On Immigration
You have a neighbor, or know of someone across town, who is having trouble at home. Maybe it is financial, maybe it is domestic, but imagine a situation that, at least temporarily, makes it so that this person can no longer live in their own home. If you wanted to help this neighbor, and let him/her into your home, what would you require? First, you need a home to let him into. There needs to be extra room, or extra room needs to be made, that you are able to offer up. If you do not own your space, then you will have to ask however does own it (most likely the landlord) to allow the neighbor in, and at that point, though you are interceding for your neighbor, it is the landlord who is opening the doors. Second, you need to be able to provide for your neighbor, or he needs to have a job that can cover his food, electric, and water costs if you are unable to foot the bill. For you to help your neighbor, then, you need ownership of your home, it needs to be yours, and you need to have the adequate resources to provide for your guest, or your guest needs to be willing to pitch in.
If, in trying to help this neighbor, you let him stay in your house forever, even after the issues at his house are resolved, would you be helping him? Would he be receiving your help, or would he be taking advantage of you, wanting to stay in your home, which we will assume is nicer than his, even when it is possible for him to move out, and live well? Let us assume this neighbor is the best house guest you could imagine. He cleans the house, helps with meals, is fun to be with, and respects your family’s sacred together time. Even if he was the best guest possible, his insistence on staying, after the issues which led to his past uprooted-ness, would be inappropriate, and, without abusing language, be described as him taking advantage of you. It would also be inappropriate if, when you decide to insist that your neighbor goes home, your other neighbor, who is watching on, beings to call you hateful, uncaring, and selfish. You would, rightly, look at this other neighbor as a child who does not understand the complexities of life.
Now let us imagine that this neighbor in question is not the best guest. Barring him stealing from you, or harassing your family, imagine that slowly he begins to change how your house is run. Living differently than you, and with you being welcoming, you change what meals you would normally cook for you family, to accommodate his diet (let us assume he is a vegetarian or has a significant food allergy). This is fine, and you are happy to do it, but eventually it gets to a point where it becomes expected, on the part of your guest, that all food in the house conforms to his diet. Furthermore, he is a different religion than you, and either becomes uncomfortable when you pray with your family, or, if you are not religious, and he is, he starts to insist that you pray in accordance with his tradition before each meal. Finally, now that you have established your house as a safe, and welcoming, place for those in hard times, and accommodating to those different than you, this neighbor invites the rest of his family to live with you, and only asks you after the fact. At this point, your guests outnumber you, and have changed how your household looks in terms of diet, and tradition. Once again, you would be within your rights to ask this guest to leave, as he is being a bad guest, and if someone were to start harassing you for this, you would rightly think of him as a child who is unable to tell the difference between treating others nicely, and being walked over.
Since in this thought experiment we are assuming you are the type of person who would want to help a neighbor in distress, you are not, when confronted with a bad guest, forced to choose between a) being taken advantage, or b) standing by with arms folded. If the problem is financial, you could always help your neighbor with the grocery bill. If the problem requires relocation, you could help him move to a relative’s house, who shares the same lifestyle as your neighbor, and thus preventing a clash over routine. Finally, you could be very clear on how long your neighbor stays over, and make it clear that he is a guest, not a decision maker in the household, and that for the sake of your family, your established routine must stay as is.
If this neighbor was not going to merely stay for an indefinite period, but was going to move in with you, maybe in your basement (which has now become an apartment you are renting out), you will also have requirements this person needs to meet, although they will likely be different. For instance, your renter will have to pay rent on time, not smoke, not bring pets, and not invite people over after a certain capacity, and you would probably want to know that people will be coming over, and who they are. So long as your renter meets these expectations, he is welcome to stay.
Immigration is a lot like inviting people into your home. You must have space available to house these new members of society, there must be enough resources to provide for them, which means there being enough jobs for both the native population, and the immigrant population, and just as the host country must be hospitable, so the immigrant population must also be good guests. Actively trying to change the culture of the host country is bad guest manners, and requiring constant assistance in the form of welfare, if it starts to become permanent (instead of a temporary support), is also bad guest manners. Should immigration reach above a certain amount, then a change in culture in inevitable. If immigration is occurring because the immigrants cannot live safely in their home country, then there are ways to help them, should immigration to your country become unfeasible. If immigration is more akin to someone renting out a room, that is, a move not based in a crises, but in seeking better opportunities, then the immigrant community needs to act similar to how a renter needs to act.
None of what has been said leads to an immigration policy proscription, but outlines the boundaries within immigration policy can be discussed. What we are dealing with is not unlike inviting people into your home. Just as there are boundaries to household hospitality, so there are boundaries to immigration policy. Calling these boundaries “uncaring”, “xenophobic”, or “oppressive”, should be seen as equivalent as a child getting mad at his parent for setting rules regarding house guests, or kicking out a guest who is taking advantage of his host. These boundaries do not exclude immigration, but provides the space for immigration to happen, and happen responsibility. Nothing in what was said above would prevent good house guests, as it were, but it does insist that all house guests are good. What immigration policy is best, even based on these boundaries, will change in accordance with situation. Are there enough jobs? Is there a housing shortage? What number of immigrants are coming in each year? How are these immigrants adapting to their host country, and so on. Depending on the answers to the above, an expansionist, restrictionist, or steady-course, policy might be justly derived.
Though I have my own recommendations for immigration policy, there is a startling lack of framework for any policy discussion. Argue for expanding, restricting, or maintaining immigration levels needs to be based upon a sensible framework, not on moral outrage, or the edge such a policy would give electorally. Above is one such sensible framework, and an alternative to it would have to show the following:
a) Immigration does not require there to be adequate resources for both the native, and immigrant, population.
b) In the case of immigration related to crises, staying past the crises which warranted the relocation, is not analogous to a neighbor in crises refusing to go home after the crises has been solved.
c) Intentionally changing the culture of the host country is bad manners, and immigration levels, after a certain point, inevitably will lead to a change in culture.
d) That, as in renting an apartment, immigrants who relocate due to job opportunities, or other permanent reasons, not related to a crises, are not expected to live in accordance with the rules of the country.
Unless the above can be shown, or the analogy between house, and guest, apartment, and renter, can be shown to be so imperfect (and all analogies are imperfect), then let it be considered irresponsible any talk on immigration which does not take into account the above concerns.