Why is it so hard to reach any reasonable compromise on the immigration issue? It is because faults of our immigration policy are about hundred years old and most of us are accustomed to accept them as unquestioned wisdom. The first comprehensive immigration law in the U.S., the Immigration Act of 1924 bears the sins of the times, which had barely been openly explained and duly criticized.
Before 1924 we had mostly unfettered immigration; only Europeans were allowed to immigrate. That immigration was completely different from what we experience now. It was a free movement of people back and forth in search of jobs and new opportunities; for every three immigrants arriving, one left. Every time immigrants started coming from a new region, the most adventurous individuals arrived first to scout the opportunities. Families arrived later. Despite what they declared at the entry point, if they were not fortunate here they returned to their homeland, knowing that they could come back later.
Before 1890 most immigrants were coming from England, Ireland, Germany, Scandinavia and Netherlands. Gradually, these countries could not provide as many immigrants as the U.S. needed. As a result, after 1890 most new immigrants were Jews, Poles and others from Eastern Europe; as well as Italians from Southern Europe. Culturally they were far apart from Western Europeans, not only ethnically but also because that they were coming from backward regions; they were poor and mostly illiterate. They settled largely in American cities, forming ethnic enclaves where English was barely spoken, where life was completely different than on the main street. Many Americans were seriously concerned that these new immigrants would never assimilate and that they would destroy American society.
These fears need to be seen in the context of times when many scientists believed that racially some people might be superior to others. That doubtful science fueled anti-immigration sentiment at the beginning of the 20th century; as for many Americans it appeared obvious that those new waves of immigrants were inferior, not worthy to be accepted into American society. This intention of stopping the influx of immigrants considered racially undesirable was reflected in the Immigration Act of 1924. The government bureaucrats were put in charge of shaping the ethnic composition of the nation.
Parallel, similar to today, immigrants before 1924, mostly low skill laborers, were willing to work for less than Americans. Likewise today, Americans did not understand that the low skill labor expands economy, and as such creates more of better paid jobs, that mostly only Americans can take. By cutting off inflow of cheap immigrant labor The Immigration Act of 1924 assigned to the government bureaucrats the task of protecting the lazy Americans from the competition of industrious immigrants.
Again, we have to see this approach in the context of the beginning of the 20th century. Those were times when socialistic ideas were gaining recognition. The Soviet Union had a promising start, and even many of its critics, disapproving drastic methods, saw some value in socialism as a concept.
In capitalism, as it was understood by the Founding Fathers, the society functions the best when all people are given equal opportunities to pursue their individual interests, when government has no agenda in implementing any political programs, and when it is limited to protecting individuals’ freedom of enterprise. In opposition, socialists see a lot of chaos, inefficiency and injustice in those unregulated actions of individuals, and they believe that we need a government to form lofty political goals and that it is justifiable to limit freedoms of some individuals in order to implement those policies.
Those socialistic concepts gained popularity in the beginning of the 20th century. Prohibition, voted in in 1920, is the best example of Americans misguided by illusions that the government by its central planning and forceful implementation of lofty sounding ideas can shape the nation. The Immigration Act of 1924 was another example of Americans lured into a trap of delusions that socialism might work.
Before 1924, immigration was a part of economy; when it was up more immigrants arrived and stayed, when it was down fewer arrived and fewer stayed. Since 1924, immigration has become a political issue separated from the economy. That separation from the economy was even straightened by later immigration laws. Particularly, in 1965 the concept of a family sponsored immigration was introduced, turning the right to immigrate to the U.S. into a gift that a wealthy nation has been giving to a very lucky few among the poor of the world.
Every time the government applies abstract policies to economy it distorts the market, and the black market appears. In this case it is illegal immigration. The nation faced it big time in 1986, but no one asked how it occurred in the first place. Illusions that socialism might work could be understood in 1924, but in 1986 the Soviet Union was on the brink of bankruptcy; President Reagan called it “the evil empire.” Somehow no one in the entire U.S. could see that our immigration policy was not working because it was built on the same socialistic concepts that led to the evils and failing of the Soviet system. So, instead of reversing the policy, in 1986 Americans decided to continue with even greater determination what did not work so far. More money was thrown into border protection. American employers were required to verify the immigration status of new hires.
For the first 210 years of the Republic, Americans had the freedom to hire whomever they pleased regardless if this person came from across the street, across the ocean or across the Rio Grande. This freedom was taken away in 1986, and this law could and should be challenged as unconstitutional. With the 1986 immigration law, every employer in America was turned into an unpaid government official obligated to execute the law, which government could not enforce itself.
The immigration law of 1986 meant even more decisive departure from the fundamental Americans values of freedom of individual and small government, and expansion of government intrusion into economy and individual lives of Americans. It is as pure socialism as it could be. Socialism did not work anywhere else before and it has not been working when applied here. In result, our immigration crisis is even deeper now that it was ever before.
Still, in immigration debates as we have presently, the voices explaining the very reasons for our immigration mess are barely heard. According to the recent opinion poll, about 55% of Americans want even fewer immigrants than we have now. Similarly, as one hundred years ago, blindfolded by xenophobia, they fall again into a trap of socialism.
Looking at one hundred years of Americans’ confusion on immigration only one conclusion comes to mind, that nonsense, even if supported by majority of Americans, even if voted in by the both chambers of Congress, even if signed into law by President – it is still just nonsense only.
This essay is an abbreviated version of a lecture: “Why do we have such a big immigration mess?” delivered on October 2, 2013 at the Heartland Institute, in Chicago.
Dear Mr. Kowalczyk,
In regards to the immigration issue videos produced by Roy Beck, how can any average minded adult with an average education not see that the points that Mr. Beck discusses are anything but true? Let’s put it this way, if the Pilgrims had not landed on this continent, had others from Europe not followed them, would the North American Continent still be populated by various Native American Indian Tribes? It is an obvious conclusion that once word of mouth made its way back to Europe and other places that life is so much better here, others followed. That is what is happening now with people from places where legal or illegal immigrants come from. They are telling their friends and families to ‘come one over’.
His point is that for every 1 million people who come to this country (legally or otherwise) it will not make a difference the world over. The overwhelming majority are extremely impoverished people and thus become totally and instantly dependant upon our support infrastructure the minute they enter our Country. Because they are overwhelmingly low wage earners, they do nothing more than exacerbate the decline of an already severely diminished capacity to sustain that kind of growth by not paying adequate income tax. Regardless of what anyone says, regardless of social, political, economic or religious perspective, we simply cannot afford the population growth. That is the only point Mr. Beck tried to convey. Furthermore, Mr. Beck exhibited no bias of any kind. He merely provided the information, based on past circumstances and future projections for the viewers to reach their own conclusion. I’ve lived abroad for 17 years throughout Asia.
I notice that you seemto deliberately ignore what is going on with tie Muslim community in Europe, perhaps because it doesn’t fit your narrative about the past nature of immigration. During the Victorian era this country was not faced with anything like the Muslim immigration, where peoples of the Islamic faith are attempting to rush the gates of the West en masse. ISIS has openly stated that it sent terrorists among these people, and now Europe is now suffering incredibly high crime rates and incidents of terrorism. The ideology of Islam runs counter to virtually everything the Founders beliefs, yet not a ounce of criticism or concern comes from the mouth of Henryk Kowalczyk. If you dispute this, I suggest that you stop ignoring this problem and watch someone who knows something on the subject. Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Bill Warner, Douglas Murray, and Karl Goldberg are the foremost experts on Islam in this country. They do not agree on your foolish Idea of a open border, so I’m telling you now that they’ll challenge you on you closeminded beliefs about immigration. I dare you to watch the myriad of You Tube videos by these people.
Do you know why that you will fail to obtain a reasonable compromise? It’s because you refuse to compromise, preferring to use history rather than the current state of the world, and the desires of the citizens in your calculations. This is the 21st century. Circumstances in this country have changed since mass immigration was permissible. Somehow you’ve got the idea that the dynamics that permitted past mass I’m migration still hold true today. During the 19th century, this was an agrarian society, where formal education was far less important than today. Today, the illiterate and unskilled immigrant would undoubtedly be put on the public dole as would this children. The federal system of welfare did not exist at that time. I would counter your apparent belief that prejudice was the driving force for limiting immigration, with the argument that ther was actually was far more concern for states becoming responsible for masses of unemployed new immigrants dying in their streets. This is why New York state tried to collect a head tax on immigrants dumped on their shores. Immigrants had never been dumped on their shores at such a rate and no one knew how much help these people would need to survive during the period when they were unemployed. The law at the time precluded overseas recruitment because employers would pay the way of foreigners to come to the US and displace US citizens and work for lower pay. If the US Immigration service found that a questioned immigrant had been promised work by a recruiter, he was subject to forced return. I have to agree with this approach to immigration. Congress has only one constituency, those who voted them into office. This is fully consonant with the law of the land, and likely would be supported by by the Founders. Open borders, unconditional immigration, immigration without controls is insane. Such immigration fails to consider that done without consideration, masses of people with political views inimical to that of the Founders will ultimately prevail. Islam is a political party as well as a religion. The politics of Islam is found in the unquestionable word of the Muslim god, Allah, as set down by his prophet, Mohammed, and in the supporting traditions as set down in the hadith and in Sharia, the law of Islam. No Muslim deigns to dispute these things, lest he be condemned as a heretic. When Muslims becomes a majority in a secular state, that state ultimately becomes an Islamic state, under rigid medieval law of Sharia. No Muslim may leave Islam, lest he be condemned to death, and be killed by any Muslim who has the inclination to do so. It is evident that Muslims would not make good defenders of common law and the Constitution that you claim to revere. The freedom you seek certainly would never blossom in the Islamic State that could form after heavy immigration and the high birthrate that Islamic doctrine promotes. I hope that I have convinced you of the fallacy of your belief in uncontrolled immigration.
Islam is different from communism in thst it has no religious component, no higher being that promises retribution by a vengeful god, should an adherent fail to live his life in accordance with his “holy” Quran and Sharia, both of which condemn to death all infidels. I could quote dozens of incendiary calls to murder of Jews, Christians, homosexuals and atheists that are cited in the Quran and Sharia, but I leave that to Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islam. You wont find the truth from Muslims, because it’s an ugly truth that they and the cowed and ignorant media work hard to conceal. To them, Islam is always the “religion of peace.” As one Muslim agitator in the UK often says in candor, Islam is not one of peace but of submission to Allah. All must submit or die, or be subservient to the Muslims. It’s all in the Ideology of Islam.