Race-Conscious Immigration Policy?

A recent article on Time magazine’s web site asks whether racism is fueling our immigration debate, stating that “[m]any Democrats say it is.” It added: “But some respectable scholars say ethnicity should be considered in deciding who gets to be American.” (HatTip to RealClearPolitics)

Are those “respectable scholars” (whoever they are) saying that we should return to some version of national origin quotas like those contained in the Immigration Act of 1924? That act, you will no doubt recall, came to be regarded as racist and at the urging of liberals was repealed by the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965. Rep. Emanuel Celler (D, NY), riding the crest of the civil rights wave that had recently secured the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, celebrated “the end of discrimination due to place of birth,” and Attorney General Robert Kennedy wrote in a letter to the New York Times (quoted in last link above) that “[t]he time has come for us to insist that the quota system be replaced by the merit system.” (Interestingly, but beside the point of this post, the new act’s liberal supporters went on record with a prediction — that the new act would have no effect on the overall number of new immigrants — that proved to be as incorrect as their assurances that the Civil Rights Act they had just passed would not allow for any racial preferences. For example, Ted Kennedy reassured Congress that “Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.”)

At least back in the 1960s liberals were clear that all discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and national origin was wrong, a clarity they have long since abandoned. Whenever possible, however, they attempt to recover the glow of their now-tarnished anti-discrimination halo by accusing Republicans and conservatives generally of racism. Thus, as the Time article cited above states, “many Democrats” contend that what “is really beneath the fight over immigration” is “a hint of racism or nativism.” Many others contend it is more than a hint.

“I have no doubt that some of those involved in the debate have their position based on fear and perhaps racism because of what’s happening demographically in the country,” says Ken Salazar, Democratic Senator from Colorado. A Senate Democratic leadership aide is more blunt: “A lot of the anti-immigration movement is jingoistic at best and racist at worst. There is a fear of white people being over run by darker-skinned people.”

Presumably these Democrats continue to endorse the principle of the 1965 immigration act, that immigration policy should be set “without regard” to the race or nationality of would-be immigrants. But of course they don’t endorse that principle, since everywhere but at the border they reject that principle and argue that “diversity” or basic fairness requires careful regulation of the racial and ethnic mix of various institutions. (Well, O.K., not “everywhere”; they also reject “racial profiling” when done on streets and highways by traffic cops.)

In fact, if the country applied the liberal conception of affirmative action to immigration policy, one of the first things that would be noticed is that immigrants from Mexico are heavily “overrepresented” and that a concern for “diversity” would lead us to restrict their numbers substantially.

Those of us who continue to believe that racial and ethnic discrimination is wrong suffer no such contradictory confusion. Immigration policy should be based on the needs of the United States, an approach that looks to a combination of factors such as what contribution prospective immigrants can make as well as humanitarian concerns about refugees, family unification, etc. It need not and should not take race, ethnicity, or national origin into account at all.

Say What? (6)

  1. The Constructivist May 18, 2006 at 12:54 pm | | Reply

    But isn’t the concern of folks who raise the race~IQ link (such as the ones commenting here) precisely over “what contribution prospective immigrants can make”? If they couch their concern in terms of IQ without making the race connection clear, then they get a free ride from you? Please explain.

  2. John Rosenberg May 18, 2006 at 12:58 pm | | Reply

    What’s to explain? I don’t know enough about IQ tests, or have enough confidence in them, to think they would be a reasonable basis for including or excluding anyone. All sorts of people who might make valued contributions don’t have high IQs anyway. All I have said is that race, ethnicity, nationality ought not to be critieria the state uses to do just about anything, including admitting immigrants.

  3. The Constructivist May 20, 2006 at 12:34 am | | Reply

    I agree with you, but from the comments in the immigration post and in the two ones on race v. racialization, I get the feeling that some of your fellow conservatives may not. I don’t think the race~IQ folks are lying when they say that psychologists concur that IQ tests are the single best predictor of academic and job performance. I’m with you on doubting they’d be a reasonable basis for judging any applicant for a visa–plus the government is already barred from using them in most situations by existing Civil Rights Law–but the racial realists I’m debating argue we should seek to increase Asian migration (which I agree with) while cracking down on Hispanic immigration (which I disagree with), with the purported IQ differences between the two groups being their primary justification for this position. When pressed, however, they claim to agree with your column’s principle. I doubt they’ll agree with anything in your comment except the last sentence. Which is precisely what prompted my “please explain.”

  4. John Rosenberg May 20, 2006 at 8:07 am | | Reply

    …but the racial realists I’m debating argue we should seek to increase Asian migration (which I agree with) while cracking down on Hispanic immigration (which I disagree with), with the purported IQ differences between the two groups being their primary justification for this position. When pressed, however, they claim to agree with your column’s principle. I doubt they’ll agree with anything in your comment except the last sentence. Which is precisely what prompted my “please explain.”

    I’m still not clear on what I need to explain. I’ve not waded into the IQ debates, and won’t, because IQ doesn’t seem relevant to most of the things I’m interested in (aside from gifted education, where it is no doubt quite relevant).

    Nor have I gone back over the debates regarding “national origins” restrictions on immigration (graduate school was a long time ago). As I’ve stated, my inclination is to oppose them and award visas based on neutral (non-racial, non-national) criteria to individuals. It does seem to me, however, that anyone who is a principled believer in “diversity” ought to favor severely restricting from Mexico, at least until the ethnic/national composition of those admitted to the U.S. begins to resemble the international pool of those who would like to come here. Moreover, if that “applicant pool” contains too few of certain types of people, diversiphiles ought to be demanding “affirmative action” to find more “underrepresented” applicants.

  5. The Constructivist May 28, 2006 at 1:28 am | | Reply

    John, love your “diversity” argument for immigration restriction from Mexico (rather than, say, increasing from other countries)–I’m assuming a reductio….

    Seriously, I agree with you, but take a peek at any immigration debate blog and you’ll see folks like Hans Gruber, Steve Sailer, TangoMan, and others saying, “look at the data on how Mexican immigrants do in the US–it’s purely rational to discriminate against their compatriots–no, it’s not even discrimination, it’s just common sense to crack down on illegal immigration from Mexico as a first step to reducing all immigration from there.”

    This is coming from your fellow conservatives; I’m sure you’ve encountered similar arguments for paying attention to national origin; just wondering if you would respond to them any differently than you do when you’re attacking liberal “diversophiles.

  6. John Rosenberg May 28, 2006 at 10:18 am | | Reply

    Re conservatives who argue “… it’s just common sense to crack down on illegal immigration from Mexico as a first step to reducing all immigration from there.”

    I think it is common sense to crack down on illegal immigration, and since the great preponderance of illegal immigrants come from Mexico that’s certainly the place to start. As I’ve said, I would restrict immigration to the number and type of immigrants we need, but I would not use national origin to define “type.”

Say What?