With a stroke of a pen, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the country’s strictest state law governing illegal immigration—and revived the national debate over immigration. Peter Meilaender examines the issue in our latest On the Square feature, ” Defending the Innocent: Arizona and Immigration .”
For the past several years I’ve been thinking about this topic, and while I can’t recommend my own opinions, I can suggest a few questions that help us to think about the issue more clearly. These are not the only questions that matter, of course, but I think coming to an agreement—or at least an understanding—on these four help us to frame the debate in a way that makes an adequate resolution more probable.
Should there be any restrictions on immigration?
The two poles on this issue are completely open borders (no restrictions on immigration into the country) and completely closed borders (no additional immigration into the country). If we choose to embrace a course in between the two extremes—as most people do—then we will need a system of allowances, requirements, and restrictions that determine the parameters for allowing non-citizens to immigrate to the U.S. Those who abide by these rules are said to have immigrated legally while those who circumvent the process have immigrated illegally.
All of this is rather obvious—at least in theory. In reality, the enforcement mechanism reveals the true parameters of the system. Because the enforcement mechanisms are almost exclusively on regulating legal immigration, we have created a situation that allows for restricted legal immigration and almost unrestricted illegal immigration.
What are the consequences for illegal immigration?
To ensure fairness, there must be penalties imposed for illegal immigration. If there are restrictions on immigration but the laws are not enforced, then those who flaut the law are at an advantage over those who adhere to the legal process. Fairness requires that the person who has immigrated illegally receive no advantage over the person who has followed the letter of the law.
Are the current immigration laws just or unjust?
If the laws are just, they must be enforced; if unjust, they must be changed. Whichever the case may be, failing to take action allows—if not promotes—the continuation of injustice.
Should our direct neighbors (i.e., Canada and Mexico) be given priority in immigration decisions?
To be fair to all those who wish to immigrate to the U.S., the law should clearly state our requirements and preferences. Currently, our preferences remain unstated. For example, our refusal to enforce our current immigration laws results in a de facto preference for residents of Mexico who hail from the lower economic classes. If this is indeed our preference (as oppossed to, say, increasing the number of immigrants from the lower economic classes of Liberia), then we should state so directly.
Being honest about this can help us resolve such issues as amnesty. Right now, the vast majority of illegal immigrants residing in the U.S are from Mexico. Instituting a policy of amnesty, therefore, is saying that immigrants from Mexico are our preferred group, and since they are already residing in the United States we are justified not only in allowing them not only to remain but also in allowing them to move ahead of others in line for legal immigration.
This is fair to the extent that nations should be allowed to determine which groups they prefer to allow to immigrate. But such a preference should be stated explicitly and defended publicly.
Each of these questions is deceptively simply. And indeed, the issue is really not that complex (especially compared to other issues, such as healthcare). What has made the issue so contentious is our refusal to be clear and open about the set of preferences we believe the government should make explicit when instituting immigration reform. Once we have brought these to the fore, then the real debate can begin.
