We have work to do on immigration

Unless you are listed on one of the tribal rolls of our 574 Indian Tribes, you are either an immigrant or the beneficiary of an immigrating ancestor. In short, when we talk about “immigrants” we are talking about ourselves.

One list of “Famous U.S. Immigrants” lists about 100 (including the president’s wife) whose names and “American accomplishments” you’ll recognize.

The less famous are equally essential to our economy. Last year the total number called “immigrants” was 53.3 million foreign-born residents. Jobs with the highest percentage of “immigrants” include agriculture, construction, cleaning and maintenance, food preparation and personal care (80% of all manicurists and pedicurists).

For me, diversity makes a more interesting city: 60 languages in Iowa City schools, the variety of birthplaces of Uber drivers, those I encounter during neighborhood walks, and the range of our restaurants’ cuisine. All for much less than the $5,000 or more it would cost for a round trip to even one of their countries.

Of course, speaking of painted fingernails, some Americans have preferences of skin color and foreign accents that suppresses their interest in “immigrants.”

Given that we are all immigrants, and given their essential role in our economy, it is odd that some individuals still emphasize, without evidence, immigrants’ criminal records. More than one study has found that “undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than . . . a quarter the rate of native-born citizens for property crimes.”

Crime rates have been declining. But even if some states and federal agencies select fighting crime as their top priority, what’s the rationale for putting more emphasis on immigrants than on those responsible for most crime?

Moreover, the U.S. power to welcome, or exclude, potential immigrants has limits. The Constitution’s 14th Amendment requirements of “due process” and “equal protection of the laws” apply to “any person,” not just citizens.

For those fleeing persecution, and can prove it, international and U.S. law provide they are entitled to seek “asylum” – requiring the U.S. accept them.

Maybe the issue should be, not who is coming but how many. How many immigrants per year is the right number? As America’s most popular comedian, Nate Bargatze, might say, “Nobody knows.”

Or should our question be, not how many knock on our door, but how many leave home and why. For example, it may cost more to abandon the USAID program than to increase it.

I don’t often dig around in the Hoover Institution’s files, but while John Cochrane’s analysis may not be surprising it is intriguing. With only a half-tongue in cheek he explains why we can handle up to at least one billion more immigrants, and that “quotas” are a “calamitous waste.” “For every objection to open immigration, it’s easy enough to find terms of the deal to resolve the matter. The right terms will allow the optimal amount of immigration to settle itself.”

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”

We have work to do.

Nicholas Johnson can be reached at mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org