Search for:
Our Approach to ReEnvisioning Immigration
Immigration policy in any country will inevitably benefit some groups more than others. In a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” a responsible approach to reform takes the concerns of all stakeholders into account and then prioritizes based on the needs of the national community. Finally, no immigration policy can survive if its laws and limits are not faithfully enforced.
Our approach to reenvisioning immigration begins with this: immigration policy — like any public policy — deserves a vigorous, civil debate; we do not, however, confuse policy with people. From our founding videos and publications, respect for immigrants is foundational to our approach.
Second, as Temple University law professor Jan Ting explains, unless a person agrees with a totally open border for the hundreds of millions of people who would move to the United States if they could, policymakers have to choose numerical limits.
Prioritizing requires difficult choices, but that is the policymakers’ job. Our goal for sensible immigration policy is to maximize benefits and minimize harm
Consider these vulnerable groups:
A small minority of Americans actually live on the border. Their concerns are unique and important. One sensible way to measure border security is to determine whether or not the people who live on the border are secure.
Our responsibilities of stewardship extend to Mother Earth, especially the American lands and waters the U.S. government has jurisdiction over. They cannot vote, but the critical habitats, wildlife, and biodiversity that sustain us — and are crucial to international environmental health — should all be considered in our immigration policies.
Future generations have no say in our current policies, but they will live in the world our policies leave them. Immigration policy should be responsive to immediate and short-term needs while never losing sight of the long-term ramifications.
A limited system with enforcement has always been the preferred approach to immigration to the United States; although the limits have changed and the enforcement, at times, has been lacking. Nevertheless, a limited system is clearly in the best interest of the United States. The challenge is in choosing how many, determining standards of admission, and ensuring the limits and standards we choose are enforced.
A limited system with enforcement has always been the preferred approach to immigration to the United States; although the limits have changed and the enforcement, at times, has been lacking. Nevertheless, a limited system is clearly in the best interest of the United States. The challenge is in choosing how many, determining standards of admission, and ensuring the limits and standards we choose are enforced.