| I was just having this conversation with a lawyer friend this morning. I'm personally on the fence on this issue - I'm very much pro-immigration (my dad was an immigrant, as are both of my wife's parents), but I'm pro-legal-immigrant, and on some level think it's a smack in the face to those who work very hard to get legitimate visas when people just walk over the border. My friend pointed out that U.S. immigration law - and its history - is basically institutionalized racism. Take a look at the countries in the Visa Waiver Program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program Notice a pattern? Basically, if you're white (or Japanese or South Korean), we have no problem with you being in the country. If you're any other ethnicity, fuck you. Canada gets completely visa-free entry, but Mexico gets nothing. If you look at the history of immigration laws, almost all of them had an explicit racial bias to them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 ("free white persons of good character") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924 ("aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans, especially Italians and Eastern European Jews, and severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians") It did get somewhat better with the acts of 1952 and 1965, which set up the current occupation/skills-based system instead of blanket national bans, but even they had some clauses that are pretty embarrassing in hindsight (eg. the 1952 McCarran act banned anyone suspected of associating with Communist, which among others included Michel Foucault, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Pablo Neruda, and Pierre Trudeau). It's very hard to argue for these from a framework of justice and individual liberty, because they all operate under the assumption that incidental characteristics like where someone is born and what color their skin is are more important than motivational characteristics like do they want to be in the U.S, do they agree with American values, and will they be a contributing citizen here. If you believe in judging people based on what they do rather than who they are, it's a pretty tough argument that the illegal Mexican immigrant who works 14 hours a day cleaning toilets so she can give a better life to her children is less deserving of being an American than the guy who runs a website spreading hate. |
If you had to leave the US forever, which of these places would you most and least want to move to? What would be your ranking of desirability? Canada, Mexico, Australia, Hong Kong, Lagos, Costa Rica, Belize.
For me, I would most want to move to Canada and least Lagos. I'd also prefer Costa Rica over Belize. And Australia over Hong Kong over Belize over Lagos.
What makes Australia and Hong Kong more desirable than Lagos and Belize? What makes Canada more desirable than Mexico? Why do all the liberals who hate Trump threaten to move to Canada and not Mexico? It's not the geography. It's not like Canada has better weather. It's the people. (People will say it is things like the government dysfunction or the culture or the language, but of course, those are just properties of a group of people, not the land).
We're more likely to have liberal immigration policies with regards from countries that we see as desirable places to live. That is because 1) being desirable places, most people in those countries won't want to leave, and thus we won't be overwhelmed by their numbers. 2) since those people have made their country a desirable place, if large numbers of those people move here, it won't decrease our quality of life. I won't fear a decrease in government quality or cultural alienation if a large number of Canadians move to the United States.
In other words, country of origin is heuristic that will correlate with do they agree with American values, and will they be a contributing citizen here. Could we find a better heuristic? Maybe. Do you have any ideas?