The academic literature on the impact of immigration is clear: immigrants help â not harm â the U.S. economy as a whole and commit crimes at lower levels than do native-born Americans. But the impacts of immigration in communities across the country gets muddled; some Americans donât see the positive benefits of immigration. While itâs accurate that more than half of Americaâs billion-dollar startups have an immigrant founder, the truth is that an economy is more than just the Fortune 500.
The U.S. has just 5 percent of the worldâs population; like a sports team, the U.S. must recruit talent from outside to promote its prosperity and maximize the contributions of all on the team, or the country. Immigrants continue to serve the American people well, despite the deep, structural flaws in a U.S. immigration system that hasnât been modernized in decades. By fixing that system, we can leverage immigration policy even more effectively to directly aid Americans.
Thanks. Lots of good talking points there; I shared it out in the wild...
The academic literature on the impact of immigration is clear: immigrants help — not harm — the U.S. economy as a whole and commit crimes at lower levels than do native-born Americans. But the impacts of immigration in communities across the country gets muddled; some Americans don’t see the positive benefits of immigration. While it’s accurate that more than half of America’s billion-dollar startups have an immigrant founder, the truth is that an economy is more than just the Fortune 500.
The U.S. has just 5 percent of the world’s population; like a sports team, the U.S. must recruit talent from outside to promote its prosperity and maximize the contributions of all on the team, or the country. Immigrants continue to serve the American people well, despite the deep, structural flaws in a U.S. immigration system that hasn’t been modernized in decades. By fixing that system, we can leverage immigration policy even more effectively to directly aid Americans.
Congress envisioned a white, Protestant
and culturally homogeneous America when it declared in 1790 that only
âfree white persons, who have, or shall migrate into the United Statesâ
were eligible to become naturalized citizens. The calculus of racism
underwent swift revision when waves of culturally diverse immigrants
from the far corners of Europe changed the face of the country.
As the historian Matthew Frye Jacobson shows in his immigrant history âWhiteness of a Different Color,â
the surge of newcomers engendered a national panic and led Americans to
adopt a more restrictive, politicized view of how whiteness was to be
allocated. Journalists, politicians, social scientists and immigration
officials embraced the habit, separating ostensibly white Europeans into
âraces.â
Some were designated âwhiterâ â and more worthy of citizenship â than
others, while some were ranked as too close to blackness to be socially
redeemable. The story of how Italian immigrants went from racialized
pariah status in the 19th century to white Americans in good standing
in the 20th offers a window onto the alchemy through which race is
constructed in the United States, and how racial hierarchies can
sometimes change.
Ajjawi wrote that he spent eight hours in Boston before he was required to leave. Upon arrival, Ajjawi faced questioning from immigration officials along with several other international students. While the other students were allowed to leave, Ajjawi alleges an immigration officer continued to question him about his religion and religious practices in Lebanon.
The same officer then asked him to unlock his phone and laptop, and left to search them for roughly five hours, Ajjawi alleges. After the search, the officer questioned him about his friendsâ social media activity.
âWhen I asked every time to have my phone back so I could tell them about the situation, the officer refused and told me to sit back in position and not move at all,â he wrote. âAfter the 5 hours ended, she called me into a room , and she started screaming at me. She said that she found people posting political points of view that oppose the US on my friend(s) list.â
Ajjawi wrote that he told the officer he had not made any political posts and that he should not be held responsible for othersâ posts.
âI responded that I have no business with such posts and that I didn't like, (s)hare or comment on them and told her that I shouldn't be held responsible for what others post,â he wrote. âI have no single post on my timeline discussing politics.â
PRESS RELEASE: NISKANEN APPLAUDS BIPARTISAN SENATE LETTER SUPPORTING REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT
BY MATTHEW LA CORTE
WASHINGTON, D.C. August 5, 2019 —In light of recent reports that the Trump administration is considering a fiscal year 2020 refugee ceiling of zero, the Niskanen Center applauds a bipartisan groupof senators for expressing concern and urging action.
Today, Senators James Lankford (R-OK) and Chris Coons (D-DE) spearheaded a letter signed by 18 senators from across the country. The letter, which is addressed to Secretaries Pompeo, Azar, and McAleenan, conveys dismay about the dangerous consequences of zero refugee admissions:
We urge you to increase the refugee resettlement cap and to admit as many refugees as possible within that cap… America has a responsibility to promote compassion and democracy around the world through assistance to vulnerable and displaced people.
Since the inception of the refugee program, the U.S. has safely welcomed more than 3 million refugees to communities in all 50 states, resulting in positive economic and social impacts. Maintaining a robust refugee program is also a critical national security and foreign policy imperative.
“Resettling zero refugee next year would devastate the domestic and international refugee resettlement apparatus the U.S. has built over decades, and would jeopardize our own national security and ability to work with foreign governments,”said Kristie De Peña, Niskanen’s director of immigration & senior counsel. She continues, “zero admissions would not only be a catastrophic policy failure; it may potentially violate the law if implemented without proper consultation with Congress.”