While I alluded last time that I would use some comparative analysis to compare different immigration systems around the world to that in the U.S., I want to step back and take a broader look at an immigration system that I most often see promoted by some policymakers and the American public.
First, I would like to do some further analysis on what this system is called: a meritocracy. A meritocracy is defined by Merriam-Webster as being “a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit.” In terms of immigration, a meritocracy is the system by which a government selectively refines their list of possible immigrants based on certain desirable skills or abilities. Under the Trump administration, calls to establish a more firm meritocratic U.S. immigration system were a key element of that administration’s immigration plans. In 2007, President George W. Bush unveiled an eventually rejected compromise for increasing border security and being more restrictive of immigrants through meritocratic measures at the expense of granting legal status to many of the 11 million immigrants who currently resided in the U.S. at this time (The New York Times). Trump’s proposal would have revived a key component of Bush’s compromise in making the standards for U.S. immigration more strict through a merit-based system.
“It’s a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially, yet in America, we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon,” said Trump. “Switching away from this current system of lower-skilled immigration, and instead adopting a merit-based system, we will have so many more benefits.” Indeed, this certainly could be true. At face-value, it makes sense to think that weeding out the skilled workers versus unskilled workers could certainly have a noticeable impact on the U.S. economy. As things stand today, most Americans view immigration most favorably for the possible impacts it can have on the economy. But, even many in the Republican Party addressed a key concern they had with Trump’s full merit-based proposal: many vital jobs including agricultural work and other more hands-on, high labor activities might not be of interest to these more highly-educated or wealthy immigrants. Policy is often a balance trying to find the correct amount of trade-offs that can most facilitate success. The way to mend this divide is to establish quota limits for immigrants who are distinctly classified by things like education level, income, and associated skills. This is something done in Canada, which is one of the most democratic nations in the world. Canada assigns points to prospective immigrants given their educational and employment background, language proficiency and financial means, etc. with the highest point-earners getting priority admission.
Frankly, many of the immigrants searching for opportunity in the United States never received the opportunities to foster their own success in their native lands. I think it is unfair if these individuals are punished if they were unable to receive an adequate education or find a serviceable job in a country that, frankly, did not provide them with the framework to be successful. Thus, I think that if these different groups of immigrants were able to be better classified and distinguished from one another, there would be a mutual gain for both parties in the immigration system. The United States is the “land of opportunity” and any person wishing to make a positive impact on themselves and their country should have the opportunity to be granted residency here. But, given the massive influx of illegal border crossings and the staggeringly high percentage of immigrants who are in the country illegally, some of this “good” in the immigration system is forgotten.
I heard someone the other day say immigration in the United States is far from the Ellis Island days. I find that to be evidently true, partially because of how complacent we have become in enforcing our own policies. If you were an immigrant seeking residency in the United States, why would you possibly go through the legal immigration process, which takes extensive time, when you can just enter undetected and go about your life? Our system does not incentivize individuals to do it “the right way”, as those who do it that way are often under closer watch and surveillance than the ones who slip in totally undetected. Many of the sanctuary state and city proposals established nationwide counteract this goal of incentivizing legal immigration. If an area is granting you amnesty for unlawfully being inside the United States, you would much rather go that route than being backlogged in the courts for years on end.
Indeed, the backlogging of immigration courts is another key aspect of how the system is failing prospective migrants and the American people. When looking at a graph illustrating the historical trends of backlogging within American immigration courts, you can see that the amount of cases being processed have quadrupled over roughly the last 15 years. Right before the COVID-19 pandemic, approximately 83,000 cases were currently cluttering immigration courts (Syracuse University). Compare that to 2005 when only 26,000 cases filled the courts’ dockets. This is an apparent issue within our system and something that is once again incentivizing immigrants to come in the wrong way.
To summarize, I think the establishment of a hybrid model between skilled and unskilled immigrants is imperative for the United States immigration system. While we could certainly establish a point system of the likes of the Canadian system and include more meritocratic principles within the system, it is also imperative that we don’t shut the door on those migrants who do not possess the intrinsically unique skills of their peers. I do believe that skilled immigrants should be of the most priority to the United States, but a quota system should be established to address the unskilled migrants who are simply seeking an opportunity. Individuals who demonstrate potential and a willingness to positively influence the United States through their residency should undeniably be given residency within our country. I’m honestly not sure the most effective way that the U.S. can address the backlogging issue within our immigration courts given the stringent nature of the legal process, but I believe attacking some of the root causes of the issue can further alleviate the pressures faced by federal immigration officials, agencies, and courts.
None of the points I have made today are news to lawmakers, but it is simply now just a waiting time until Congress decides to take off the partisan hats and reach bipartisan compromise on a much needed overhaul of the U.S. immigration system.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/immigration-trump.html?_r=0
Hello Hunter, thank you for exploring this intriguing topic. The idea of a meritocracy in a refugee system seems misguided to me. As we have all seen from our research, a refugee is someone who is typically fleeing persecution, severe economic hardship, or other issues that compel them to flee their countries. The chance that these refugees have had the opportunity to build any kind of financial base or ability in skilled labor is very slim. If anything, this just seems like another way to legally prevent refugees from entering the country. This is not to say that systems should not be put in place to adequately protect these refugees for residency in the United States, but we cannot scrutinize these people to the point where we forget why they are arriving in the first place.
Hi Hunter! This was very intriguing and a great overview of the entire topic/issue. I find these miss-calculations and miss-classifications to be one of the biggest issues in how the general public understands immigration. It colludes the issue and leads to over-generalized opinions that impact how we debate the issue. I understand your point about skilled laborers being made a priority, but I think that this could create some concerns. How are someone’s skills measured and how are they then deemed important? While I definitely see an economic advantage to this, I feel like it may dehumanize the immigration system. I think we hear a lot of stories where immigrants who were extremely educated and silked in their home country, struggle to find equitable work in the U.S