President Trump, along with US Senators Bob Corker from Arkansas and David Perdue from Georgia, has proposed the most significant immigration rollback since the passing of the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965.
This is an act which will surely draw in a massive protest from the American left, as the action will be perceived as being inherently racist. The argument is and will be that the policy bars the immigration of non-whites, while opening the door for people of European descent.
In actuality, the new system will be enacted on a merit based process – based along the lines of speciality of skills and competency in the English language. Welfare and entitlements will not be granted to individuals upon initial entrance for the first five years of resident. The idea behind this system is to incentivise those entering the United States to do so along the lines self- sustainability. This action is set up to boost the US economy and reduce the monetary burdens of the debt producing welfare state.
This is going to undoubtedly spur two competitive narratives regarding the realm of moral decency – one of altruistic and egalitarian collectivism, the other of objectivism and economic interest. Those on the left will cry racism – despite the fact they would be implying that non-whites are incapable of having desirable work and language skills. In reality, those admitted residence will still mostly be from developing countries – but will be accepted in lesser numbers and on the basis of merit. Such a policy is not racist, as it does not restrict ethnicities or particular countries (as was largely done before 1965). This legislation still contains the anti-racist spirit of the 1965 legislation, but deteriorates the dimensions of inherit altruism, cultural guilt and economic impracticality.
This is a major comprehensive policy overhaul which may be the first to be implemented in the Trump White House (depending on where the health care vote goes). The bill’s proposal came relatively out of nowhere in the shadow of the failed health care vote. This piece of legislation, although controversial, answers the critics who claim he has done relatively little with a majority in Congress.
This first major policy move will have negative consequences for the Democratic Party. For years the American left has depended on the election strategy of importing low skilled people from developing countries in order to increase the probability of gaining votes. This has been a mandate and mindset which has held no ground in reason or morality – but rather uses new arrivals as a means to an end and as a rouse to win elections and protect political power. The well-being and successes of the incoming individuals have been second nature to their propensity and likelihood to vote for bigger government.
The Democratic left has in the last 50 years directly appealed to new arrivals by postulating their need for dependency and victimhood. This is the result of the bigotry of low expectations – a subconscious phenomenon where politicians preaching “anti-racism” imply people of colour need to or should vote for socialist policies – for the reason that they are less capable to succeed in a more free market. This has inherently created a cycle of financial dependency which has disproportionately stifled economic development among newly arrived Americans.
This is precisely the reason why it is in the best interest for the Democratic Party and the American left to bring in immigrants with a high probability of voting for their policies as a means to remain in power. It is nothing else but a power game with no interest in the well-being of immigrants. Reiterating this point is an important argument to make against the constant cries of racism that this legislation will entail.
This policy will be popular with Trump’s base, working class Democrats, Black Americans, and other immigrants who are already here. His base will be pleased at the prospect of not having to subsidize low skilled people, while the other groups will appreciate less competition in the labour force and the undercutting of wages.
There’s nothing wrong or racist about a country having a sensible approach to immigration which ensures overall economic prosperity instead of dependency and deficit spending in the long run.