Where do I stand politically, overall? Do I lean to the left? Do I lean to the right? Like many Americans, I’m most likely somewhere in between. I find it difficult to agree with any particular party on all of their issues, just as our political parties today don’t agree with one another internally.
So if I don’t subscribe to a particular political party, how do I develop my stance on a given political issue? It’s pretty easy for someone to get fired up and passionate about a topic and develop an opinion quickly, and stick with it stubbornly without a thorough analysis of the given issue. As Mr. Spock once said, “Insufficient facts always invite danger, captain.” To better avoid that danger, when I observe a political issue, I take an approach of “multi disciplinary analysis”. I examine the issue from an anthropological, emotional, environmental, economic, or historical standpoint, and possibly most importantly, I develop empathy for what the opposing sides think, which I think is critical to develop a sensible solution..
To help describe my thought process, I’ll analyze a particular topic, immigration, which hit headlines this week with President Trump’s repeal of DACA. I’ll go about this by analyzing a general argument or “mantra” from both sides of the political spectrum. My hope is, by the end of this essay, to have given fair consideration to the feelings of each sides, and find the best in boths’ sides arguments to encourage a dialogue that will be beneficial to both the American people and the many hard working people from all over the world who aim to seek out better lives here. Instead, I want to share my thought process with you as the reader to rather to encourage you to think critically, be skeptic, but also be progressive and seek resolution on this issue and others.
“Why do people always have to come here? Why don’t people stand and fight for their own countries? Why do they come here, why don’t they build their own countries up?” “Why does everyone think they can come here with their hands out? Why don’t people stand and fight for their own countries, or stay and build up their own countries economically? Immigration won’t solve all the world’s problems, everyone just can’t come here!”
Let’s start with an anthropological/historical standpoint. Why do people feel the need to “move” instead of “fighting for/improving their own countries?” For starters, the idea of a “country” is a relatively recent organizational construct. Humans evolved first as hunter gatherers. A hunter gatherer by definition survives by moving around in search of edible plants and hunting animals, the latter of which are of course more often than not transient themselves in search of sustenance. In hunter gatherer societies, humans lived in small bands and “migrated” often. When agriculture became widespread, humans began living in more permanent settlements. But if some external source threatened an agricultural group’s lifestyle, logic says that they would “migrate” elsewhere, to survive. In short, if a given person’s source of sustenance is threatened, they move elsewhere, which is the case for migrants whose lives are threatened by food insecurity (due to environmental or other factors), war, and more.
“Cowards run- real patriots stand and fight, just like Patrick Swayze did in Red Dawn.” In regards to the global migrant crisis in Europe, I’ve observed a lot of criticism of many male migrants- “why aren’t they staying and fighting for their countries?” Believe it or not, human beings have a sense of self preservation and propagation of the species. Regarding our life cycle, humans live in “mostly” monogamous pairs and both parents typically take part in the childrearing process. So, it’s of no surprise to me that two parents might decide to leave a war torn country together to assure a more optimal future for their children, rather than having the man stay behind to “fight for his country.” If human beings evolved with some sort of emotional attachment to a given piece of land (E.G. a “country”) - where they choose to stay no matter what the detrimental circumstances they faced- I don’t think humanity would have ever survived long enough to invent the iPhone or Root Beer Pop Tart.
Environmental? “Why can’t people build their own countries?” Well, it would be nice if they took the initiative to do it, but American exceptionalism dictates that sometimes people need a little bit of a push (from America!) to get going. So, if a given country is having trouble getting itself together, we can always do a little “nation building”, overthrow an oppressive regime, and give them some democracy to build themselves up, so they won’t have to come immigrate here.
“Where there’s a will, there’s a way, right?” Through democracy, all things are possible. But the romanticized idea that democracy solves all the world’s problems without consideration to outside factors is just false. Piggybacking off of the last argument, humans require food and water to live. The USA ranks 2nd in the world with respects to total arable land, and 21% of the world’s surface fresh water by volume is held in the Great Lakes. Is every country blessed with a similar proportion of arable land and fresh water? Take a look at a topographical map. Moreover, does every country have resources to use to manufacture into goods to sell to the rest of the world? Not all do. We might have to start telling one another to “check our environmental privilege.”
Why don’t people just “fight for their countries”, from an emotional and personal standpoint? A lot of people like to talk about what they “think” they would do when faced in the extraordinary or unfortunate circumstances of others. A lot of people “think” that they would stand and fight. But talk is cheap, and it’s easy to justify to yourself that you have the moral high ground, and that others are somehow “weaker”. But when the time comes, you’ll see your true survival instincts kick in and find that you’re much less of a hero than you fantasize.
When I was a teenager, I thought of myself as invincible, and if anyone ever tried to “attack” me, I’d “kick their ass.” When I was 14, I was sitting in a car in a parking lot when a 6”6, “creepy” man opened the driver door, and got in. Rather than act out a scene from the Bourne Identity, I ran to tell my father who was inside the building, who then ran outside the building ready to beat the man to a pulp before being stopped by my uncle before he laid a hand on him. Similarly, as an adult, an intoxicated driver once rear ended me at a red light, got out of the car, bashed on my windows, and tried to rip open my door and attempted to assault me. No superhero swooped down from the sky, and no legally concealed weapon carrying vigilante Vietnam vet shot down the man who could have easily thrown me into traffic or murdered me. Instead, all the witnesses just stared, probably equally as shocked and worried for their own well being. So, when the light turned green, I surged my car forward, and called the police, having a panic attack. Circling back to our original topic, I would imagine that in similar circumstances- if some internal or external force took over one’s country and put one’s life in danger, one’s first instinct might be to, flee, and survive. I’ll never forget the words a young refugee once told me: “People think we come here because we want better jobs. But the truth is, we just want to live.”
“Immigrants come to the United States, whether legally or illegally, because the United States offers them more economic opportunities.”
From an anthropological or environmental standpoint? It is difficult for people who are themselves struggling financially to sympathize with people who move to a place, especially illegally, for “economic reasons”. However, it is just a simple question of human survival: when people know that they can relocate to a new place to find the resources they need to get a higher quality of life, they’ll do it.
Emotional and personal standpoint? I’ve seen many articles or news videos feature interviews with immigrants sharing their stories. As I stated earlier, nine times out of ten, I can empathize with both sides of an argument. I myself have had difficulty finding employment, and I migrated from one part of my country to another to find a good job. Therefore, it’s not hard for me to empathize with the fact that someone might not be able to find employment in their own country, and feel motivated to move to another country.
My empathy isn’t shared by everyone. Pro immigration media often portrays the true, inspiring stories of immigrants and the reasons why they decided to come to America, and assures that these people should be let into the country because they have the right to access the same opportunities as everyone here. The other side asserts that some should be let into our country, in an organized manner, particularly if they have a prized skill- like a degree in medicine- which so few people do that they wouldn’t affect the voting masses who are suspicious of anything that will make their ability to find a job more difficult.
I believe America is indeed a “land of opportunity,” and I personally feel extremely grateful to have been born a US citizen. And while I think most Americans will agree with me in this regard, it’s difficult to convince many Americans, who themselves are struggling economically or struggling to find a job, to bring in more workers who might compete with them for a job. Ever had to look for a job? It takes months, and for some even years. America has always glorified those who are “self made success stories”, but success comes at the price of beating out competition. Being an American citizen doesn’t afford you the same “out of the box” social guarantees that the citizens of many “developed” countries enjoy. If you don’t have a decent job- you won’t have decent health care- or maybe not health care at all- and if you don’t have health care, you’re going to have some massive out of the pocket expenses to pay for that prescription medication you require for survival. And what is throwing in the mix immigrants with the same skillset as you who couldn’t find a job in their own country going to do to your chances of finding a job? The competition probably won’t make it any easier for you (or at least, it’s pretty easy to believe that it won’t).
“We should continue to be/be even more generous to refugees and asylees who come here to escape legitimate fear/danger.”
Even for those who aren’t openly supportive of immigration, I’d like to think that the average American will show more sympathy to an asylee/or refugee fleeing their country due to persecution or war as opposed to “finding a job.” I’ve noticed that American seem to be highly suspicious of people deemed to be “just economic migrants”. When viewing images of the “migrant crisis” in Europe, I’ve seen many people see images of teenage boys and men migrating to Europe, and ask themselves, “where are all the helpless women and children?” and again circle back to the, “These aren’t helpless refugees, they’re economic migrants!.” Recently, I saw a piece of news about the DACA which featured a DACA recipient from South Korea, who told the interviewer that his family “came to America because they couldn’t find jobs in South Korea, and knew the education system in America was better.” I showed this to someone who I knew was in favor of restricted immigration (and definitely not in support of DACA), and I noticed they didn’t seem to be express any sympathy for this this young man’s story at all.
Of course, one could argue that this piece of news wasn’t designed to “convince conservatives they should support DACA”, but still, if I were to treat it as a news piece that was designed to convince people to be supportive of immigration, I asked myself, “What good would this serve? Most Americans know that South Korea is a highly advanced, democratic nation. Why would they show any sympathy for someone who couldn’t find a job in one of the most highly advanced East Asian economies next to Japan?” I asked this same person if they would have felt more sympathy if this young man was replaced with someone who was a “legitimate refugee” who came here illegally because they simply couldn’t wait to go through the “legal immigration process”- and they said that they would have indeed felt more sympathy in that case. This is of course, just an individual case of how one person feels, but it makes sense that others could easily agree; most Americans have faced the struggle of not being able to find a job- but the overwhelming majority of Americans have never felt persecuted by fear of death because of their religion or lived in a war torn failed state- two common reasons for which refugees and immigrants might come to America.
Still so, I would be hesitant in saying that pro immigration platforms should push their cause solely by focusing on refugees or asylees escaping legitimate danger. Why is that? Going back to the themes of sympathy and generosity- most Americans see their country as being already very generous. There is definitely some justification to this sentiment- compared with other “rich” developed countries, even in respects to proportion of refugees/asylees taken in compared with total population - America is still far more generous than the rest. In regards to refugees (note, this is distinct from the large number of asylees that the United States takes in), in 2016, the United States, with a population of around 320,000,000, admitted 84,000 refugees. In 2015, the United States took in just below 70,000 refugees. Even with the cuts in the number of refugees the United States would admit in 2017, the United States still took in 42,000 refugees. For comparison sake, Japan, with a population of 127 million and the world’s third largest economy, received almost 11,000 refugee applications in 2016, and only accepted 28 (that’s 28- not 28 thousand). For comparison sake, Canada, with a population of 36 million, accepted 46,000 refugees in 2016, and Australia, with a total population of 24 million, has an annual refugee quota of 20,000.
Many Americans find the repeal of DACA to be, understandably so, inhumane- but its difficult to imagine that many countries would ever think of offering such an opportunity to illegal immigrants, based on how they treat them. In china for example, police have been known to offer cash rewards to those who report illegal immigrants to police (before deporting them), and Russia considers crossing its borders illegally to be a crime and jails and deports illegal immigrants. I once read a Facebook comment where someone said, “Why is it racist that America, Canada, Europe, and Australia are for ‘everyone’, but it’s ok to keep ‘Asia for Asians’ or ‘Africa for Africans’”? When you look at the generosity of the former countries towards [all] migrants compared with the latter, this question posed by the Facebook comment isn’t completely without justification, and it’s understandable that many Americans might feel that the US already does its fair share of helping migrants in the world.
These last few paragraphs- which focused on finding appropriate/effective arguments for a pro immigration platform to present to the opposing sides are an appropriate segway to my conclusion, in which I’ll offer my suggestions on how the pro immigration platform can effectively present itself to the opposing side who think differently- and points of thought to work towards solutions satisfying to both sides, which will hopefully address, in a humane way, the needs of the millions of immigrants whose fates are in the hands of the opposing sides.
CONCLUSION
I chose two different “mantras” for this post from each side of the political spectrum to examine immigration because they are polar opposites, and do what so many political issues do: demonizing or vilifying one group whilst the other side sympathizes with that group. One opposes immigrants by portraying them as untrustworthy or of poor character for not “defending” or “building up” their own country and argues that they have no reason to be here and add nothing of value to begin with, while the other sympathizes with the immigrants due to their lack of opportunity and need for safety.
What does this lead me to conclude about immigration as a whole? How do I feel personally about it? I mentioned that one side “demonizes” or “villifies” the other. Like in the case of many political issues, a lot of arguments to immigration can be met with strong counter arguments which are further substantiated by reputable studies. For example, actual studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit crime than the general population. It’s also hard to argue that illegal immigrants increase crime; as while the proportion of the country’s population of illegal immigrants has increased over time, overall crime has continued to decrease. I would also go as far as to saying that I think my own immigrant friends would have been far less likely to commit crime as well: Would their parents be likely to tolerate their children, for whom they sacrificed so much to get to the United States, voluntarily become thieves or join gangs? Going back to the anthropological view- I’ll have to say “no”, considering that massive investment in rearing their offspring and the classic immigrant parent’s goal of “wanting better for their children than what they had.” Beyond crime, I’m not sure what good building a wall around Mexico would do in preventing a 9/11 style terrorist attacks, given that all of the hijackers had entered the country legally and overstayed their visas.
Based on my last paragraph, it might seem I lean towards a “pro immigrant” view, which of course I do. But what and where are the limits set? I’m not sure. Throughout this essay I’ve been rather ambiguous about whether or not I’m speaking of “immigrants” in general or “refugees and asylees” or simply “illegal immigrants.” I left it ambiguously intentionally, because truthfully it’s such a complex issue, that I don’t even know where to begin to discuss it.
As I’ve said before, I do my best to see all sides of the issue to the best of my ability, and this often leads me torn and not knowing what to think. For example, in regards to the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants in this country- what to do? One side simply says, “legalize them all, it’s inhumane to deport them all.” While they typically argue for this from the humanitarian/emotional standpoint, there’s good reason to believe they’re also right from a practical and financial standpoint. For starters, is it feasible to round up and deport that many people? Financially, no. Logistically, no. Would it possibly be against the humanitarian values and moral standards that we as Americans are supposedly obligated to uphold?
According to the Center for American Progress, “A policy of mass deportation would immediately reduce the nation’s GDP by 1.4 percent, and ultimately by 2.6 percent, and reduce cumulative GDP over 10 years by $4.7 trillion.” Moreover, illegal immigrants pay massive amounts of money into social security and taxes for services which they will never get back. They’re also more likely to be abused in the workforce due to their lack of legal status. At the expense of their hard toils and potential suffering, America profits. Could that be against our ethical values as Americans? Is legalization the best solution? One might loosely apply an old quote from Mr. Holmes to this situation, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
But would it be “fair” to “just legalize everyone”? What about those people who have been waiting in line for years or decades to immigrate legally? Do those people still have to wait, but everyone else who crosses the border (for whatever reason) illegally or flying over and overstaying a visa gets a free pass? Such are questions which await a satisfactory answer.
My opinion aside and going back to my original promise- what suggestions might I give for the two sides to reach a compromise?
-
Safety/Security: Opponents to immigration need to understand that immigrants are not a “threat”. Let people know some of the statistics I’ve mentioned- show people that immigrants are less likely to commit crime. When presenting to “conservative” media, it also might be wise to not present people who say they “came here to get a better job.” Instead, talk about heroic immigrants, talk about stories of how immigrants have saved them from threats. Talk about the many immigrants who have fought for this country, and kept America safe. Even steer away from the supposed “threats” posed by immigrants and show them just how effective current border security is.
-
Economic Benefits: Opponents to immigration should not be made to feel that they are doing immigrants a “favor.” Instead, people need to feel that immigrants are doing them a favor. Show people that immigrants aren’t coming to take their jobs, immigrants are coming to create jobs. Immigrants are here to start their own small businesses, and stay in one spot. Immigrants aren’t going to move to your town, start a small business, and then outsource it next year. They’re going to start up a business, and create jobs for their fellow Americans. And, while many people talk about how much we need the “high skilled” immigrants like engineers and doctors, don’t forget to remind people just how important immigrants are for providing labor in other industries such as construction, childcare (for which there should likely be more immigrants brought in to provide affordable childcare), and most importantly of all, agriculture.
This has been a long essay and I very much appreciate anyone taking the time to read it. I hope that my essay has helped you to have a more open mind not only to immigration, but to think critically on all political issues. In doing so, I hope that you take it upon yourself to stay informed and make educated decisions when you take part in our participatory democracy.
Select Sources:
[1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w13229.pdf
[2] http://econofact.org/are-immigrants-more-likely-to-commit-crimes
[3] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/21/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/
[4] http://www.fairus.org/issue/national-security/identity-and-immigration-status-911-terrorists
[5] https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2017/04/20/430736/facts-immigration-today-2017-edition/