Jan Michelson at WHO Radio made the comment that he thought it ironic that the Civil Rights Commission was (apparently) considering constraining the rights of those that wished to discuss this topic.  (Jan’s show will be broadcast from this event… you can listen live from anywhere in the world by going to <a href=”http://www.whoradio.com,”>www.whoradio.com, and there should be link to listen live.  His show airs from 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM Central Time)

Like any other bloating government venture, it seems the Iowa Civil Rights Commission is desperate to find purpose so that it may continue to justify its existence.  I suspect they think they are within their purview because they want to protect immigrants from the evils of hate (I’m not a fan of asking police, judges and juries to read minds, by the way), but they are off base on this.  Any time we tell any group that they may not talk about something, we shred our perfectly good rights to pieces, and to no benefit at all.  The end of this path is always tyranny. 

This topic has become such an emotional one for us.  I believe there are a large number of people who think that we should abolish immigration quotas and loosen up the laws to let anyone in who wants to come here.  This is a very kind and noble gesture, but misplaced in my opinion.  When considering immigration, one must be thoughtful about infrastructure, jobs, steady growth (economic, infrastructure, housing, etc.), all in terms of need and capacity.  Also, we need to decide whether we are trying to build a place for all to simply come and live (because it’s the best place in the world to live), or a place to build and strengthen by prioritizing entry of the best, brightest, and strongest.  Or something in between.  We are no longer a nation of adventurers building a new society, we are the resulting society.  As we built, we needed to be intentional in planning, and this was quite obvious at the time.  Now, we still need to be intentional, but perhaps with a different priority structure.  And, that has been the case.  Today, we hang between sets of priorities that really need to be properly understood to establish policy.

The factors to consider that I mentioned above were all internal (within our country’s needs and operations).  Other factors need consideration as well, and we should find that foreign policy and immigration policy actually must work together.  There was a time when having large numbers of people enter our country was critical to successful growth.  Now, there is not so much need (except perhaps in the areas of less “desirable” work such as menial labor or are more remote, such as Alaska) within the US, and yet there are many who desire to come to America for a “better life”.  It certainly helps promote nationalistic pride to know that people want to come to America, but if we lack the need for more people, should we not find ways to help people around the world enjoy their lives where they are so that such a desire is not so strong?  Although I am not in favor of making cookie-cutter copies of the United States around the world, I do think that actively helping governments around the world improve conditions of poverty, develop stronger economies, and build governments that strengthen the society as a whole is a positive step toward promoting manageable balance with immigration.  I don’t think that the American system of government or economy is the only one that can be successful (although I wouldn’t want any other, but clearly the US form of democracy does not always fit others well), but I think we are smart enough to help other countries build solutions that work for their people effectively.

Clearly there is a lot to talk about in this arena.  Even though there are a lot of strong feelings on this topic (which, by the way, I share those feelings much of the time), much of the policy needs to be considered at a macro-level.  One area of policy that I think needs work (not macro-level) is deportation management.  This is where a lot of people see the pain that makes them want to tear down the system, and yet this is where we need to manage the highest risk areas: crime and terrorism.