Friday, June 29, 2007

"Immigration reform" in the USA

Perhaps US immigration rules are flawed in fundamental ways. The long delay in processing spouse visas for US citizen family members is terrible. The bureaucracy of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) often seems deliberately oppressive & unfriendly. Giving citizenship under jus soli rights to children born in the US to foreign students and visitors (yet not to their parents) seems illogical -- in some ways unduly liberal, in another sense regressive.

Should foreigners be given amnesty after criminally entering the USA? I think not.

Of course they have contributed. Their illegal work has received compensation. Most are nice people. Private parties may be satisfied, but the social contract is damaged by these illegal operations.

Americans should be encouraged to invest in their communities and nation. Allowing unrestricted entry is costly. Providing services to new arrivals subtracts something from the common wealth. Perhaps future contributions by immigrants might offset many such costs. Yet who is to be "welcome in" should be a decision for the citizenry. Otherwise there is little incentive to invest in society.

Many Americans may believe that kindness and charity should guide such policies. But the world's people outnumber Americans 20 to 1. Too many to integrate. Darwinist competition and raw untrammeled dog-eat-dog capitalism grow closer with unrestricted immigration.

I know there are many nice, hardworking and friendly people everywhere in the world. But those who force their way into my home and demand feeding at my table are abusive and should be strongly discouraged.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment?