Friendly nativism

On the whole, I most enjoy spending time with people like me. That includes introverts, those who are highly educated, those who enjoy wry humor, word play, and complicated games and puzzles. It includes atheists and agnostics. It includes those whose instincts are broadly leftist. It includes those who are willing to take unpopular positions if that's where the evidence leads them. I feel a bond with those who were also born in the 1950s and grew up with experiences similar to mine. It includes those born in America who are native speakers of English.

Of course I do spend time with others, and try my best to respect them and find the common ground we share. But I don't feel bad if I spend time mostly with those who I share many attributes with. Similarly, I'd slightly prefer it when the people I meet casually in day-to-day life also share some of those attributes. The more they share the better.

I went to Swarthmore College (as did my daughters and my ex-wife). Once I was in a group of six where we realized we had all gone to Swarthmore, a rather high-end private college. This didn't lead us to reminisce about the place or talk about its superiority. But the tone changed. We could raise subtle ideas that we might not with a more mixed group lest they think we were trying to show off, or would misunderstand, or if the ideas would require us to make a lengthy explanation.

So then we come to immigration. I find many aspects of it morally difficult, especially how to treat long-time illegal immigrants and how to make decisions about refugees seeking asylum. Illegal immigrants do work that few native-born people are willing to do but also suppress wages. But my point today pertains to one specific aspect of this: Among those who simply want to move here, is there a role for preferring people from some places as opposed to others? My suggestion is that in a country that is predominantly descended from Europeans, we might reasonably give preference to Europeans over those from other places. This is the spirit of a <1924 law>:

"The Immigration Act of 1924 limits the number of immigrants allowed into the United States yearly through nationality quotas. Under the new quota system, the United States issues immigration visas to 2 percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States at the 1890 census. The law favors immigration from Northern and Western European countries. Just three countries, Great Britain, Ireland and Germany account for 70 percent of all available visas. Immigration from Southern, Central and Eastern Europe was limited. The Act completely excludes immigrants from Asia, aside from the Philippines, then an American colony."

In 1965 this ends, and the same article says "President Lyndon B. Johnson, called the old immigration system “un-American,” and said the new bill would correct a “cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American Nation.” "

I'm not sure why.

In 1965, "the quota system is replaced with a seven-category preference system emphasizing family reunification and skilled immigrants." Those are also reasonable criteria for an immigration system. Reunifying families could in theory keep the same ethnic mix, except that people of some ethnicities are far more interested in getting to the US based on family reunification than others.

What would immigration look like if we applied moral considerations distinct from political realities? One possibility is to simply allow open borders. Another would be a giant lottery, where all human beings (or family groups) would have an equal chance of admission regardless of where they came from. Neither of those resembles our current system very much, nor would I think most people would favor them, especially the first.

For comparison, consider Japan. Japan allows very little immigration. At some times it has favored those of Japanese heritage in the diaspora who sought to return to Japan. Now I don't know whether lots of Japanese actively hate foreigners (they do have a fierce nationalism in their past, on display before and during World War II). But certainly one possible modern position is that Japanese aren't superior to others, it's just that Japan is a place where Japanese live. Looking at the situation from afar, this doesn't bother me.

Is the US different because we are a nation of immigrants? I don't think so. European immigrants did displace Native Americans, something that from a modern perspective had no moral justification. But however we got here, America today has a certain mix of people of different backgrounds, and it makes sense that different groups would favor immigration by people like them. But Europeans would likely prevail in the political process. The 2 percent rule in the 1924 law allowed some measure of equity.

In my mind how we treat people who are in the US who are of different backgrounds is a very different question. I feel strongly that all deserve respect, none deserve discrimination in employment, housing or anything else. It is completely consistent with approving more would-be immigrants from some places over others.

A desire for people to live with "people like them" can express itself in many forms. The most extreme is ethnic cleansing, removing those from an disfavored group from where they currently live. Another is hostility and discrimination against the disfavored group, perhaps encouraging them to leave. A third is restricting those who you invite to immigrate to the community. The first two seem highly repugnant, but the third seems to me entirely defensible.

I don't see any real danger of a slippery slope. In practical terms, those Americans who are worried about immigrants might be more inclined to treat well the people who are here if they didn't have this perception that the new arrivals were taking over or going to overwhelm them with numbers.

I don't feel strongly about this. Maybe there are counterarguments I'm not considering. I will continue to argue strongly for non-discrimination against all Americans, however they got here. But I don't see anything morally problematic about quotas based on ethnicity.