http://www2.sbsun.com/news/ci_3087616

A new look at the immigration debate

Conor Fridersdorf, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun

Ideally, the United States would adopt an immigration policy that fuels our economy while protecting the jobs of American citizens.
We'd adopt the poor and persecuted, offering them unlimited opportunity, while mustering our resources to attract the best and brightest minds from around the world. Immigrants would enrich our culture with cuisine and customs without threatening our language or core cultural values. They'd face minimal hassles upon entry, although authorities would meticulously screen all newcomers for terrorist ties.

Quickly it becomes apparent that these goals are in tension each one, laudable on its own, proves impossible to fully achieve without sacrificing another.

We cannot provide unlimited opportunities for foreign workers and complete job protection for their native counterparts. If we cater to the least fortunate foreign workers, we will miss out on the most skilled.

Hence this hard truth: Any immigration policy we adopt will have costs we'd rather not bear. In Washington, D.C., that's a recipe for inaction after all, anyone who advocates an immigration-reform bill will be denounced for its costs more than lauded for its benefits, even if the latter outweigh the former.

The problem is exacerbated by the negative focus of the immigration debate the most passionate advocates on both sides are against illegal immigration or a crackdown on illegal-immigration. But what are they for?

After two decades of stalemate between these warring fractions, perhaps it is time to reframe the immigration debate. Perhaps enough voters will rally behind a comprehensive immigration policy only when Americans decide what they want their immigration policy to accomplish, rather than what they want it to avoid.

In 1999, Professor George J. Borjas suggested that approach in his book "Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy."

"By framing the debate in this fashion, I hope to clarify what is really at stake," he wrote. "And what is at stake is nothing less than the conception of what the United States is about. After all, it is futile to think about how many and which immigrants to admit unless one first has some objectives in mind. What is it that the American people want immigration to do for the country?"

Borjas focuses on the immigration policy that would maximize the economic benefit to the United States. As he notes, however, we might choose to craft an immigration policy with all sorts of different goals in mind. Some will want to focus on protecting asylum seekers from death at the hands of foreign tyrants. Others will want to protect the environment. Others will want to increase the ethnic diversity of the United States. Still others will want to maintain traditional American culture at all costs.

These divergent goals call for drastically different approaches to immigration policy. Thus it seems productive to hash out the ultimate goal through political debate before arguing about the costs and benefits of particular policies.

Toward that, I've named my own immigration priorities on Beyond Borders Blog in order of importance:

Safeguard the country against terrorists seeking to take up residence here prior to attacking us;

Provide refuge to those who would be killed by foreign despots;

Assimilate new arrivals as patriotic Americans who embrace our core values;

Attract the best and brightest minds to the U.S. economy;

Advance our foreign-policy agenda;

Provide economic opportunity for low-wage workers who, through their presence, will have an overall positive impact on the U.S. economy.

In coming weeks, Beyond Borders Blog will engage readers over the question of what the United States should want out of its immigration policy. I encourage you to send your thoughts to conor.friedersdorf Meanwhile, the blog will host a book club of sorts. Anyone interested should order Borjas' book it's available at Amazon.com and other book retailers. I'll post occasionally about ideas found within its chapters, publish letters sent by readers about the book and moderate debate among readers if enough people participate.