Have an Intelligent Conversation About Immigration

That the balance of the population is unable, or unwilling, to think critically has been my primary take away from recent political and cultural discourse on twitter and facebook and even — for people intent on ruining everything — instagram. You have to laugh when you compare Mark Zuckerberg’s grandiose view of social media (sort of a virtual SoHo House where Richard Branson, Huma Abedin and Ashton Kutcher can debate, and no doubt solve, the world’s problems) — to what it really is (a virtual Mos Eisley Cantina where Jimmy Mouth of the South Hart, Animal from the Muppet Babies and your buzzed uncle (and millions like them) essentially reenact the asylum riot scene from One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest on a near-daily basis). I’ve found the discussion around immigration to be particularly bad — Mary & Joseph refused a room at the inn analogies respond to Guy Fieri waiving an American flag. So I’m not even advocating a position here. I’m just advocating rational discussion.

Below is a simple formula I thought might be a basis upon which to have an orderly discussion about immigration policy as it relates to immigration from Syria and the greater Middle East.

Again — this is very simple, it is linear and it is basic. Its not intended to encompass every variable or complex relationships. This is simply to provide some basic organization of thought… a mouth guard for people having fits and seizures on social media over this. Lets break it down:

g: The relevant group. Who are we talking about? Is it a group that’s been vetted? Are seven countries excluded? What’s the ratio of men to women?

N: The number of members of the group to be admitted. How many people are we talking about?

Vg: Value added per member of the group to the US. Its worth noting that traditionally the US does not require an immigrant group to exhibit certain value added… although there could be circumstances, such as a labor supply shortage, where additional entrants into the country could provide quantifiable value. The occasional argument referencing the value of the culture (“Muslims gave us Hummus!”) or skilled workers barred entry falls into this part of the argument.

E: Emotional importance of immigrants to the identity of America. To the extent that you believe that the identity of this country is heavily aligned with immigration and the American Dream, (ie the notion that immigrants, from anywhere and of any religion, adopting a baseline American ethos and some hard work can achieve success and, in the aggregate, the country will prosper) you may place a lot of value on this variable. Statue of Liberty crying memes fall here.

Mg:Moral responsibility to help immigrant groups facing particularly dire circumstances. In this case, certain subset of potential migrants, particularly those from Syria and Iraq, are escaping civil war, and in some cases, genocide. Even people who do not have a particularly high “E” value might be moved to allow entry to immigrants whose lives may depend upon it. Typically, the argument between war refugees vs economic migrants takes place within this variable.

Dg: Detrimental effects or danger added per member of the group to the U.S. The D value could be made up of linear components (eg x% of the group is prone to terrorism, and therefore if we allow in N number we will have N*x% terrorists) or non-linear, fairly complex components (eg the likelihood of assaults or local push for sharia law increases exponentially once N hits a certain critical point). A lot of excitement provided by this variable. Fights over terror statistics, sharia law, sexual assaults and hijabs take place here.

Pg: Your immigration entry policy. Should we allow in N number of people of g group within some policy-drive timeframe? If Vg*N + E + M outweighs your Dg*N (or, in english, if the Value of the group, the Emotional importance you place on traditional American immigration and the Moral imperative to assist the group, all taken together, outweigh your perceived risk of Detrimental effects of letting in the group), then Pg is a positive number, and your Policy will tend to allow admittance for that group. If, however, your perceived Detrimental effects outweigh the other factors, then Pg is negative and your Policy result is likely not to allow them admittance.

Tinkering with some variables may bring about different results. For example, by defining the group (g) to contain just war refugees, the Moral imperative (M) may increase substantially. By defining the group as vetted for salafists and terrorists, the risk of detriment (D) decreases. By defining the group to contain an even ratio of men and women, the D value may also decrease. Decreasing the number of people admitted (N) may also decrease detrimental effects, to the extent that you believe that certain un-wanted elements may be virtually non-existent at lower numbers but might be present if the number admitted goes beyond a certain point.

The purpose of this is to help organize thoughts and isolate differences of opinion in order to enjoy a rational discussion. You’ll know you’ve had a successful conversation if no one loses their job due to a viral twitter campaign afterwards.

In conclusion, I would have voted for Jimmy Mouth of the South Hart over both presidential candidates.