DACA Deal Must Put Pragmatism Over Principle
Discussion of immigration has been based thus far on principles. Some fervently believe policy needs to put Americans first. Others believe America stands for easy immigration and acceptance of people from all over the world — they trust in the melting pot to make it work in the long run.
Yet, immigration policy based on principles can lead only two places: open borders or a strict, skills- and investment-based policy. Once you get into limits and tradeoffs, it’s all about pragmatism, not principle. Recognizing that truth will ease the way to a deal on immigration.
The “Dreamers,” brought to the U.S. as children but now ranging in age from teens to early 30s, are at the center of the discussion. No principle dictates that Dreamers should be legalized and allowed to stay. It may not be their fault, but legal principles generally don’t let people benefit from another’s crimes. Consider an analogy: If parents robbed a bank and deposited the money in their kids’ college savings account, neither society nor the legal system would permit the kids to keep the money. (The Dreamers are those kids, but with citizenship in place of college tuition.)
Sympathy, not principles, is what drives support for Dreamers. But sympathy does not make for good strategy. Pragmatism is the better approach. Here, a number of arguments favor the Dreamers. They are familiar with the U.S., have a place in society already, generally speak English, and often already have jobs. They are more likely to be of economic benefit to the American taxpayer than new immigrants we might admit to replace them. Plus, Americans are simply not mean enough to deport them.
Sympathy suggests their parents will stay, too — we don’t want to break up families — but so does pragmatism. Yet, because legalizing the Dreamers’ parents is so generous, a pragmatic deal would also require permanently banning the parents from future citizenship. This is pragmatic both because it assesses a penalty and minimizes the potential impact of the newly legalized immigrants on elections.
More pragmatism is possible if one believes President Trump and some Republicans will stand firm on restrictions on chain migration and the elimination of the visa lottery. An obvious pragmatic step, little discussed, would be to offset the decline in immigrants arising from those policy changes by creating a new program for foreign graduate students. If a student gets a graduate degree from an American university, he or she gets legal residency. If need be, residence could be restricted to students in STEM or other particular fields and could require a job offer within a certain timeframe. (I would prefer no restrictions, however.) Allowing these highly trained people to stay is the ultimate in pragmatism. We just invested tens of thousands of dollars in them; why kick them out right after making them more economically valuable?
Finally, a pragmatic deal would require steps to discourage future illegal immigration, particularly since amnesty might incentivize future immigrants hoping for the same deal. Border security is pragmatic because many people, particularly the low-skilled, enter that way. If any immigrants depress wages or burden taxpayers, it is those walking across the southern border. Employment verification is also pragmatic because many people fly in and overstay visas. No wall will stop people who enter legally and simply don’t leave. Immigrants come for jobs; so the best disincentive is restricting their access to employment. Any truly pragmatic solution means closing this loophole and finally holding employers responsible.
Each side of the immigration debate shouts its principles down from the ramparts. But those same principles block all hope of a deal. The best chance for compromise on immigration is to forget principles and focus on pragmatism. If we get pragmatic, a deal readily presents itself: citizenship for Dreamers; legalization for their parents; a new immigration program favoring skilled foreign graduate students; and, finally, border security and employment verification so that the same problems do not crop up again. Pragmatism isn’t perfect, but it would give partisans on both sides at least some of the things they want and at least one thing both sides want: a reasonable deal to protect Dreamers.
Jeffrey H. Dorfman is an economics professor at The University of Georgia.
