When I say “Open Immigration” I may be referring in part to a policy similar to the previous post, as well as a more general term referring to an immigration policy that would be more fair and open if not fully so, and more generous to applicants seeking entry into the United States. By extension, one may also extend this question to what some may refer to as “amnesty” or legalizing the statuses of those already here without documentation.
A very common argument against these policies and similar initiatives is that it is unfair to legal immigrants who have come to the United States and worked very hard to earn their citizenship. This is a legitimate point. After all, even gaining entry into the United States can be nearly impossible. Residency becomes even harder and citizenship is literally a years-long process. The paperwork and the legal fees are exorbitant, and waiting lists for most applicants might as well be centuries-long. The only exception seems to go to a very lucky few who may benefit from an annual lottery system, which this administration would see dissolved. Under the current system entry into the United States is only attainable for the world’s elite and a lucky few.
Left behind are those who lack the educational and financial status to pay for legal fees or even qualify for entry into the country. Also left behind are those who lack the government stability and don’t enjoy the public safety that would allow them to apply in their own countries at embassies and consulates.
These areas are in some countries cesspits of some form of sectarian violence. South of the border some criminal groups have been known to cut off access to them in part because illegal refugees tie up U.S border patrol resources taking the focus off of them, and in part because it benefits their human trafficking syndicates.
It would seem from the face of it so far we have an unfair system already, so the argument of “fairness” falls on its face before it is even made. This is especially so when you consider the role of the U.S government in its own global “refugee crisis” and consider that it is often refugees created by failed foreign and domestic policies that are most often left behind by the system of “legal immigration”
Is it fair that a massive network of drug cartels was formed when against the warning of Mexico, the U.S strong-armed them into the War on Drugs? Is it fair that the U.S supplied weapons to extremist terrorist organizations in Syria or that they destabilized Iraq to the benefit of Iran, and all but nearly gave the country to ISIS? Is it fair that the oppression of coca-leaf farmers in Bolivia fueled anti-American sentiment in the country? Is it fair that this oppression also harmed the economy in the country and led to the election of a communist president? Is it fair that similar U.S policies have influenced the rise of communism throughout South America?
None of these things are fair, but it is fair to accept a reasonable share of refugees the U.S has helped to displace while addressing the policies that have displaced them. It is also fair to enact policies that benefit the United States by enriching its economy. It is fair to enact immigration policies that enhance border security by easing the flow of refugees across the border. It is fair instead to focus resources on criminals that present a legitimate threat. It is also fair to consider by the laws of Mother Nature, who shows no partiality, that those geographically closer to the United States have a natural advantage in obtaining entry into the country. This is not injustice; it is science. It is not the place of government to control and regulate through force natural human behaviors.
These are simply a few factors to consider as we consider immigration policy that is both fair and realistic. Sadly we will not see this but will see more of the same totalitarian policies and failed big government solutions to immigration in America.