Imagine that you take your family on a vacation to Disneyland, but in this imaginary situation, Disneyland works differently than in reality. In our tale, when you arrive, there are 50 different entrance lines, one for each state in the Union, and visitors are required to join the line of the state in which they were born. Of course the lines are of vastly different lengths.
The line for Floridians—because of the comparative distance to Disneyland (in California) and Disneyworld (in Florida)—is nonexistent. There is a booth, and an attendant, for sure, but there is no need to wait, you simply pay the fee and you enter the park.
On the other hand, the wait time for people from Arizona (because of its proximity), and Texas and New York (because of their populations) is between ten and fifteen years long.
People born in California don’t even have to pay a fee to enter. These people claim a uniquely inherent right to enter Disneyland, and often get angry when “dirty” Arizonans are riding one of the rides for which the Californian is waiting. “They took my seat,” the simple-minded Californians argue, feeling personally violated, while the more sophisticated realize that although any given seat-taking-Arizonan didn’t take any given Californian’s seat, the presence of so many Arizonans certainly affects the supply and demand for seats on rides.
Because the line from their respective state is so long, some visitors don’t wait. Some “illegal visitors,” as they are sometimes called, have fake California ID’s made, while others sneak in under the fence, prompting many inconvenienced Californians to lobby for an electrified, barbed-wired fence, and sharpshooters to protect the perimeter of Disneyland. A few zealous Californians even prefer to help Disneyland Host Security (DHS) guard the fence rather than enjoy the rides, claiming that DHS is failing in its job to keep potential terrorists out of Disneyland.
Who would want to visit such a Disneyland? Well, given that Disneyworld has its own problems with long lines from Georgia and Mississippi (in fact, Disneyworld recently had violence break out because several Georgians who had already been admitted couldn’t find any ride operators who would serve them), most people reluctantly tolerate what has become a decreasingly pleasant experience with Disneyland.
Such is the current U.S. immigration quota system. Granted, this policy is better than the days when the lines for people from India, China, and Japan were closed entirely or from the days when the quotas for Spaniards and Italians were microscopic compared to the quotas for the English and Germans. (The ratio between quotas for Germans and Spanish during this time was 391 Germans per Spanish.)
But when Mexico has the same quota as England you have to acknowledge that the system is unfair. England has Disneyworld, why would anyone want to travel across the Atlantic to visit Disneyland? Well, some do, but not nearly as many as who want to leave Mexico for the better job market, housing market, freedoms, security, and stability of the U.S. Thus, the line from Mexico is years longer than the line from England.
Throw into the mix that people with enough dumb-luck to have been born in the U.S. claim the uniquely inherent right to be here simply because of their nativity (an immutable characteristic, arbitrary from a moral point of view).
Clearly our immigration system is broken. How can we claim to have a democracy when we exclude morally equivalent people as those who we include? Still, the purpose of this post is to propose the smallest of changes, but that would certainly make our immigration system more fair.
Lump all quotas together and put all immigrants, regardless of nation of origin, in the same line.
July 31, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Thanks for your comment at our blog. Enjoyed reading your posts here. Keep in touch. Feel free to contact me if I can be of help in any way.
August 1, 2007 at 3:11 am
Thanks Glen, I enjoyed finding your blog. Likewise, let me know how I can help and I’ll be glad to do so.
August 5, 2007 at 4:48 pm
John, I want to thank you for opening my eyes to this issue and immigration issues in general. I’ve been passively pro-immigration rights since I was 16, when I first caught wind of English-only initiatives and found myself uncharacteristically arguing with my mostly (at that time) conservative family over the implicitly racist tone of the entire thing. I’ve come a long way since then. I had never thought anything of the quota system until reading your blog and I’m definitely with you on this issue. I’m trying really hard to stay aware of the issues in order to help my immigrant clients in every way that I can. You’re proving an excellent resource for me. Thank you again!
-Leah
August 5, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Leah, you are certainly welcome. The quota system is a natural outgrowth of our basic stance on immigration: The United States determines immigration levels based on its perceived needs and claims the right to be as racist and as sexist as it wants when it comes to immigration. Now that’s not me talking, that’s Justice Anthony Scalia, considered one of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court (though with the recent addition of Roberts and Alito, it may come to be that Scalia will occupy a sort of certer position–meaning that the court’s center is far right of center).
In Mathews v. Diaz, Justice Scalia writing for the majority opinion said, “In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.” In other words, ‘when it comes to immigration law, we can be as racist and as sexist as we want to be because the Supreme Court isn’t going to apply the protections of the Constitution or in any way check Congress.’ To me, this doctrine is half way to Justice Roger Tawney’s statement that African Americans had “no rights the white man was bound to respect.” Well, we were half-way there back in 1976 when Scalia wrote the Mathews v. Diaz opinion and the court has certainly swung right since then. In this article http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0212-ho.pdf Professor Ho finishes his paper with this ominous prediction. “Dred Scott II may be coming soon to a federal court near you.”
March 28, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Mr John Moore, thank you very much for telling the truth about my people. I live in Monterrey, N.L. Mexico and really appreciate and respect what you wrote about us.
March 28, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Mr John Moore, thank you very much for telling the truth about my people. I live in Monterrey, Mex. and every little thing you said is correct.
February 4, 2011 at 9:39 am
Great idea but if you only have one line then you MUST have COMPLETE control of your borders.
September 5, 2011 at 4:39 pm
[…] the current quota system to better reflect the current […]