Now that the inflated rhetoric of the electoral campaign has temporarily subsided, perhaps we can have an honest discussion about immigration, a discussion that is reasonably comprehensive and does not focus entirely on one element of the whole situation.
Why do citizens of other countries seek to come to the United States? Simply put, because the prospect of living here seems so much better than that which they endure in their own country. It may well be that what they see in the United States is an illusion, something much better than they are likely to experience should they succeed in living here. But that doesn’t matter; it’s the illusion that is the attraction.
That same desire for something better is a constant for all would-be immigrants, whether they be asylum seekers, escaping persecution or physical harm in their own country, or economic migrants looking for an improvement in living conditions, perhaps an escape from famine or a total lack of opportunities.
Not everyone who seeks entry to the United States desires to stay permanently. Many come to help with the harvest, some come as students, others as staff of summer camps. All of them may, and hopefully do, enter legally, and are permitted to stay for a short term, a term that has a definite expiration date.
Some immigrants do not enter legally or, having entered legally on a short-term visa, outstay their legal term. In either case, they are now here illegally and therefore subject to legal sanction. If we choose to place restrictions on entry to this country, then it is clear that we should sanction those who break the rules, though we may differ on what those sanctions should be. But, or so some would argue, is it necessary to restrict entry? Why can’t anyone who wants to come to this country simply get on a plane or a bus, enter this country and set up home? Why do we need borders? It would certainly make the business of guarding our borders become a non-issue; we could be spared the trouble and expense of border policing.
Whether or not we choose to impose restrictions on entering the country, all who come here are obliged to follow the laws and regulations of the land. These include conforming to accepted standards of behavior, as enforced by various branches of the judicial system. In addition, they are subject to various practices that may seem to restrain liberty, such as paying taxes, and accepting the personal impact of a variety of regulations. On the other hand, legally welcomed immigrants receive most, though generally not all, of the benefits offered to citizens, such as schooling, medical care and social welfare. By contrast, assuming a system of restricted authorized immigration is put in place, those who bypassed it are eligible for few, if any, benefits.
Advocates who argue against unrestricted entry say that there are significant costs associated with both sides of this equation. Immigrants, they say, import their own customs, many of which conflict with the established norms of our country. Their dress, their behaviors, their languages conflict with customary standards and thereby disrupt the accepted habits and norms of society. Further, the costs entailed in providing services to immigrants far exceed any benefits the country may derive from the value that immigrant labor brings to the economy. There is much to be said on either side of this argument; more than I can or am willing to enter into. But these things need to be negotiated and settled before any agreement on immigration can be reached.
Full disclosure: I am an immigrant, coming here from England in 1969 and becoming a U.S. citizen in 1980. In the spring of 1969 I received an offer of employment in the Boston area. This offer included an assurance that immigration should not be a problem, and would be assisted, if necessary, by the services of an immigration lawyer. After some discussion with my wife and family, I accepted. Since we anticipated no major delay in making the move, we put our home on the market. By August the house was sold. Both we and my employers were now getting a little anxious. We asked the immigration lawyer to earn her money and apply pressure on the authorities. Eventually that produced a result. On Oct. 31, the Norman family presented itself at the consular section of the American Embassy in London. At 5 p.m., the consulate closed its book on October business. At 5:01 p.m., we were sworn in and issued with immigrant visas on the November quota. A few days later we arrived in Boston, where we received our green cards as residents of the United States.
That’s the way the immigration system was and is supposed to work when everything is set for a smooth passage. At best, it clearly creaks and strains. No doubt things have changed over the past 50 years, though I doubt that the changes are for the better. Whatever the present state of the immigration system, if it doesn’t work even as well as its supposed best, one must feel sympathy for those who seek to come here. Surely all of us, citizens, residents and would-be immigrants, should expect the United States to have in place an immigration system that is effective, efficient and humane.
(The Rev. Les Norman, retired UCC minister, lives in New London.)