Dichotic Listening
One of my memories from college days at Rutgers a long time ago is of occasional participation in studies for nominal pay. One in particular that I recall was conducted by the Psychology Department involving dichotic listening. Through headphones were piped audio tracks from two different sources. The content in the left and right channels had little or nothing to do with each other. I would listen for a while and then answer written questions about what I had retained. Then there’d be more. This went on for an hour or two. It was an interesting enough way to grab a little pizza money.
I mention this because it reminds me of what I experience when listening to the debate we are having, if you can call it that, about immigration. Immigrants are hordes of rapists, murderers and thieves. Turn them away and expel the ones already here. No, no, they are virtuous, law-abiding, victimized saints. All must be welcomed unreservedly. What’s the problem? As someone with no ties either to the left or the right, as such, I don’t need this dichotic listening. You can’t pay me enough.
Meanwhile, the most important big-picture issue is not being addressed: the disaster that ensues when governing with nods and winks. Refusing to say what we mean and mean what we say when formulating and implementing public policy leads to major, if predictable, problems in this or any area of law.
Nods and Winks
The mess we are in is most attributable to the intellectual
dishonesty with which we have approached immigration for decades. We have been governing
in this field with a series of nods and winks, which is always a bad approach.
“So, the harvest is over. Before you go back home, do you think you could stick around for a little while? OF COURSE, we all believe in obeying the law [wink, wink] but you’re a good worker and I’ve got this other little project I’d like you to help me with. If you’ll do that for me [nod, nod], I’ll take care of you.”
Then there’s another little job, and another. The next thing
you know, it’s harvest time again. Hey, the work got done well, inexpensively,
and on time; the workers fed their families; and everyone behaved themselves.
Where’s the harm? Let’s do it again.
It’s my understanding that the great majority of “illegal aliens” are people who entered legally but overstayed their visas, rather than those who sneak into the country. As a people, we are less than eager to enforce the letter of the law – until something embarrassing happens. (Those presenting themselves to seek asylum aren’t illegal anythings, by the way, unless they’re turned down and stay.)
One of America’s great contributions to the world is the Rule
of Law encompassed in our Constitution. Saying one thing and meaning another in
governance is inimical to the Rule of Law.
It is not easy to get a green card legally, and attaining citizenship is downright arduous. Indeed, one of the arguments against creating a shortened path to citizenship is “What about all these good people who took years to do it the hard, but legal, way?” This concern is far from frivolous. It needs to be part of a serious, detailed discussion on the Immigration Policy that is best for the United States.
The problem is that no one seems interested in having the debate we so badly need. Arguing the merits on the complexities of immigration policy is hard work. It is for adults. Expertise would help.
I am far from an expert on Immigration policy. Good arguments can be made on both sides of its many complex issues; that’s what makes it a tough area.
Honing in on Some Realities
General Principle
Like any country, America has a right to determine a policy
on immigration in its own best interests, to secure its borders, and to enforce
its laws. “Let ‘em in!” is not much of a policy.
Yet, I also agree that we are a nation of immigrants. I’m pretty sure there were no Bossongs on the Mayflower. And, by the way, those on the Mayflower were immigrants.
In truth, we have allowed people to stay because we want them to stay, kinda. We don’t really believe it’s in our best interest to kick these people out, regardless of our stated immigration policies – except when it’s convenient to pretend we do. Then, it’s Law ‘n’ Order, damn it. The nods and winks do not amount to precedent; they can be withdrawn at any time. That’s why they are the opposite of the Rule of Law. What makes nods and winks tempting is what makes them wrong. The phrase “arbitrary and capricious” comes to mind.
The Economy
Our actual collective opinion seems to be that immigrants are good for our economy. The cost of planting, harvesting, cleaning, preparing, and serving food has been considerably less for all of us than it might have been, for example. I gather that there are industries that would verge on collapse in the absence of undocumented workers. For years, I’ve heard people joke that if the (then) INS drove down the middle of Main Street in Anytown, USA with a bullhorn announcing their presence, the town’s restaurants, hotels, dry cleaners, and construction and landscaping businesses, among others, would empty out each business’s back door.
It’s hard not to notice that the President’s business holdings are in industries particularly dependent on such labor for both construction and ongoing operation: hotels, country clubs, restaurants, etc. He is not alone.
While there may be some jobs for which the undocumented provide unwanted competition, the notion of Americans clamoring for the chance to, say, pick fruits and vegetables in the hot sun strikes me as far-fetched in an amusing sort of way. [How’s your son? He’s home from college for the summer, but he couldn’t get that job picking turnips that he wanted.] The job market is generally not the zero-sum game (see post of April 2) presumed to exist at times.
Interestingly, two different columnists in the April 14 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer, one conservative and one liberal, made the same point: Our economy is being held back right now by a scarcity of labor at all levels of skill that, given our birthrate over the last few decades, can be satisfied only by immigrants. Trudy Rubin and Marc Thiessen would not agree on much, and they wrote their columns that day for very different purposes, but they agreed completely that the country is not “full”.
Crime
Then there is the criminal behavior issue. Most studies indicate that immigrants are somewhat more law-abiding on average than American citizens. This is hardly surprising, if for no other reason than immigrants are looking to avoid deportation. “Tell that to the family of a person slain by an undocumented immigrant” goes the argument. “Any crime by an illegal alien should not have happened because the perpetrator should not have been here.”
One problem with such argument is that it begs the question of whose presence in the country should be legal. My thesis is the need for policy we believe in enough to enforce. Illegal status is a relatively minor count in the indictment of a murderer – in a minuscule percentage of our senseless murders.
The Discussion We Really Need
Give all interests a seat at the table. Invite the best and
the brightest, not the most extreme. Hammer out an Immigration Policy we can
enforce with a straight face. It won’t be perfect, and not everyone is going to
love it. If it is fundamentally fair and (can I dream?) even a bit wise, we’ll
all be better off.
Here’s a proposed outline for an agenda:
- In general, turn what we really believe and really want into fair, clear, coherent, and enforceable laws and public policies. Sweat the details.
- Arrive at some reasonable level of consensus on the following: How many new people can this country do a good job of absorbing? Are the categories and priorities of persons considered for admission to the US in the best interests of this country? [Same questions for staying and for ultimately attaining citizenship] What is a fair, humane, and appropriate approach to considering requests for asylum? How arduous should the conditions and process of attaining citizenship be? What are the facts about the danger posed by criminal behavior of immigrants? Is there any reason not to deport or deny admission to genuinely bad actors? (Where do we draw the line between significant and trivial misbehavior?)
- (Assuming we change laws substantively) create a smooth and rational transition from the old ways (the nods and winks) into the new laws
- Anticipate, prevent, and solve problems inherent in enforcing the law.
- Effectively address any genuine security concerns at the borders, or anywhere.
- Determine if there is ever a reason to separate families. Indeed, is there reason to insist we deal only with entire families when possible?
- How can we assist newcomers with assimilation (which, notwithstanding the rough ride given to Joe Biden on this subject, remains desirable for all)?
The Discussion We Really Don’t Need
See “Dichotic Listening”, above.
Worth the Effort
If the policies inherent in our current Immigration laws are found to be the best for our country after careful expert consideration, so be it. Let’s set about enforcing them in a fair, even-handed way. That result would be surprising, though, given that our collective behavior has evinced a need for immigration reform for years.
There have been some bad episodes in America’s past regarding immigration. Two immediately come to mind:
- Being, inarguably and inexcusably, insufficiently open to European Jews seeking asylum from certain death in the 1930s and 40s; and
- Our mad scramble to handle the Mariel Boatlift in 1980, when Castro unexpectedly announced that any Cuban who wanted to leave could do so. The perception that Cuba emptied its prisons and mental health facilities may have been overstated, but the impression persists that Castro badly outmaneuvered President Carter.
If doing the right thing for its own sake is not enough to motivate us, at least we should look to avoid deep future regret.
We have behaved as if we do not believe in our own Immigration laws for decades. Perhaps we’ve been too busy enjoying the benefits of inexpensive, reliable labor to worry about the niceties of governing with integrity. Or maybe we just haven’t gotten around to fixing this mess we’ve created. Make no mistake, though: the real issue is whether we are going to govern with integrity. However irresistible the posturing may feel, we need to stop this “Us vs. Them” nonsense (February 19 post). Now.
There’s too much at stake.
Ken Bossong
© 2019 Kenneth J. Bossong
