“Nearly a decade ago, after a surge in migration caused by wars in Libya and Syria, [Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen] and her allies changed [Denmark’s] Social Democrats’ position to be much more restrictive.
What the Denmark example gets at is political virtue. The broad virtue is wisdom. The specific virtue is self control or restraint. Being pragmatic includes taking into account what actually happens when citizens of a nation believe that there is too much immigration taking place. Yes, their belief matters, even if they don't have all the facts some "experts" see as important. Many become afraid. And I'm sure sin comes into play. It always does. But sin also comes into play when we are arrogant and fail to exercise restraint. These days the left makes the case that the US, Canada and European nations can manage more immigration, including illegal/undocumented immigration. The right tends to place excessive controls on all forms of immigration. We have seen the social and political result when political leaders move too far in one direction or the other. Which is to say when they lack wisdom and restraint. The Church of England statement addresses that - "Precious resources must be stewarded carefully and the impact of rapid, unplanned or under-resourced social and economic change on settled communities matters to God too.” Some will make the case that a nation can handle the impact on "precious resources" and even on "settled communities." But in the concreteness of real life, versus the abstraction of our minds, these things are driven by our hopes, dreams, anxieties, and fears. And that requires political and moral wisdom and restraint. It's about prudence -- having good sense; the capacity for practical judgment. The PM of Denmark did that in relation to the realities of her nation. It appears that we have not done as well in regard to our nation. When we fail to manage it well we make space for demagogues.
In short, while I can imagine many reasonable political responses to immigration, I also think the church should tell the truth: migration is human activity, and immigration benefits the economy. We have a right to restrict it, but we shouldn't lie about the reasons we do so.
I'd default to pragmatism, but I think Denmark and the USA are very distinct.
Denmark is 4x more dense population wise than the USA. It's 16,000 square miles. We're 3.5 million. While we do accept more immigrants than any other nation, we're 19th when it comes to relative population.
A community organizer I knew emphasized that with the number of ghost towns in the USA, immigrants would stimulate those economies. We see this in St. Louis, Dayton, and a number of midwestern towns.
At this time, the USA could absorb all the persons who get to our border and most people would not notice. Furthermore, by simply giving undocumented workers papers (not citizenship) and any visitor a visa, our economy would grow. It is incorrect, while intuitive, to argue that immigrants are a "drain." That's not how money (in particular what we call "the multiplier effect" or the "velocity of currency") works.
What is overlooked in most analysis includes 1) the impact of an underfunded administrative state. Since 9/11, there has been a confusion between the requirements of security and the needs of the economy. We've never recovered.
Second, there is a political need to keep the issue front and center. Immigration scares people, and the facts simply don't matter. Original sin is simply in our way. So my question is: given that human beings can be irrationally fearful of others, and willfully indulge in the scapegoating of others, what is the role of responsible leadership in these situations?
I don't think we can avoid the reality that it's politically rewarding to stoke fear about immigrants.
In this case, the "pragmatic" answer is about politics and fear, not about capacity.
What the Denmark example gets at is political virtue. The broad virtue is wisdom. The specific virtue is self control or restraint. Being pragmatic includes taking into account what actually happens when citizens of a nation believe that there is too much immigration taking place. Yes, their belief matters, even if they don't have all the facts some "experts" see as important. Many become afraid. And I'm sure sin comes into play. It always does. But sin also comes into play when we are arrogant and fail to exercise restraint. These days the left makes the case that the US, Canada and European nations can manage more immigration, including illegal/undocumented immigration. The right tends to place excessive controls on all forms of immigration. We have seen the social and political result when political leaders move too far in one direction or the other. Which is to say when they lack wisdom and restraint. The Church of England statement addresses that - "Precious resources must be stewarded carefully and the impact of rapid, unplanned or under-resourced social and economic change on settled communities matters to God too.” Some will make the case that a nation can handle the impact on "precious resources" and even on "settled communities." But in the concreteness of real life, versus the abstraction of our minds, these things are driven by our hopes, dreams, anxieties, and fears. And that requires political and moral wisdom and restraint. It's about prudence -- having good sense; the capacity for practical judgment. The PM of Denmark did that in relation to the realities of her nation. It appears that we have not done as well in regard to our nation. When we fail to manage it well we make space for demagogues.
In short, while I can imagine many reasonable political responses to immigration, I also think the church should tell the truth: migration is human activity, and immigration benefits the economy. We have a right to restrict it, but we shouldn't lie about the reasons we do so.
I'd default to pragmatism, but I think Denmark and the USA are very distinct.
Denmark is 4x more dense population wise than the USA. It's 16,000 square miles. We're 3.5 million. While we do accept more immigrants than any other nation, we're 19th when it comes to relative population.
A community organizer I knew emphasized that with the number of ghost towns in the USA, immigrants would stimulate those economies. We see this in St. Louis, Dayton, and a number of midwestern towns.
At this time, the USA could absorb all the persons who get to our border and most people would not notice. Furthermore, by simply giving undocumented workers papers (not citizenship) and any visitor a visa, our economy would grow. It is incorrect, while intuitive, to argue that immigrants are a "drain." That's not how money (in particular what we call "the multiplier effect" or the "velocity of currency") works.
What is overlooked in most analysis includes 1) the impact of an underfunded administrative state. Since 9/11, there has been a confusion between the requirements of security and the needs of the economy. We've never recovered.
Second, there is a political need to keep the issue front and center. Immigration scares people, and the facts simply don't matter. Original sin is simply in our way. So my question is: given that human beings can be irrationally fearful of others, and willfully indulge in the scapegoating of others, what is the role of responsible leadership in these situations?
I don't think we can avoid the reality that it's politically rewarding to stoke fear about immigrants.
In this case, the "pragmatic" answer is about politics and fear, not about capacity.