The Moral Argument for Less Immigration

By Joe Guzzardi
January 6, 2012

In response to a recent column I wrote about the California Dream Act, a reader admonished me for using the term “illegal alien.” Although she agreed with me that the Dream Act would impose a financial strain on overburdened California tax payers but would not help students get jobs and should therefore be overturned, my reader suggested I use “undocumented” instead of “alien.” According to her, most immigrants are hard-working and the term “alien” offends them.

Her opinion, the moral argument for more immigration, is one that restrictionists frequently hear. Summarized, it goes this way: no person is illegal and humans in search of a better life have the inherent “right” to travel wherever they can go to find work, raise families and prosper. And since many immigrants come to the United States to work at jobs that make American lives more comfortable—as domestics, farm laborers, leisure industry employees—no one is harmed.

Those of us who advocate for less immigration and immigration law enforcement agree that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Still, we aren’t defined as humanitarians in the same sense our opponents are. They’re perceived as more compassionate. Supporting more immigration and the free movement of people, especially poor people to rich nations, is considered the high moral ground. Churches, academics and captains of industry publicly endorse accepting more people into American society.

Restricting immigration, detaining and deporting aliens is, on the other hand, viewed as unjust, churlish or worse, racist.

Left out of the debate is the question of unlimited immigration’s impact on the society into which they settle. Is beneficial to the existing population?

First, neither United States nor international law grants the authority to freely move from one nation to another without following the guidelines for immigrating. In the United States, Congress sets immigration policy. Any changes to immigration law are not a function of special interest groups but must go through both Congressional chambers and be approved by the Executive Branch.

Second, established societies have spent hundreds of years developing their standards and creating an infrastructure that, ideally, works for the mutual benefit of all its citizens. The United States’ education and health care systems, its cities and suburbs have been built with citizens’ best interests at heart. America’s laws protect those interests. Adding a million or more people from different backgrounds each year disrupts the recognized process and could lead to a complete societal breakdown.

Third, the United States has a large population that also strives for “a better life.” Nearly 50 million Americans under age 65 have no health care, 47 million live in poverty, 22 million are either unemployed or under-employed and 32 million are illiterate. By trying to accommodate more immigrants, many of them also poor, helping our own needy becomes more challenging and is too frequently futile.

Limiting immigration, on the other hand, allows the nation to dedicate it fiscal, environmental and emotional resources to the tens of millions of Americans who urgently require help. Each new immigrant represents a commitment that an already overtaxed America cannot fulfill. Less immigration—not more—is the humane policy.

Joe Guzzardi has written editorial columns, mostly about immigration and related social issues, since 1986. He is a Senior Writing Fellow for Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) and his columns are syndicated in various U.S. newspapers and websites. Contact him at [email protected].