

Comment of the Day
Less fight more work

Jul 30, 2017


How to pay for the wall?
Apr 04, 2017


What is wrong with Russia?
Dec 22, 2015


Closed mind for closed borders
Nov 19, 2015


They do not know…
Sep 14, 2015


Freedom cannot be legislated, its restriction can
Mar 31, 2015


Greed-driven health care
Feb 27, 2015


More Comments

Immigration impasse explained

Why is it so hard to reach any reasonable compromise on the immigration issue? It is because faults of our immigration policy are about hundred years old and most of us are accustomed to accept them as unquestioned wisdom. The first comprehensive immigration law in the U.S., the Immigration Act of 1924 bears the sins of the times, which had barely been openly explained and duly criticized.

Before 1924 we had mostly unfettered immigration; only Europeans were allowed to immigrate. That immigration was completely different from what we experience now. It was a free movement of people back and forth in search of jobs and new opportunities; for every three immigrants arriving, one left. Every time immigrants started coming from a new region, the most adventurous individuals arrived first to scout the opportunities. Families arrived later. Despite what they declared at the entry point, if they were not fortunate here they returned to their homeland, knowing that they could come back later.

Before 1890 most immigrants were coming from England, Ireland, Germany, Scandinavia and Netherlands. Gradually, these countries could not provide as many immigrants as the U.S. needed. As a result, after 1890 most new immigrants were Jews, Poles and others from Eastern Europe; as well as Italians from Southern Europe. Culturally they were far apart from Western Europeans, not only ethnically but also because that they were coming from backward regions; they were poor and mostly illiterate. They settled largely in American cities, forming ethnic enclaves where English was barely spoken, where life was completely different than on the main street. Many Americans were seriously concerned that these new immigrants would never assimilate and that they would destroy American society.

These fears need to be seen in the context of times when many scientists believed that racially some people might be superior to others. That doubtful science fueled anti-immigration sentiment at the beginning of the 20th century; as for many Americans it appeared obvious that those new waves of immigrants were inferior, not worthy to be accepted into American society. This intention of stopping the influx of immigrants considered racially undesirable was reflected in the Immigration Act of 1924. The government bureaucrats were put in charge of shaping the ethnic composition of the nation.

Parallel, similar to today, immigrants before 1924, mostly low skill laborers, were willing to work for less than Americans. Likewise today, Americans did not understand that the low skill labor expands economy, and as such creates more of better paid jobs, that mostly only Americans can take. By cutting off inflow of cheap immigrant labor The Immigration Act of 1924 assigned to the government bureaucrats the task of protecting the lazy Americans from the competition of industrious immigrants.

Again, we have to see this approach in the context of the beginning of the 20th century. Those were times when socialistic ideas were gaining recognition. The Soviet Union had a promising start, and even many of its critics, disapproving drastic methods, saw some value in socialism as a concept.

In capitalism, as it was understood by the Founding Fathers, the society functions the best when all people are given equal opportunities to pursue their individual interests, when government has no agenda in implementing any political programs, and when it is limited to protecting individuals’ freedom of enterprise. In opposition, socialists see a lot of chaos, inefficiency and injustice in those unregulated actions of individuals, and they believe that we need a government to form lofty political goals and that it is justifiable to limit freedoms of some individuals in order to implement those policies.

Those socialistic concepts gained popularity in the beginning of the 20th century. Prohibition, voted in in 1920, is the best example of Americans misguided by illusions that the government by its central planning and forceful implementation of lofty sounding ideas can shape the nation. The Immigration Act of 1924 was another example of Americans lured into a trap of delusions that socialism might work.

Before 1924, immigration was a part of economy; when it was up more immigrants arrived and stayed, when it was down fewer arrived and fewer stayed. Since 1924, immigration has become a political issue separated from the economy. That separation from the economy was even straightened by later immigration laws. Particularly, in 1965 the concept of a family sponsored immigration was introduced, turning the right to immigrate to the U.S. into a gift that a wealthy nation has been giving to a very lucky few among the poor of the world.

Every time the government applies abstract policies to economy it distorts the market, and the black market appears. In this case it is illegal immigration. The nation faced it big time in 1986, but no one asked how it occurred in the first place. Illusions that socialism might work could be understood in 1924, but in 1986 the Soviet Union was on the brink of bankruptcy; President Reagan called it “the evil empire.” Somehow no one in the entire U.S. could see that our immigration policy was not working because it was built on the same socialistic concepts that led to the evils and failing of the Soviet system. So, instead of reversing the policy, in 1986 Americans decided to continue with even greater determination what did not work so far. More money was thrown into border protection. American employers were required to verify the immigration status of new hires.

For the first 210 years of the Republic, Americans had the freedom to hire whomever they pleased regardless if this person came from across the street, across the ocean or across the Rio Grande. This freedom was taken away in 1986, and this law could and should be challenged as unconstitutional. With the 1986 immigration law, every employer in America was turned into an unpaid government official obligated to execute the law, which government could not enforce itself.

The immigration law of 1986 meant even more decisive departure from the fundamental Americans values of freedom of individual and small government, and expansion of government intrusion into economy and individual lives of Americans. It is as pure socialism as it could be. Socialism did not work anywhere else before and it has not been working when applied here. In result, our immigration crisis is even deeper now that it was ever before.

Still, in immigration debates as we have presently, the voices explaining the very reasons for our immigration mess are barely heard. According to the recent opinion poll, about 55% of Americans want even fewer immigrants than we have now. Similarly, as one hundred years ago, blindfolded by xenophobia, they fall again into a trap of socialism.

Looking at one hundred years of Americans’ confusion on immigration only one conclusion comes to mind, that nonsense, even if supported by majority of Americans, even if voted in by the both chambers of Congress, even if signed into law by President – it is still just nonsense only.

This essay is an abbreviated version of a lecture: “Why do we have such a big immigration mess?” delivered on October 2, 2013 at the Heartland Institute, in Chicago.

Leave a Reply

One thought on “Immigration impasse explained

  1. Victor Frazee

    Dear Mr. Kowalczyk,
    In regards to the immigration issue videos produced by Roy Beck, how can any average minded adult with an average education not see that the points that Mr. Beck discusses are anything but true? Let’s put it this way, if the Pilgrims had not landed on this continent, had others from Europe not followed them, would the North American Continent still be populated by various Native American Indian Tribes? It is an obvious conclusion that once word of mouth made its way back to Europe and other places that life is so much better here, others followed. That is what is happening now with people from places where legal or illegal immigrants come from. They are telling their friends and families to ‘come one over’.
    His point is that for every 1 million people who come to this country (legally or otherwise) it will not make a difference the world over. The overwhelming majority are extremely impoverished people and thus become totally and instantly dependant upon our support infrastructure the minute they enter our Country. Because they are overwhelmingly low wage earners, they do nothing more than exacerbate the decline of an already severely diminished capacity to sustain that kind of growth by not paying adequate income tax. Regardless of what anyone says, regardless of social, political, economic or religious perspective, we simply cannot afford the population growth. That is the only point Mr. Beck tried to convey. Furthermore, Mr. Beck exhibited no bias of any kind. He merely provided the information, based on past circumstances and future projections for the viewers to reach their own conclusion. I’ve lived abroad for 17 years throughout Asia.

About me

I was born in 1951 in Gdansk, Poland.





... more