The emotional, rather than rational, base of most liberal beliefs is most clearly demonstrated in the United States’ immigration policy. The left never fails to display seemingly altruistic goodwill whenever the subject emerges.
Perceived by both sides of the aisle as an abject failure, modern immigration policy remains confused.
Why did the immigration of the late 19th and early 20th century serve as such a boon to the country, while modern immigration has proven untrustworthy at best? This is one of the central questions of modern American politics, and immigration has been the most salient issue of the 2016 election season.
Let me suggest that the answer to this question lies not only in the economics of today, but also the culture.
The differences of modern times are not only restricted to the state of economic growth, but also relate to the interplay of politics and culture. What has happened since the 1965 Immigration Act is a complete change in the way American leaders view immigration.
While a humanitarian argument exists, the first and foremost goal of a strong and beneficial immigration policy should be the betterment of the nation and its citizens (as this is the broadest aim of a democratic government). By all accounts, the confused policies of today have missed this mark.
Moreover, the nation has guaranteed itself a constant state of detrimental immigration by failing to take the necessary steps to secure the border, and creating an entitlement state that extends to illegal and legal immigrants alike.
Historically, all countries strove to take in qualified immigrants that could be expected to provide for themselves upon entry.
If they failed to do so, they would be returned to their country of origin. This meant that the United States and every other nation strictly brought in immigrants that benefitted the nation as a whole, and moderated immigration by the overall status of the economy.
In times of general wellbeing and growth when more labor was needed, many immigrants would enter, in years of excess labor and unemployment, only a few. This formed the basis for a sensible and advantageous immigration policy.
Against the will of the people and even the constitution, the government has implemented incentives for illegal immigration, including welfare and amnesty rather than opportunity. But excess immigration is not damaging to those who hold capital (wealthy business owners); it is beneficial to them, as they can afford to hire very cheap labor!
Excess immigration is most damaging to poor American citizens—a primarily liberal constituency—as they must compete with illegal labor unburdened by the minimum wage.
The market for highlyeducated middleclass labor, however, is not immune. Intel, for instance, laid off 12,000 skilled U.S. professionals in April while requesting 14,523 H1B visas to replace them.
Even now, college students like ourselves struggle to find work in technical fields because of the influx of skilled workers cheaply educated in other countries. The Democratic and Progressive Parties were formerly the largest opponents of immigration of any kind to America.
But today their policies have damaged the wages of American workers, while providing cheap labor and profits to corporations. This is one of the greatest ironies in the liberal agenda.
Finally, illegal immigration and unvetted legal immigration present an imminent threat to the security of the United States, as witnessed by the December San Bernardino attack.
It is of the utmost importance to national security and crime prevention that we know exactly who enters the country and their intentions.
An unsecure border and unsure immigration policy undermine these aims and endanger the lives and wellbeing of American citizens.
This should be reason enough for complete transformation of the current system, and yet many politicians on both sides of the aisle seek to keep the system stationary much to the danger of everyday Americans