An Immigration Philosophy Fit for Our Better Selves

America’s polarized debate over immigration policy reflects the worst of ourselves. The nation can do much better both to serve its interests and to reconcile its competing ideals.

The Trump administration and its more radical supporters portray the arrival of undocumented immigrants as an “invasion” of the mentally defective, criminals who are poisoning “our blood” and eager to catch and eat household pets. These are just a few among the many rhetorical tropes of fascism that pollute the discourse. Lost in this parade of horrors is the fact that the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. Ironically, the grandparents and great-grandparents of the current crop of nativist ideologues were the hard-working immigrants (none of whom were vetted) who dug America’s canals, built its railroads, and busted the sod for its farms. Today immigrants contribute immensely as entrepreneurs and leaders in the sciences and healthcare; 24 percent of recent U.S. patents were filed by immigrants. Immigrants, both documented and undocumented, labor in the nation’s fields, slaughterhouses, and warehouses doing the work that not enough Americans seem to want to do. Lost also is the fact that immigrants, including the undocumented, are much less likely to commit a crime than native-born Americans.

On the other side of this polarized debate, activists on the left along with some academic globalists dismiss the relevance of borders. All the earth belongs to all. They treat borders as both arbitrary, which they mostly are, and also unjustified, which they mostly are not. Libertarians claim property-holders can rent and sell to anyone from anywhere they choose and owners of capital can hire anyone from anywhere they please. Lost is the fact that borders are what allow us to govern ourselves. National borders mark out a space where citizens have agreed to be bound by enforceable laws. Borders identify communities that have sacrificed for the common good, fought and died in wars to protect sovereignty and security, and taxed themselves to build the schools, highways and bridges that allow us to prosper. At its best, America has been and should be first in public consideration by Americans, but national interest should not be the only consideration, and certainly not while acting alone.

The U.S. needs to defend a comprehensive set of immigration policies that can reflect both the benefits and costs of immigration. The nation needs a border. A border means controlling who can enter, when, and why. An effective border need not be a wall, but it should be able to deter unwanted entry by preventing easy irregular entry. A border wall from the “Gulf of America” to the Pacific is a histrionic exercise in concrete and steel, when other, cheaper means (fences, surveillance drones, and patrols) can achieve the purpose as effectively.

To disincentivize illegal entry the country needs legal pathways to meet the demand for (currently) 8 million unfilled open jobs (not counting the millions of jobs now filled by the 10 million undocumented). How? The U.S. can develop a national jobs Internet platform that identifies open positions and the relevant skills, available for application from foreign individual applicants and employment agencies. The platform will list jobs not filled by Americans a year after the jobs have been posted. Americans will have the benefit of job mobility assistance to move to desired jobs.

The U.S. will also work to preserve temporary visas for exceptionally skilled individuals, filling specific jobs that add to an employer’s payroll (not displace current American workers). Some of the foreign applicants for lesser skilled work can also be offered renewable temporary visas for two or three years. The visas would be temporary in the event that a recession might cause national unemployment to rise. But the temporary workers could be compensated for the uncertainty with multiple travel visas so that they could maintain ties with their foreign home and receive portable severance packages that match what might have been earned in retirement benefits for the period worked. All temporary workers could apply for Green Cards for permanent status, wait in line, and access livelihoods while doing so.

The undocumented who are convicted of crimes (not, as in like the Laken Riley Act, merely arrested) should be deported. The law-abiding undocumented would be automatically enrolled as temporary workers, with a work permit. They then should pay an annual fine for their illegal crossing of the border. The fine would be deducted from payrolls or added to taxes until, waiting in line, they get their Green Card, use up their temporary stays, or decide to leave. For this to work, social security cards will need to be made as secure as Real-ID driver’s licenses. And employers will be held responsible for all their employees having one

Those provisions address the voluntary migration of adults. But much migration is far from voluntary. For immigrant children who did not choose to migrate humane policies are needed to uphold American values. Families need to be unified and unified families make for better citizens for America. Parents and children of U.S. permanent residents should have automatic entry priority. Brothers and sisters should have priorities and be admitted according to the specific need when they are threatened abroad or require assistance.

Much more difficult and troubling are the millions of refugees seeking asylum from “persecution” on the basis of “race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion.” The UN refugee agency (UNHCR) estimates that there are 31.6 million persons worldwide in 2023 who are recognized to have crossed international borders seeking refuge. The U.S. is committed by the 1951 Refugee Convention and U.S. law to offering asylum to authenticated refugees presenting themselves at our border, if failing to do so would put their lives at risk. Migrants can be told to wait in Mexico or Canada for clearance, if the safe cooperation of those nations can be ensured. (The U.S. will probably need to pay for most of this.) This is the basic right of humanitarian rescue reflecting the old moral axiom “that there but for the grace of God go I.”

Complicating the picture, there are 117 million people worldwide who are forcibly displaced by armed conflicts and other events but still living within the borders of their countries. Many would flee abroad if they could. Adding to those numbers, the World Bank has estimated (2021) that without globally concerted climate and development action before 2050, 216 million will be forced to move by climate crises. Many will be forced to cross borders to survive and some we will want to provide (at least) temporary protection during the crisis in their home country.

North Americans and Europeans are responsible for most past climate change. The Chinese are and soon the Indians will be driving the carbon pollution increases ahead. Armed conflicts are caused by the perpetrators, but they are also reflecting past inequities and governance failures, some instigated from overseas.

Responsibility thus is global and should remain collective. No country, not even the U.S., can provide refuge for all; nor should we.

Instead, a fair share could be determined by proportionate share of global income and population (which makes absorption easier) subtracting proportions of current numbers of refugees already supported and national unemployment rates (which raise the burden of providing assistance). In an estimate I calculated with Janine Prantl and Mark Wood, the 2022 U.S, fair share of the support required for the global population forced to flee across borders could be met by $11 billion to pay for refuge elsewhere or resettling 3.6 million asylum seekers in the. China’s share would be $9.4 billion or 3.1 million; Japan’s $4.9 billion or 1.6 million; and Germany’s $3.6 billion or 1.2 million. Only Germany today is meeting its fair share. the U.S. contributed $1.7 billion to UNHCR in 2022 and admitted 60,000 refugees in 2023, for a total of 3 million since 1975.

These are large commitments to fulfill. Fortunately, there are some synergies. Refugees fleeing persecution and those seeking asylum from conflict and natural disasters can be given priority on the jobs platform. Humanitarian need is sufficient to justify refuge, but numbers admitted could increase or quotas could be enlarged if some refugees are able to find fulfilling work, which is exactly what they want to start a new life.

A responsible immigration policy that reflects America’s values and serves its interests is difficult. But it is not a quixotic campaign. Vast majorities of the U.S. public rejected the first Trump administration’s cruel child separation policies at the Southern border. Equal numbers were later outraged during the Biden administration by scenes of the border in chaos as waves of desperate persons surged over the Rio Grande. Still 70 percent of American oppose deporting law-abiding undocumented immigrants. The current Trump administration’s focus on documenting and celebrating deportations is putting a new spotlight on this issue, with many concerned about the ethical and societal implications of the president’s actions. But if a framework can be created to respond to the legitimate concerns that Americans have about this issue, the nation will have an immigration policy to meet its duties, reflect its values, and serve its interests.

Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs is an independent and nonpartisan nonprofit. The views expressed within this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Carnegie Council.