I suspect that no one is really sure who the first inhabitants of the territory know as the United States of America were. Unlike Africa and Australia, we have not identified any truly indigenous people. However, I am reasonably sure that few of us today can identify a direct path of ancestry from that person or persons. Over the centuries, “Americans” have been suspicious, if not openly contemptuous, of those who followed them as immigrants. While those tribes that inhabited the East Coast may, at first, have been only curious about that new wave of immigrants who indicated that they were here to stay in the early 1600s, they soon learned that differences in race, religion, and culture would lead to conflict. My immigrant ancestors were insistent and often brutal in their contention that this new land, this ” city on the hill,” was theirs. As each new wave of immigrants became more diverse with respect to nationality, religion, and culture, they were met with hostility only to turn around and exhibit the same attitudes toward those who came later.
As someone whose immigrant ancestors all arrived in this country before the Revolution, I do not share the sense of privilege that appears so often among members of the DAR and the SAR. After all, although we share some 17th century roots in New England, most of my wife’s ancestors come from Sweden in the 19th century. We are both comforted by the fact that one can stretch a current Norwegian preference to include other Scandinavians. The difficulties associated with attempting to maintain and “hands off” open border policy in today’s world, suggest that an imposition of limits on immigration may be appropriate. The difficulty lies in determining the size of an annual immigrant population and the criteria to be used in selection. It is also necessary to consider the status of refugees and to determine how they are counted and whether different criteria apply to them. To make matters even more difficult, this determination is, apparently, going to be tied directly to the fate of those “dreamers” who were brought to this country illegally as children.
Closely tied to this debate is the argument over what constitutes citizenship by birth. Currently, the USA recognizes both ius sanguinis and ius soli. The first means that any child who has one parent who is an American citizen can claim citizenship. The second means that any child who is born in the USA can claim citizenship. Obviously, this means that many children of illegal aliens can claim citizenship. Some would limit automatic citizenship to those born of an American parent. To me, this is the least alarming of the many approaches to immigration reform and long as it is not applied in a manner that violates provisions against ex post facto legislation. That is to say that it cannot apply to anyone who was eligible for citizenship prior to its passage.
The issue of numbers is a difficult one. It is particularly so if we eliminate the reuniting of families as a major selection criterion. If we are not to count on family members, we must make sure that there are sufficient institutions in place to ensure that immigrants are properly settled and acculturated. We appear to do well in this respect in our treatment of refugees, but there is alway room for improvement. Do we simply issue a visa to a Norwegian brain surgeon and leave him on his own? That might work only because she is likely to speak better English than many of our current citizenry, and she is likely to attract an employer who will assume the settlement and acculturation functions. But what of the others?
One of the suggested reforms is the granting of preference to those prospective immigrants who offer particular skills that are determined to be in demand in this country. Our friends in Australia, New Zealand, and other democratic countries follow this practice. Of course, the principal question is, “Who decides on the list of skills?” After all, many employers in this country have taken advantage of advances in communication and shipping to go outside of this country to find skilled labor at low prices. (There is also some evidence that they are sneaking “temporary” workers in this country to perform jobs in construction that would normally be filled by US workers.) A rational argument may be made for skill-based immigration, but I am bothered by the fact that many of my ancestors came to this country on bases totally unrelated to any skill set.
Most of our immigrant ancestors were religious, political, or economic refugees. To be sure, some of them were members of the establishment seeking to gain greater wealth in a developing economy. Some of them were even refugees from the law. As long as they had money or labor to exchange for passage, no one worried much about their skills. It was good luck rather than wise policy that enabled the US to grow as it did. We grew because of the energy of the talented and in spite of the sloth of the scoundrels. We gave people the opportunity to prove where they should be classified. Among our immigrant ancestors, my wife and I can count farmers, tradesmen, chefs, pastors, and saloon keepers. We can also find draft dodgers and wastrels. Where would we be if any of them had been eliminated.
I can find other interesting examples as well. One well-known American springs from an immigrant line that is more recent than mine. His grandfather came to this country after amassing a considerable fortune as a keeper of saloons, some of which offered “Rooms for Ladies,” in the mining towns of the US and Canadian frontier. He attempted to return to the country of his birth but was refused admission because he had avoided military service. While his occupations were legal at the time, they hardly constituted skills for which there was great social or economic need. Furthermore, he was a criminal. Would we be better off had he been denied citizenship here or even resident status?
Finally, the abandonment of family-based admissions seems particularly difficult for me. If I am to believe public statements by political and religious figures, family and family values are deemed to be particularly important among the more conservative elements in our country. I share their view. It is only logical, then, that the reuniting of families should be of prime importance when considering immigration criteria. Of course, even family members must be subject to “vetting” in these perilous times. After all, if grandpa is an ISIS-loving ax murderer, we don’t want to admit him regardless of his many virtues as a grandparent. While no vetting process is perfect, I would contend that DHS and other agencies can do at least as well as domestic agencies in identifying potential political and religious lunatics.
In short, our Congress is about to engage in an enterprise that is full of pitfalls. As usual, there is little sign of careful study of real problems. There is the usual plethora of draconian solutions for problems that may or may not exist. To make matters worse, the entire approach to immigration reform appears to be tied to the fate of the “dreamers.” I understand the politics of this, but that does not make it easier to accept.