Religious, academic and media leaders often criticize the United States for resisting large‑scale immigration from developing nations. They argue that, because migrants are fleeing poverty and abuse, we have a moral duty to welcome them.
But if morality is the standard, why is there so little outrage directed at the leaders whose corruption and brutality create the very conditions people are desperate to escape? Why aren’t these dictators held accountable for driving their own citizens from their homes?
Shouldn’t the primary obligation fall on those leaders to reform their societies, rather than on stable nations to absorb endless waves of migrants — many of whom may not share the values or civic traditions that hold our country together?
If compassion is the goal, it would seem far more humane to confront or remove abusive regimes than to accept a global exodus that is disruptive, costly and unsustainable.
Mass migration from less developed countries strains public resources, raises legitimate safety concerns and can alter a nation’s culture in ways its citizens never agreed to. Like every other country, the United States has the right to preserve its cultural identity.
Yes, we are a nation of immigrants. But we also have the right — and the responsibility — to ensure that newcomers have the skills, commitment and desire to assimilate.
Allowing corrupt leaders to abuse their citizens while shifting the consequences onto other nations is a recipe for disaster. Why does this simple truth escape so many who claim the moral high ground?
Dave Majernik
Plum