Issues > Immigration

During its first 115 years in existence, the United States had very little in the way of restrictions on immigration. One of the nation's first immigration law, the Act of 1864, was actually intended to encourage immigration and the hiring of foreign workers. Federal regulation of immigration didn't truly begin until 1892 with the opening of Ellis Island, and it wasn't until the 1920s that the U.S. began putting limits on the number of immigrants who were allowed to enter.

Yet it was not until 1965 that immigration from Mexico was first restricted. The mere concept of "illegal immigration" from Mexico did not exist until the Johnson administration, but that is what dominates our modern immigration debate.

For many of us, our ancestors came to this country during times when virtually anyone was free to do so, at the time of their choosing. It is only in the last eighty years that we began throwing up roadblocks, and only in the last forty that we put a lid on Mexican immigration.

We should reconsider a return to those earlier days, when America was a land of opportunity with an open door for those who wished to pass through. Many people desire to come here to share and experience what we already have. As in the days of Ellis Island, if they can be vetted and found clean and trustworthy, then they're welcome to come. Through the use of computerized records, the opportunity to apply at consular offices, and the opportunity for more people to get visas, it could be a smoother process than it ever was before.

It may seem strange to liberalize legal immigration as a means of fighting illegal immigration, but it works to everyone's benefit. We would continue to screen every immigrant for criminal history and disease, in order to protect Americans. If a person wants to avoid a simple and easy process of legal immigration, then there is a strong likelihood that that person has something to hide, and that provides greater focus to the mission of the ICE.

It's both a radical idea and a return to American tradition. And the benefits to a more lenient system are numerous. Legal, documented immigrants pay taxes, and thus contribute more back to the system they're benefitting from. The government would know a lot more about the individuals coming in to work or live. We could all but eliminate the human rights abuses of illegals. And as stated above, a more lenient policy towards innocent immigrants allows us to focus our attention on the not-so-innocent illegals who would still choose to circumvent the system. The combination of that focus with better documentation would have the effect of making our border more secure than it is now.

The attempted enforcement of the current laws does nothing to address the actual, underlying problems that lead to mass illegal immigration. As long as people want to come (and they will still want to come), merely throwing up more hurdles won't change that. I believe that what I'm advocating does more to get at that core cause.

The important thing is this: the fault for our immigration situation may not lie with the immigrants themselves. It may lie with us, and our overly restrictive immigration laws. And which are we in a better position to change?