In this article in MacLean's, Charlie Gillis worries that Canada is engaging in too much "country profiling" in its immigration policy - letting in Asians at the expense of Caribbeans and Latin Americans. This gives me an opportunity to stand up for country profiling in immigration, which I think is a great and underappreciated idea.
My reasoning for country profiling has little to do with the likelihood that some immigrant groups are more likely to succeed than others. I think if we want immigrants who are likely to succeed - which we do - we should simply bias our immigration policy toward admitting lots of highly skilled people, regardless of their country of origin (another thing Canada does, I might point out). This will have the effect of boosting our economy while lowering inequality.
Country profiling, on the other hand, is useful for purely political reasons.
Reason 1: Country profiling can help solve America's long-standing race problems. Admitting - soliciting! - lots of talented, motivated Africans is, I believe, our best bet for healing the seemingly indelible rift between white and black Americans. African immigrants, who come here willingly, do not possess the cultural memory of slavery, and thus lack the tendency to see whites as a historical oppressor. This is good; holding ethnic groups accountable for their ancestors' (or their ancestors' look-a-likes') sins is counterproductive, but it's a very difficult habit to kick. African immigrants' positive attitudes will (hopefully) slowly diffuse throughout the American black community. Additionally, high-skilled African immigrants in large numbers will help erase the achievement gap between blacks and whites (as an anecdotal example of this observe that our president is the son of an African immigrant).
So, high-skilled Africans should be our top priority for immigration.
Reason 2: Country profiling can ease Americans' fears over Mexican immigration. Mexican immigration is unpopular in America, despite these immigrants' low crime rate, rapid English adoption, and high rates of intermarriage. My guess is that this fear is less about race, and more about the simple size of the Mexican ethnic bloc. When immigrants are a polyglot, there is little danger - real or imagined - of one ethnic group replacing the dominant culture with its own language and institutions. But when a plurality of an area's population hails from a single country of origin - as Germans did in parts of the Midwest long long ago - there is naturally a feeling of unease among the native-born. Will the new super-bloc declare Spanish to be its natural language? Will they want to secede and return the Southwest to Mexico? These fears, routinely expressed in conservative circles, may be unfounded, but they represent American culture's instinctive desire to be a polyglot, patchwork nation.
Biasing immigration away from Spanish-speaking countries and toward other language groups can ease these fears and increase immigration's overall popularity.
Reason 3: Country profiling can help cement our overseas alliances. Immigration creates a two-way exchange of people, ideas, and capital between the source country and the host country. With the geopolitical situation turning decisively against American hegemony, our best bet for continuing to protect our country's interests lies in strong alliances, especially in Asia. Large numbers of immigrants from India, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, etc. will deepen business, cultural, and political ties between the U.S. and those nations, helping us build a coalition of Asian states wary of China's rise. Immigration from China, additionally, can help provide a refuge and a platform for dissident voices in that authoritarian country. And immigration from Brazil can cement our ties with that large and growing democracy.
So, in sum: if we're smart, we'll use country profiling. Done right, it can restore immigration's popularity, ameliorate America's racial divisions, and improve our international relations.
Open the gates!!
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar