The website Politix is sometimes a good source for ideas for posts. Today a question popped up in my email asking about whether the fact the immigration to Mexico is harder than to the United States concerned me, with the possible answers of Yes, No and I’m not sure. When you vote you also have space to either endorse someone else’s comment or to put in a comment of your own explaining your vote.

I voted no, and posted the following:

The United States should be basing its policies, on immigration or any other issue, solely on the principle of its duty to protect the individual rights of the citizens. What other countries do, absent the use of force against Americans, should have no bearing on our policies.

It does not matter to what extent Mexico’s immigration policies are worse than those of the United States, after the 2011 change in their law I am not sure they actually are worse, that does not justify adopting rights violating policies here. If the Mexican government were violating the rights of Americans, which may have been the case especially prior to the 2011 changes, then the government should take action to protect them but this would not be achieved by violating the rights of those wanting to come to this country or those who want to bring foreign workers here.

To adopt such tit-for-tat, you violate my rights and I violate yours policies never ends well. One need only look at the history of the United States, and the world, economy after the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930, which was in large measure responsible for the Great Depression, to see how bad the results can be.

I would add here that the United States immigration policy is a mix of good and bad elements.

First, the good: In my experience, and I am working on bringing my wife here from Venezuela, there are requirements to show that one does not have a criminal record, one does not have any infectious and deadly diseases, and that they have a means of support so that they will not become a public burden. (In fact, as part of the process I have to agree to responsible for her support for up to 10 years.) While my direct experience is with the various types of spousal visas, the same principles are true for all the types of visas I have looked at. For example, all the visas for permanent workers require either that the applicant have a job offer from an American business, and the business essentially becomes the immigrant’s sponsor, or it is a type of visa where this is considered unnecessary (e.g., those of “exceptional ability,” or who have invested $500,000 to $1 million in American businesses, or of “special immigrants” such as some “religious workers, employees of U.S. foreign service posts, retired employees of international organizations, alien minors who are wards of courts in the United States”.) In all cases, the immigrant has to show he has a means of supporting himself and he is not a threat to the rights of American citizens before entering the country.

Where the policies go wrong is when they set strict numerical limits on immigration both in absolute terms and in terms of how many can come from any one country. For example, in any given year the absolute upper limit of those in what is called “Preference Category 4”, i.e. skilled workers with at least two years of training or experience, professionals with college degrees, or “other” workers for unskilled labor that is not temporary or seasonal, is 40,000 and no more than 7% of this total can come from any one country. This total includes family members, not just the worker themselves, so the actual number of workers can be much smaller. When you consider that under current law if an employer wants  to sponsor foreign workers the employer has to show the government that there is a need for employees that is not being met and that bringing in foreign workers will not reduce wages for existing workers- I think this requirement is a rights violation as no person has a right to any given job or wage- this requirement is a pointless violation of the rights of employers to contract freely with workers.  These types of restriction are why we can, and do, end up with situations where there are skilled workers who want to come to this country and who have employers who want to hire them but, because the number of visas allowed for a given year has been used up, they will be denied entry and thus we have shortages of skilled workers in some fields.

A good first step in immigration reform could be as simple as keeping the good and getting rid of the bad. Keep the criminal and medical checks and the requirement that an American citizen or company sponsor the immigrant and agree to see that they do not become a public burden, i.e. do not go on welfare but get rid of the strict limits on numbers or quotas based on country of origin. If an immigrant can meet these requirements, i.e. are honest, healthy and hard working, and the laws are actually enforced, i.e. those who provide the affidavit of support actually are required to meet that obligation, there is no reason to limit the number of immigrants who can enter the country.

Ultimately I think the end step would be only being concerned with whether the immigrant is a poses a threat to the rights of Americans, is a criminal or poses a health risk to those already in the country, with no requirement for an affidavit of support. However, I do not see this happening until the welfare state is well and truly unwound and no one, neither citizen nor immigrant, receives government “benefits” of the type that characterize the welfare state. At that point we will have moved to a truly capitalist system where the government does not attempt to redistribute wealth but only acts to protect the rights of the citizens.