Consider immigration. It may be the most important political issue separating right from left in national politics, not only here but across the Westernized world. Far-right leaders in Hungary, Germany, Great Britain and, most recently, Italy have used the immigration issue to drive their parties to dominant positions in government, which would have been unimaginable even a few years ago.
Populist arguments are especially effective during the periods when large segments of the public have been left behind economically. Recent immigrants—especially the undocumented—who are willing to take less desirable jobs at lower wages are very easy to blame for the increasing inequality in the country, even if there is little evidence that they are a significant cause. It is an argument the demagogue manipulates easily to demonize the other side.
The current immigration issue is poisoning democratic politics. Purging this poison will mean resisting the urge to demonize the critics of current policies and instead searching for common ground that promotes the common good. That’s obvious, I suppose, but it’s also easy to forget in the heat of battle.
Many of us on the Left see the immigration debate in purely moral terms with clearly defined right sides and wrong sides. We see the populist demand for border walls and strict immigration limits as threats to our moral standing in the world. On our side, we say, we are supporting the oppressed of the world, those damaged by our militaristic society, those escaping from horrific conditions in their world (which are also frequently the result of US policies). We believe immigrants strengthen America. We tend to believe that the people on the other side of the debate are “bigots,” manipulated by the right-wing media, dangerously nationalistic, and ignorant of how positive a force immigrants are in society and so on.
All of which is understandable.
Those on the populist side see themselves as victims of economic and cultural displacement; they fear the loss of US sovereignty; they are concerned about crime and the danger of living near people who are so different from themselves; they see a threat to the rule of law by tolerating "illegal" immigration; they feel the disdain of liberal elites who are insensitive to their needs, unaffected by the problems caused by immigration.
All of which is understandable.
But, in reality and as opposed to the extremes of right and left, there are no clear answers to the questions raised by immigration.
Galston writes:
The rise of populism calls on the defenders of liberal democracy to distinguish more rigorously between policy disputes and regime-level threats. Political leaders can assert the right of their nations to put their interests first without threatening liberal democratic institutions and norms. This is a policy dispute within liberal democracy, not about liberal democracy. In a similar vein, the defenders of liberal democracy should acknowledge that control of borders is an attribute of national sovereignty and that liberal democratic citizens can have a wide range of views on the appropriate number and type of immigrants. Protecting liberal democracy against populist threats to individual rights, constitutional checks, and the rule of law does not require defending every detail of every policy that populist parties attack.What we often don’t realize, and what the media almost ignores, is that national polls do not reflect the partisan debate.
- Only 8% of Americans, for instance, believe that having many different races, ethnic groups or nationalities makes the United States a worse place to live. (35% say it doesn’t make any difference.)
- In another poll, 59% of the public (and even 35% of Republicans) say immigrants strengthen the country, while only 33% describe them as a burden.
- In that same poll, 75% of the public says that undocumented immigrants now living in the U.S. should be allowed to stay legally if certain requirements are met, while only 23% say they should not.
First, many of the most disturbing polls reported are conducted either among Republicans or, even more skewed, among Trump supporters. Second, conflict raise media market share, encouraging outlets to report most heavily on anything controversial. And third, polarization is pronounced among the political leaders. Republicans, and to a lesser extent, Democrats are playing to their bases.
So what might we agree on? Galston again:
The case for changing the mix of immigrants is stronger. No other country devotes two-thirds of its annual immigration flow to family reunification. Shifting towards economic contribution as the main criterion for admission, as Canada has done, would make sense politically as well as economically. Although Canada’s annual immigration as a share of its population is three times as high as in the United States, its system enjoys super-majority support.Other changes — an increased focus on the rapid acquisition of English fluency and a working knowledge of American history and civic institutions, for example — would address cultural fears. Acknowledging the legitimacy of widespread concerns about the rule of law through stepped-up enforcement at the border and the workplace would ease the way for a reasonable and humane approach to the millions of immigrants who are present illegally in the United States.
While such changes may have little effect on the beliefs of the already polarized, moderating the progressive voice could speak more readily to the moderate voters who do have legitimate concerns about immigration—even if they’re not in Trump’s corner.
Learning to separate out the actual threats to the democratic process from the political policy disputes is essential if we hope to speak to the people who are, in fact, spread across a spectrum of opinion, and not just those huddled on the edges. We are not going to convince the rabid nationalists, but perhaps we can show we’re willing to listen to the legitimate concerns of our friends and neighbors with whom we have differences. We can enter into actual conversation, even debate, without demonizing the “other side.” Proper immigration policy is not a simple, straight-forward issue. Perhaps if we recognized that we don’t have all the answers, either, we could move the conversation forward.
