A Lost Chance to Debate Immigration

To the Editor:

Immigration has always been an emotional issue for the nation. Perhaps for this reason, immigration levels have fluctuated from one end of the spectrum to another. Around the turn of the 20th century, immigration was higher than ever. As wages and job prospects tumbled under increased job competition, public pressure for reduced immigration rose.

In 1924, Congress responded by reducing immigration, and the pendulum swung to its opposite end. Then, four decades later, the 1965 immigration bill again shifted the pendulum; since then, legal immigration has soared to unprecedented heights.

Amid the pendulum’s wide swings, it has been difficult for the nation to uphold a conversation on the long-term sustainable level of immigration. What is the optimum level to confer dignity on labor, to incentivize employers to invest in human capital, to educate their workers, and to pay a living wage?

In addressing the economics of immigration, the National Academies of Sciences found it to be a redistributive force; it redistributes about $500 billion each year from American workers to corporate interests. In other words, it essentially redistributes the amount of our national defense budget from the underprivileged to the overprivileged.

Unsurprisingly, corporate lobbyists relentlessly pressure Congress to admit more foreign workers. More surprising, however, is this sentiment is shared by certain charitable interests aligned with corporations indifferent to the plight of the American worker.

If we are serious about addressing systematic and institutional racism, then we should have the intellectual courage to openly discuss and mend these systems and institutions. Efforts to suppress the conversation are counterproductive.

According to Pew Research, in just five decades, today’s U.S. population of about 330 million will increase by 117 million; new immigration will be responsible for 103 million of that growth. Is it wise to increase the U.S. population by about one-third through immigration in five decades? Is that too few? Too many? Let’s talk.

The topic would seem to merit a discussion in a deliberative democracy. Considerations for the level of immigration may include water resources for the 40 states with impending shortages, infrastructure, greenhouse-gas emissions, landfills, biodiversity, habitats, housing, jobs, wages, and the ability to care for America’s neediest. People of goodwill should be able to reach a general consensus on this public policy.

Meanwhile, we must also address the root cause of hardship giving rise to migratory pressures. The planet adds about 1 million people (births minus deaths) every four days; immigration is a symptom of that growth. As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I consider the need to alleviate human suffering in foreign lands an imperative. History, however, shows we do not have the luxury of alleviating root causes elsewhere from the comfort of home in the United States.

Denver Frederick’s podcast with Mark Krikorian, which the Chronicle posted on its site, should have opened a respectful exchange on the optimal level of immigration. Instead, it provoked a backlash to silence the discussion. Opportunity lost.

Let’s agree that the conversation on immigration levels should never be marred by racial bias. Immigrants must be respected as honorable people and fellow citizens.

But if a deliberative democracy cannot entertain an informed conversation on the level of immigration, then the people most in need of a helping hand will continue to pay the price of indifference.

John F. Rohe
Vice President
Colcom Foundation
Pittsburgh