OPINION: We need common sense immigration, not identity politics

Donald Trump’s election as 45th President of the US was a stunning repudiation of the establishment, whether on the left or the right  — and one of the key reasons for his election is that he forced an open and honest debate on the issue of immigration.

 Yes, his style and demeanor have at times been controversial and even offensive, but his message on immigration has at its core been honest: our immigration system is horribly broken, because its focus has not been on the interests of U.S. citizens, whether native- or foreign-born.

For decades now, establishment politicians have assiduously avoided doing anything to change our immigration policy.  From the right, many (e.g., Lindsey Graham of South Carolina) have been too closely allied to the Chamber of Commerce and its penchant for cheap labor to do anything except advocate for amnesty or look the other way.  From the left, Hillary Clinton and company have exploited the effects of our archaic immigration policy, heavily skewed towards the importation of poverty and those who vote Democratic.

When it comes to deciding how to fix our broken immigration system, we assert that the viewpoints of two groups matter most: citizens, as they are the ones most affected by our immigration policy, and their “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” should be paramount; and unbiased experts. These experts should not include those with a built-in agenda, such as members of Congress heavily funded for re-election by business, or advocates for identity politics.

More:State's immigration police force has made 122 arrests in 5 years

In January’s Harvard–Harris poll (hardly a bastion of conservatism), a nationally representative sample of registered voters was asked: “In your opinion, about how many legal immigrants should be admitted to the U.S. each year?”  The results are startling and completely contradict what you have been reading from far too many Greenville News syndicated or guest columnists, who seem to find a white supremacist or Nazi under every rock.

Forty-six percent of whites, 33 percent of Hispanics, 33 percent of other, and 54 percent of blacks want legal immigration cut by a factor of five to 0-250,000/year — back to the immigration numbers of the 1950s, when economic gains by blacks were more rapid than in any decade since then (ref: Thomas Sowell).  And a solid majority comprised of 66 percent of whites, 55 percent of Hispanics, 64 percent of other, and 63 percent of blacks support cutting immigration by more than half to 0-500,000 immigrants/year. Overall, an overwhelming 81 percent of all voters want reductions in legal immigration.

Interestingly, 500,000/year is the same number recommended by two of the most credible and least-biased immigration experts: the bi-partisan Commission on Immigration Reform of President Clinton, headed by civil rights leader and black congresswoman Barbara Jordan in the 1990s; and Harvard professor and Hispanic immigrant George Borjas, who has been “America’s leading immigration economist” (according to the Wall Street Journal) for the past 20 years. 

More:Are immigration fixes needed? Gov. McMaster makes push as local government enforcement differs

Ironically, recent bills proposed in Congress by Republicans, and lambasted by those on the left as being “racist”, contain the same key provisions recommended by Barbara Jordan’s Commission: namely, the elimination of "chain migration" and the Visa Lottery.  If adopted, the House’s Securing America’s Future Act H.R. 4760 (co-sponsored by the Upstate’s Jeff Duncan and Trey Gowdy), and the Senate’s RAISE Act S. 354 would bring our immigration levels down to the 500,000/year level. This, we now know, is the level desired by a solid majority of every ethnic group in America, and recommended by a Black congresswoman from Texas and a Hispanic professor from Harvard — no identity politics here!

The rejection of such bills by the left shows us just how radical the open-borders crowd has become:  immigration proposals from someone who nominated Bill Clinton for president are now considered to be too far to the right to be seriously considered.

Barbara Jordan was brilliant, and her memorable quotes were many. But this one may be our favorite: “Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.” This is the way immigration policy is run in liberal countries like Canada and Denmark.

And just remember: Not listening to the American people is what got Trump elected.  

Mark Thies is a professor of Chemical and biomolecular engineering at Clemson. Email him at: SCIM911@yahoo.com. Inger Eberhart is a writer and political activist who also volunteers in her community. Email herat: Hunter7Taylor@gmail.com..