Archive for the ‘Policy Wonks’ Category

Would the Founding Fathers Approve of Healthcare Reform?

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

Shortly before the House voted to pass the healthcare reform bill, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stood on the floor of the chamber, praised past social reforms like Medicare and Social Security and “now, tonight, health care for all Americans. In doing so, we will honor the vows of our founders who, in the Declaration of Independence, said, ‘We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ ”

For opponents of the healthcare bill, using Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence as justification for government takeover of the healthcare industry is just as sad as it is ironic. It is sad because on Sunday night, Pelosi and 218 of her colleagues in the House acted on their gross misinterpretation of that great founding document. But the question that all should be asking is whether or not the Founding Fathers would approve of the healthcare bill.

Simply put, the answer is a resounding “No.” For any student of the political thought of the American founding, the exercise of power by the Democrats in Congress and President Obama is enough to warrant another revolution. Where classrooms once taught that the British parliament circa 1763 is the foremost example of misuse of power and the dangers of disregarding the constitution, one now need look no further than the 111th Congress.

Yes, the process was bad. Deals were struck and bribes were made. Congressional leaders arm twisted and moderate Democrats caved. But if the Founding Fathers were alive today, those would only be minor issues. For in the grand scheme of things, what the Democrats accomplished was not a mere piece of legislation or the overhaul of a huge sector in the economy. It was getting away with a tyranny of the majority with the complete disregard to the American voter.

It was the tyranny of the majority that passed legislation that expands the powers of government more than any other since the 1960s, and all in an openly corrupt, dishonest, yet unapologetic manner. Worse still, the process exemplified the fact that to Democrats, government is an entity entirely separate from the will of the people and can in fact, be opposed to it.

The philosopher John Locke- who was a source of inspiration for many of the Founders- wrote in his Second Treatise on Government that government is derived from men in the state of nature voluntarily agreeing to form an authority to execute the laws of nature. And that is essentially, where the idea comes from that government gets its powers from the “consent of the governed.”

James Wilson- a Founding Father who signed the Declaration of Independence and was one of the original six members of the U.S. Supreme Court – wrote in 1791 that it was the business of the federal government to protect rights, and that under a properly functioning government, people would be more free than they would be in the state of nature. Of course, that concept is hard to grasp because the argument could be made that a perfect government has never existed. Nevertheless, it is still a valid point that deserves consideration in today’s political climate. Does this healthcare reform bill leave Americans more free?

In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote that voluntary associations and relations among people were a major cornerstone of any Republican society. The healthcare bill however, does not allow for voluntary relationships. It demands, among other things, that individuals pay for health care for fellow citizens.

Thus it is fair to say that the healthcare bill itself, and the way in which it was passed would not sit well with Jefferson, Wilson, or any other of the attendees of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and American revolutionaries. Government, in its correct form, should exist to protect individual rights. But by interfering in the economy and forcing individuals to buy health insurance, the government is doing nothing but violating rights.

Moreover, the Founders created a Democratic Republic for many reasons; one of them being that they wanted above all, to ensure that the rights and will of the minority were not trampled.

With the battle over healthcare reform however, Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, managed to pass legislation despite the very serious, genuine, and legitimate objections raised by their Republican colleagues and the unfavorable opinion of the bill from the American public. The Democrats have been clear- public opinion and the rights of the minority do not matter. Is there now no recourse for the tyranny of the majority?

Some say that the late Sunday-night vote in the House was a historic moment. They are right. It was a defining moment in U.S. history that will forever impact the freedom and liberties of future generations. The country came to a fork in the road, and Congress went left. So where does the country go from here?

Megan McArdle, econo-blogger at The Atlantic, explains it best: “The check that we have is that politicians care what the voters think. If that slips away, America’s already quite toxic politics will become poisonous.” In other words, if politicians can get away with misleading the American people and then ignoring them, America will no longer be the country the Founding Fathers created.

It might be time for another speech from Patrick Henry; or maybe a pamphlet or two by Thomas Paine.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

Why Health Reform is Bad Politics

Friday, March 12th, 2010

More Boor Than Cure

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

A Mandate to Speak Out: Health Care Reform

Monday, December 28th, 2009

It wasn’t long ago that President Obama stated his opposition to an individual mandate in the health care reform debate. During his debate with then Senator Hillary Clinton on February 21, 2008, President Obama laid down the line against penalizing Americans for not buying into health care reform.

“Now, Massachusetts has a mandate right now. They have exempted 20 percent of the uninsured because they have concluded that that 20 percent can’t afford it,” said Obama. “In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can’t afford it, so now they’re worse off than they were. They don’t have health insurance and they’re paying a fine.”

Has President Obama retracted his words? It seems likely. In politics people’s opinions can change. As Obama once cited Washington is “the place where good ideas go to die.” Now Obama, who vowed to reform the nation’s capitol, is caving into the political system. His previous promises prove erroneous. Our president is allowing his good ideas to die. He is allowing the politics of D.C. to override his seemingly firm position against a public mandate, and as a consequence the welfare of already struggling Americans is at stake.

If the individual mandate is accepted, individuals will be forced to purchase health insurance, unless they want to pay a fine. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey revealed that 36% of Americans believe that Obama’s health care plan will result in a deterioration of the health care system, and 57% are against a law requiring individuals to obtain health insurance. If Obama is really the people’s president, and if this health care bill is truly intended to better Americans, then why is Congress resolute to pass a bill which is opposed by the majority and imparts negative repercussions on citizens of the United States?

The argument over the individual mandate portion of the health care bill has transcended the walls of the House and Senate. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann snubbed traditional journalism tenants of unbiased reporting, and spoke out against the bill.

“The mandate in this bill must be stripped out,” delivered Olbermann. “It is above all else immoral and a betrayal of the people who elected you. Pass this at your peril, senators, and sign at yours, Mr. President.”

Yet some are now arguing against Olbermann’s claim of immorality. Senator Blanche Lincoln, (D-Ark.) claims that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to force individuals to buy health insurance. Lincoln argues that the Constitution “charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people.” Yet the Congressional Budget Office, (CBO) has combated this assertion with the fact that the federal government has never mandated Americans to purchase a particular good or service. On top of that, the Constitution does not charge Congress with the responsibility of the health and well being of the people.

Evidently the health care reform wave has sparked a multitude of impassioned arguments. Some carry more weight and sensible aspects than others. But one argument contention remains constant. This health care bill is intended to help the many uninsured Americans. We cannot deny that something needs to be done to reform our nation’s health care system. But let’s move forwards rather than regress. Adopting this individual mandate will only force Americans into a deeper rut.

******

Kathleen Someah previously attended Kenyon College where she studied English and Political Science.  She was recently an intern with a political think tank where she focuses primarily on issues relating to homeland security.  She currently resides in California.

Getting Their Priorities Right: H1N1 Vaccinations and GITMO Detainees

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

Since when do prisoners and suspected terrorists receive better treatment than law abiding citizens?

That is the question that many Americans are asking after a recent acknowledgement that Guantanamo Bay prisoners may have the option of receiving H1N1 vaccinations, beginning early this month.

Earlier this week Army Maj. James Crabtree stated that GITMO prisoners could have the option of receiving inoculations against the swine flu. His reasoning rests on the fact that H1N1 spreads more rapidly among those living in close quarters, and because GITMO detainees reside in such circumstances, they are at risk individuals. There is also the argument that inmates must receive vaccinations in order to protect the welfare of guards patrolling the detention center.

However, would it not be more effective and widely accepted to instead simply vaccinate the guards on duty rather than extending treatments to 200 detainees? While these inmate doses are not mandatory, the idea that H1N1 prevention mechanisms are available for suspected terrorists, shocked many flu frenzied individuals.

Coinciding with civilian concerns was the announcement that GITMO detainees will not, in fact, receive vaccinations against H1N1. According to an article in Reuters, published this morning, the White House denied, on Tuesday that “any H1N1 flu vaccine is now going to terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.” Finally the response Americans were hoping for, right? Wrong! Subsequent to that statement was a rebuttal from Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman who stated that “detainees at Guantanamo would receive the vaccine only after active duty troops, deployed U.S. contractors and civilians and civilians working for the Department of Defense.” This sudden revocation of the idea that vaccines would be given to GITMO detainees bears some level of suspicion. I think that many would agree that past and current White House administrations have a knack for promising one thing and doing another.

Concerns from American citizens following this announcement still remain are not unwarranted. Federal officials initially estimated a production of 40 million doses by the end of October. Never the less, they have since rescinded their approximation to 26 million doses. Health officials have combated such facts with claims that there are adequate vaccination reserves. Officials now report an estimated 30 million doses of H1N1 vaccines that have been delivered to the U.S. Yet, health officials also warn that children under the age of nine need 2 doses of the vaccine to ensure adequate protection. Assuming that children receive the majority of vaccinations, this means that really only 15 million Americans can receive the vaccine.

While it has been reported that vaccine production and distribution is steadily increasing, it is difficult to completely side with health officials who assert such a claim when you look at communities that simply do not have enough available H1N1 vaccinations. According to a recent report by ABC anchor Veronique Masterson, numerous hospitals in the border city of El Paso, Texas, find it difficult to secure enough inoculations for health care workers. While the concern lies in the best interest of the hospital employees themselves, there is also concern about the effect on visiting patients. Without protecting health officials who interact with patients who may have weak immune systems or other deficits, we are, in effect putting others at risk.

Our federal government needs to reevaluate its priority lists with regard to who receives H1N1 vaccinations. Cynicism can be a form of prudence, and in the case regarding whether or not GITMO detainees may receive H1N1 vaccinations, I think it is fair to assume that such individuals will, in fact, be recipients of the vaccine. If protecting suspected terrorists supercedes the importance of preserving innocent American civilians, the U.S. government needs to adjust their focus and take a course in proper risk assessment.

******

Kathleen Someah previously attended Kenyon College where she studied English and Political Science.  She is currently an intern with a political think tank where she focuses primarily on issues relating to homeland security

Room for Improvement: Government Intervention in the H1N1 Pandemic

Friday, October 30th, 2009

There is no shortage of swine flu skeptics. You may hear comments about how H1N1 is no more serious than the seasonal flu, how the whole declaration of swine flu as a “national emergency” is simply a Democrat-affiliated political tactic synchronized with their health “Scare” bill. But in a hearing on Tuesday, held by the House Judiciary Committee on Homeland Security, concerning H1N1 preparedness, Obama’s “national emergency” declaration proved appropriate. Chaired by Rep. Bennie Thompson, (D-MS) and Yvette D. Clarke, (D-NY), members heard statements from authorities concerning assessment of the federal response to the influenza pandemic. There was no lack of evidence that swine flu is a rampant illness taking no prisoners.

Witnesses were grilled on their knowledge concerning measures taken towards preparing the nation for the H1N1 outbreak. State representatives did not resist temptations to drill witnesses on whether or not the United States took substantial measures during the initial influenza scare. While Dr. Nicole Lurie’s initial statement illustrated the federal government’s “successful” response to H1N1, her response to inquiries concerning U.S reactions to the original cases in Mexico proved contrary. Lurie commented on the fact that state and local health officials posed as one of the biggest challenges regarding taking immediate action after the initial outbreaks.

“One thing that has really challenged everyone has been the status of state and local public health officials,” said Lurie, who serves as the assistant secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of Health and Human Services. “A chain is as long as its weakest link. We need strong public help on the ground to respond to disease control. The public help has become invisible over the days.”

While public help has been lacking in recent days, one would assume that federal efforts had improved since the onset of outbreaks. However, such assumptions would be false. When asked about the tools for developing H1N1 vaccines, Lurie attested to the notion that “we are using fifty-year old technology” with respect to vaccine production. According to Lurie, scientists are currently using eggs to grow the virus and craft vaccines. Essentially, the rate of vaccine production relies on how well the virus grows in the eggs. While Lurie did site ongoing investment in more advanced technologies, she later stated that these initiatives were not available in time to make vaccines for this pandemic. She cited the need for “more robust manufacturing practices.”

In the second chapter of Tuesday’s hearing, witnesses were asked to discuss the threat of counterfeit H1N1 drugs. This concern was raised in response to recent evidence that 140 misleading drugs are currently on the market, claiming to assist in preventing the spread of swine flu. When asked about these counterfeit antiviral remedies, Marcy Forman, Director of the Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, a division of DHS, responded that it is “more of an issue of fraudulent representation than counterfeit drugs.”

But the inquiry remains, what about so-called remedies such as Immune Support Formula? This product, distributed by one of Andrew Weil’s companies, promises to ward off H1N1 by supporting one’s immune system. It may be true that such antidotes are harmless, but the real concern lies in the fact that these misrepresenting solutions can cause further confusion in the already frenzied swine flu pandemic. So what is being done to stop this perceived criminal advertisement? Very little. As Forman mentioned in her statement, government officials are “entering a dialogue” with countries suspected of manufacturing counterfeit medications. However, as of last week the FDA warned of over 75 websites geared towards scamming swine flu-wary consumers.

The federal government needs to do more for its people. As we saw with Hurricane Katrina, lack of deeply rooted federal government aid can prove detriment to citizens. Allow the H1N1 pandemic to be, not another Katrina, but rather an opportunity for the United States government to step up to the plate, enhance communication between government agencies, and support U.S. citizens.

*******

Kathleen Someah previously attended Kenyon College where she studied English and Political Science.  She is currently an intern with a political think tank where she focuses primarily on issues relating to homeland security.

Abuse of Subsidized Health Care: The View From One Exam Room

Sunday, October 4th, 2009

The Road to the End of the Education Bubble

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Amidst the debating and pontificating about nationalized health care, cap and trade, and a whole host of issues plaguing the U.S. right now, President Obama is making waves in reforming another major sector of the U.S. economy: education.

On September 17, the House passed legislation to overhaul the college loan system. The bill, introduced by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and supported by Obama, ends government subsidies to banks and other private lending companies for college loans. The Democrats who pushed for the bill’s passage, say it will free up $80 billion; half of which, will go toward increasing the amount of money in the Pell Grant program.

Other provisions of the bill include roughly $10 billion toward improvements for community colleges and a myriad of other spending initiatives for preschool, elementary, and high schools. Sounds like noble enough goals, right?

Actually, as noble and honorable as this bill sounds, calling it such would be a great misnomer. Throwing money at a problem has been the go-to-solution for presidents in recent years, but there is little to show for it.

President George W. Bush had his College Cost Reduction and Access Act that increased Pell Grants and cut student loan interest rates. Before that, President Clinton had his own initiatives, calling for a $1,500 tax credit for students who committed to going to community college for two years and maintaining a “B” average.

The fact is Washington has been trying to spend its way out of mediocrity in education for years. Yet the results don’t add up. The Department of Education estimates that the U.S. spent $667 billion on K-12 schools during the 2008-09 academic year alone. That’s up from $553 billion the previous year. And that number is only getting higher, especially with the $100 billion from the stimulus bill that was allotted for education.

Yet despite this massive amount of funding, reading scores on nationalized tests in elementary schools have stayed relatively the same since 1970. Furthermore, the New York Times recently reported that only about half of teenagers that enroll in college end up with a bachelor’s degree. Among advanced countries, only Italy has a worse graduation rate.

However, that same New York Times article went on to praise President Obama’s education bill, saying that taking the practice of student loan lending out of private companies and transferring it to the government is a good thing. Why? Because it would ensure that more people have access to higher education, since the government wouldn’t be so stringent with their rules and requirements in order to qualify for a loan.

The graduation rate in America may be dismal, but the way to increase it is not by throwing more money at young adults, enticing them to enter college. Increasing demand for any product only increases prices for everyone. That lesson is taught in any basic economics course. But maybe Obama was sick that day.

Probably the most disturbing aspect of this bill is that its sole purpose is to increase access to college by making it more affordable, by increasing student loans. Yet this approach was tried once before with the housing industry, when the government decided that it was a basic, American right to own a house.

We saw what happened next. For a while, the housing industry boomed and thrived, but then that bubble burst, resulting in banks closing and thousands, if not millions of people swimming in debt.

When it comes to education, the result will be the same. Increasing access to college will not raise graduation rates. If anything, it will just increase drop-out rates. And when everything is said and done, there won’t be more people with college degrees; just more young people saddled with enormous amounts of debt. As if the burden of paying for social security and a possible universal health care system weren’t enough.

President Obama and the other proponents of this new bill need to realize that education is not a right. It is not the job of the federal government to ensure that everyone make it through college. Nor should any individual be forced to finance another’s college education through taxes. Whether it’s elementary, high school, or preschool, flooding the education system with money is not a panacea for low graduation rates and poor test scores. The sooner those concepts are grasped, the better. Or else we may be on the road to a collapse of the education bubble. 

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

Is “Homeland Security” the New Miley Cyrus?

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

When people think about homeland security, the first thought that comes to mind probably involves those little 3.5 ounce travel bottles and a zip lock bag that can tarnish even the most pleasant of airport experiences.  For others it might be taking off your shoes, your belt, or showing your driver’s license more often.

To an average American, homeland security has become commonplace, like Miley Cyrus, IPODs, or Kleenex.  Americans don’t know what it means. Of course, politicians talk about it. No politician is likely to claim that he/she is making America less safe.  Both candidates Barack Obama and John McCain emphasized how they would make America safer— but then they moved on, perhaps rightfully so, to more pressing issues, like the economy.

Sure, Americans have emergency kits, an extra supply of food, and batteries in case a disaster hits, but all so often Americans leave “homeland security” to the policymakers, first responders, and philosophers.

Should the public’s knowledge of homeland security be as simple as a checklist, an education campaign or a footnote in a textbook? For those of us who remember 9/11, we would easily say “no, September 11th is a day we will never forget.” We remember the horror, desperation and confusion we felt.  And we will never forget the lives lost or the udder sense of insecurity we felt.

I met an intern recently that reminded me however, that unfortunately the images of September 11th will not always be in the minds of most Americans.  This intern was 10 on September 11, 2001. She barely remembers that day, and it certainly did not affect her the way it did so many of us. Most importantly, she is now, for all practical purposes, an adult—ready to take on the world and likely to affect future public policy.  In fact, there are children born every minute that will never know 9/11.

This seems depressing at first.  I think those who remember World War II probably feel this sadness, that something that literally defined their generation could be lost to the history books and documentaries.

Finding a way to carry on the memory of September 11th is possible.  The way to do this is to first recognize that while 9/11 started the public dialogue on homeland security, homeland security is not in itself September 11, 2001.  Understanding this is fundamental to engaging future generations that don’t know 9-11.  September 11th gave us the lessons needed to make the government better, to make it better able to stop acts of terrorism, and to respond if something did happen.  America developed more extensive information sharing between law enforcement, better disaster response capabilities, and created a world class Department of Homeland Security.  These lessons were the right ones.   As a result, there hasn’t been an attack on U.S. soil, and over 23 have been foiled.

The second lesson, however, is that Americans must recognize that being prepared for disaster, manmade or otherwise, isn’t about buying out the camping section of Walmart.  While it is important to be prepared, it is more about focusing on building more self-reliant communities and individuals.  It is about understanding that the government may not always be there to help people, and that Americans may have to help each other (much like many brave folks did on 9/11 and during Hurricane Katrina).  It’s about not relying on Washington for everything.  It is about empowering local and state governments. It’s about expecting government to produce policies that don’t just keep us safe, but also keep us free and prosperous.

All Americans, from the youngest to the oldest can adopt this type of sustainable homeland security.  And it doesn’t have to require an ounce of federal spending, a drop of politics, or a public option.  In fact, Americans can start now.  Help those who don’t remember 9/11, to understand the sacrifice that occurred that day.  But also, start a culture of preparedness in your communities by looking after one another.

The right kind of security is the kind that comes with knowing that no matter what happens, Americans can and will carry on in the face of disaster.

******

Jena Baker McNeill, J.D., is a Policy Analyst for Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Let them in! How highly skilled foreigners are being turned away from the American Dream

Monday, September 21st, 2009

As college seniors across America celebrated university commencement last summer, many graduates were holding a very different kind of party. Students from around the world who followed their dream of coming to America for college threw an annual round of “deportation parties.” It is a rite of passage for undergraduates from countries like Malaysia, Poland and even Canada who are unable to find a legal way of remaining in the United States.  

Every year an estimated half-million low-skilled immigrants enter the U.S. illegally, but only as few as 65,000 H-1B visas are granted to allow highly qualified foreigners to stay and work here legally. These visas are not just a way for foreign professionals to work in America; they are often also the only chance they have of eventually becoming Americans. Employers have been begging Congress for years to raise the number of H-1Bs to meet demand: Bill Gates has made countless appeals to let in more IT experts. But the cap is not only too low, it is also filled on a first-come, first-served basis, and does not take into account the urgency with which particular jobs need to be filled. Undergraduates with engineering degrees, programmers from India and even supermodels from Russia are all lumped together, fighting for the same 65,000 slots. It’s a problem that Congress and the President do not address, since the public often thinks of skilled immigrants as taking away high-paying American jobs. As a gesture to the international community President Obama initially said he would raise the H1-B visa caps, but then quickly backtracked when the economic crisis hit. Yet whenever these immigrants are rejected, America loses some of its best and brightest, who leave this country and take their knowledge and talents to London, Dubai or Hong Kong.

 The most popular argument for easing restrictions on the legal immigration of highly skilled people is based on America’s economic self-interest. Highly skilled immigrants are a blessing to our economy: a highly qualified immigrant creates many more jobs than the one he takes, pays taxes in a higher income bracket, has a higher savings rate and is likely to buy a home. In a recent op-ed, Thomas Friedman quoted an Indian news editor on how immigrants could solve America’s crisis: “All you need to do is grant visas to two million Indians, Chinese and Koreans.” America is already paying to educate many of the foreigners who want to stay here, through financial aid programs and scholarships: it only makes sense to let them remain in order to get a return on the investments of alumni and donors. But the economic argument extends well beyond these short-term benefits: for over a century many of the most important scientific discoveries have been made by immigrants. A quarter of America’s Nobel laureates in chemistry are foreign-born Americans. One in every four patent applications in the U.S. is filed by a foreigner living in the U.S. On top of creating jobs, their discoveries contribute to America’s greatness and stature in the world. This country has a system that favors entrepreneurship and ambition like no other; if the best and brightest cannot come to America and take advantage of it, as they have throughout history, America, and even the world, could be losing the discoveries of next Einstein.

The second argument for increasing immigration for highly-skilled workers is based in American ideals, and usually only heard for low-skilled workers: that all those yearning to come to America to be free, work hard, succeed and uphold its values should somehow be able to make this their home. America claims that these notions are universal, and that as a result American identity is based on faith in these ideals and not on race, religion or background. A second-generation Chinese-American can feel as American as someone who can trace their lineage back to the Mayflower. But the universal character of these ideals also means that a foreigner can feel American too: if a foreigner believes in the American Dream, whether because of time spent here or the image America projects abroad, he or she can feel they too have a right to be an American, just as someone born here.

The problem is, there is no clear way for a foreigner to become a citizen based on willingness and faith in the American Dream. We gladly grant asylum to refugees and escapees of oppressive regimes who seek freedom in America, and some of the empathy towards low-skilled illegal immigrants comes from considering their struggles. What we value in these immigrants is their courage to defy and leave their homelands and their vision of America as the land of opportunity in which they can pursue their dreams. This group of people echo the image of “your tired, your poor, your hungry, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” inscribed on the Statue of Liberty. But looking to skilled immigrants, we don’t always have that same benevolent impulse; we don’t often see that just like our forefathers, many highly-skilled immigrants want to come to this country for more than just a job opportunity. And yet, they do: especially in today’s global economy, if someone has high qualifications and could get a job anywhere, yet still chooses to take on the immigration system in the hope of becoming an American, we know they are not just coming here for a job. Rather, they are attracted by something more – by personal connections to people and places, by America’s exceptionalism, by its greatness or by its ideals.

Unfortunately, you cannot show up at the border with just your brain and your ambition and try your luck anymore. Of course, America can’t simply open its borders to anyone who wants to come here, and it is inherently difficult to measure “Americanness”, or whether someone “deserves” to be a member of this country. Instead of tackling these issues, however, the immigration system chooses to rely on randomness. The State Department runs a “diversity lottery” which allows people to apply to stay in America based on their country of origin. However, since the lottery is about “diversity”, it only applies to countries that have disproportionately few immigrants in the United States: last year this list included such important world players as Monaco, Mauritius and the French Southern and Antarctic lands. At the bottom of the State Department website is a note in small grey italics listing the countries whose people have shown the highest willingness to emigrate to America, but which are banned from the process: people from countries like India, the UK and Colombia need not apply. These applicants from over-represented countries are not missing out on much, however: chances of winning the lottery are below 1 percent, with between 5 and 7 million people applying every year.

The alternatives are few: unless you have family in America or are willing to marry an American, the main avenue towards citizenship for an educated and qualified individual is to start by getting one of the 65,000 H-1B visas. The permit is meant only to allow foreigners to hold an American job, but those who apply are often after much more than work – they want an American life. Taking any job that will get them a visa is just the first step to getting there. Before the financial crisis, foreign students graduating from U.S. colleges would flock to Wall Street because the industry had the most experience and resources to tackle the visa process. Even if these students had no interest in becoming bankers, they took these jobs just to gain a toehold on the American Dream. And they had to hang on for dear life, because the law says it’s back to square one if you are fired. Today, they are going back to the countries they left: back to Pakistan, Bulgaria, Honduras. The system ends up failing everyone involved: immigrants who want to make America their home must take any job at any cost with no clear hope of citizenship. Employers just looking to fill a position for which an American worker could not be found have a big part of the 65,000 H-1B slots taken by would-be Americans with entirely different purposes in mind.

 There should surely be a way for highly educated and skilled foreigners to become Americans without being forced to marry an American or take jobs they do not want. There is a fair question of social justice around whether qualifications should play any role in the citizenship process at all: why should a Romanian with a Harvard degree in biology have a better chance of becoming an America than a Peruvian waitress? However, the current immigration system already distinguishes between highly skilled and low skilled immigrants. The easiest approach to the problem would be to develop the H-1B visa process to take aspirations towards citizenship into account. A different process could involve a number of criteria– from time spent in America for reasons like studying, to general knowledge about the country, to a pledge of allegiance, which is already taken into account in the final stages of the naturalization process. Unfortunately, very little is being done to explore these options, because highly skilled foreigners have no natural constituency to speak for them inside America: most illegal immigrants are affiliated with large, centralized communities that can put political pressure on Congress to change laws in their favour. A Korean with an undergraduate degree in math from Stanford, or a Canadian with an English degree from Yale does not have the same support. 

Most Americans know only those immigrants who managed to make it through the system, often through luck and loopholes. If asked, immigrants will sometimes reveal that a parent happened to have a U.S. passport, or that they married a friend to get an American spouse. We never see the thousands who were rejected or simply lost hope and went elsewhere. Yet every year the immigration rules remain unchanged, those college kids who came to follow their American dreams have their hopes and their faith in America dashed.

******

Christine Nikol writes for American Maggie from London, UK where she works as a business consultant.  She has previously written for the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. and as an intern for the Paris office of Newsweek.  She has a Masters in English Literature from the University of Oxford and a B.A. in Government from Harvard College, where she was Editor in Chief of the Harvard French Review, an annual journal of transatlantic politics and culture.  She is originally from Poland and Canada and has also lived in France, Nepal, and Singapore, but America is by far her favorite.