Immigration: What's the Right Number

Immigration: what's the right number?   Something I've never seen or heard in our discussion of immigration is what's the right number.   There is a limit to the number of immigrants U.S. infrastructure can sustain, e.g., educations and health care.  Some level of immigration is good for the U.S. economy, but it also has contributed to our problem of "inequality."   The U.S. Congress has set the annual allowance for immigration at about 1,000,000 (although the mechanism for figuring this is so complicated who knows what the real number is).  Good or bad for the economy, the allowance set by the U.S. Congress is very generous compared to the rest of the world, especially considering that the U.S. does not limit immigration to highly skilled and educated, employable people as many other countries do. 

Nevertheless, without even proposing a change to the immigration allowances set by Congress, "immigration" activists demand that people  who have circumvented the U.S. immigration system be given legal status and allowed to remain in the country.  Anyone who disagrees is committing a crime against humanity, even though what the activists propose is a 1,000 percent increase to the allowance set by the U.S. Congress.   This is not a rational basis for compromise: it's just pawn shop bartering. 

 

What we need from immigration activists is a proposal on what the right annual immigration number is for the U.S.   For example, if 1,000,000 a year immigrants is the right number, then we'd close the door to all other immigration for ten years to accommodate the 10,000,000 undocumented immigrants believed to be in the U.S. today.  

 

Give us a reasonable solution and number, and tell us how states like Arizona and New Mexico would be compensated for the unequal impact on their health care, education and law enforcement infrastructure, if you want to make a deal.