The Foreign Service Journal, June 2019

28 JUNE 2019 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL figure in their rejection of this view, a more fundamentally con- servative animus to change seems to drive their logic. What to Do? The issue comes down to two questions: How do we deal with the migration crisis that is upon us now? And, what can we do to limit future mass migrations? First, legal immigration to the United States must continue. Some 50 million immigrants were in the United States in 2017. In accepting more than one million legal immigrants—more than half of whom were already living here and changed their status— every year since 2000, the United States remains a welcoming country. Dealing with illegal immigrants frustrates our politicians because while most subscribe to the view that illegal immigra- tion is intolerable, they change their mind when a specific case is presented and earns broad popular sympathy. U.S. authorities should continue to be tough, but show flexibility depending on individual circumstances. Some believe that Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the right of asylum from persecution, effectively means that anyone can enter the United States. We must take a hard look at how we define the term “refugee” and how we, by law, distinguish refugees from those who try to enter the United States for “economic” reasons and therefore do not qualify for asylum. The United States must continue to provide humanitarian assistance to those seeking to enter, regardless of their motives. Some may merit special attention to transform their status to become immigrants. Exactly who qualifies is a matter for serious national debate. At the same time, we must expand efforts to resettle migrants in countries that seek to grow their populations. In the longer term, dealing with the migration crisis is a matter of improving governance in those countries from which people are fleeing. National leaders and elites can be so power- hungry and corrupt that they do not accept broad political and other human rights. The political elite in Haiti, for example, does not, in far too many cases, embrace the concept of a common-