from Central
American countries whose governments have apparently lost control over
organized criminal elements – if they ever had it in the first place. These violent
gangs have taken to targeting children – using them as bargaining chips in
their deadly games. Naturally, their parents feel the need to ship them to a safer
place. If there were ever a case for asylum, this would seem to be it. Except
that if we automatically welcome these kids, how many adults might be using
this issue to get them, or themselves, a free pass here?
One of the biggest headaches is adjudicating each case to
see who is a legitimate asylum candidate. This flood of border crossers wasn’t
anticipated, so there’s a shortage of judges who can deal with them? What do you do with these immigrants in the
meantime? Angry NIMBY crowds have shown up wherever the buses full of these
people roll, demanding they be sent home.
It’s important to note that the U.S. is not the only country affected
by this. Residents of dangerous places tired of living in a constant state of
fear are also seeking entrance to countries to the south, even in South America .
Some perspective might be useful. What we’re calling a border
crisis is a joke compared with what is happening in the Middle
East . What would we do if we lived next to Syria , and a
million people showed up at our doorstep?
In spite of my three-page fantasy, I have no solutions, but
when it comes to immigration, there are two principles to keep in mind. First,
immigration law is not set in stone. If government decided there was a critical
need for one-armed cello players, the laws would be adjusted to solve the problem.
One real-world exception in the code has been offering foreign capitalists
special immigration status if they start a company in this country, or relocate
one here, that creates jobs. Countries make these kinds of adjustments all the
time.
The second principle is, since immigration law seems to
require flexibility to fill a need, the rules are often going to be changed in
the middle of the game. There is going to be an unavoidable element of unfairness
which has to be accepted.
And there is a third principle. If we want to continue in
the notion of American exceptionalism, we can’t blame those in dire
circumstances in their home countries for wanting to come here, right now. Many
of these people are getting here at great expense or great personal peril, as
did the ancestors of many in the NIMBY crowds wherever those buses arrive. All
that a substantial number in those crowds had to do was be born here. They were
just lucky. Where is the fairness in that?
Deportation seems like a quick fix, but there are no quick
fixes to this problem. The best we can do is engineer a system that is as fair
as possible while being as flexible as possible. And we need to elect people
capable of such a task. If we can’t find them here, maybe we should import
some.
