ShareThis Page
George Will

George F. Will: Immigration criteria among America's oldest debates

| Saturday, Jan. 20, 2018, 7:00 p.m.
Kristen Beard, a Seton Hill University student, protests the immigration ban last February in front of the Westmoreland County Courthouse in Greensburg.
Steph Chambers | Tribune-Review
Kristen Beard, a Seton Hill University student, protests the immigration ban last February in front of the Westmoreland County Courthouse in Greensburg.

WASHINGTON

In 1790, the finest mind in the first Congress, and of his generation, addressed immigration in the House of Representatives: “It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us.” Perhaps today's 115th Congress will resume one of America's oldest debates: By what criteria should we decide who is worthy to come amongst us?

The antecedents of James Madison's “we” and “us” include almost 80 million immigrants (including more than 11 million undocumented) or their children. They might be amused to learn that in Thomas Jefferson's only full-length book, “Notes on the State of Virginia,” he worried about too many immigrants from Europe with monarchical principles “imbibed in their early youth,” ideas that might turn America into “a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”

A century later, Theodore Roosevelt saw virtue emerging from struggles between the “Anglo-Saxon” race and what his friend Rudyard Kipling called “lesser breeds without the law.”

TR, who worried that United States was becoming a “polyglot boarding house,” supported America's first significant legislation restricting immigration, passed to exclude Chinese laborers he thought would depress American wages and be “ruinous to the white race.”

In 1902, in the final volume of professor Woodrow Wilson's widely-read “A History of the American People,” he contrasted “the sturdy stocks of the north of Europe” — e.g., Norwegians — with southern and eastern Europeans who had “neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence.”

Army data gathered during World War I mobilization demonstrated, according to a Princeton psychologist, “the intellectual superiority of our Nordic group over the Mediterranean, Alpine and Negro groups.”

The next phase of America's immigration debate will concern border security and whether those who are here illegally should stay. The border was irrelevant to the 42 percent of illegal immigrants who entered with valid visas that they then overstayed. Border-security spending quadrupled in the 1990s, then tripled in the next decade.

Now that net immigration of Mexicans has been negative for 10 years, Americans eager to build a wall should not build it on the U.S.-Mexico border but on the Mexico-Guatemala border.

Fifty-eight percent of those here illegally have been here at least 10 years; 31 percent are homeowners; 33 percent have children who, having been born here, are citizens. The nation would recoil from the police measures that would be necessary to extract these people.

They are not going home; they are home.

This month, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents raided 98 7-Eleven stores in 17 states, making 21 arrests. Rome was not built in a day, and it would be unreasonable to expect the government to guarantee, in one fell swoop, that only American citizens will hold jobs dispensing Slurpees and Big Gulps.

George F. Will is a columnist for Newsweek and The Washington Post.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me