The Foreign Service Journal, September 2019

12 SEPTEMBER 2019 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL Immigration Thank you for your June focus on migration. I found useful perspec- tives despite having been immersed in immigra- tion policy research after retiring for nearly as long as the 28 years I served in the Foreign Service. (It was a nice surprise to find my 2001 article on immigration q uoted in the FSJ archive excerpts on p. 36. ) It is axiomatic that the issue is com- plex and vexing. But a couple of aspects that escaped the authors’ commentaries are worth noting here. First, the perspective from Haiti of the dissimilar treatment of Haitian and Cuban migrants may have seemed to intentionally slight the Haitians, but that is not the case; nationals of other countries are similarly treated. Cubans enjoy a unique status because of the Cuban Adjustment Act that, in effect, confers refugee status to all Cubans who set foot on U.S. soil. The act dates to 1966 when those leaving the country were seen as anti-Castro heroes. Since it has made little sense for decades, Congress should repeal the act to remove the dissimilar treatment of Cubans. Second, immigration policy and practice necessarily reflect a national perspective. International standards tend to dictate national practice only in the area of refugees—but, even there, issues of national security play a role. Until recently, the United States was accepting more refugees—as identified by the United Nations High Commis- sioner for Refugees—than the rest of the world combined. In addition, the LETTERS United States has been the major donor for temporary resettlement abroad. For the rest of the migrant flow to the United States, our his- tory reflects a welcoming policy toward those who come in accordance with the provisions of our laws. Those criteria discriminate in ways intended to protect national interests and will always be fair game for debate as the country and its people change. The current debate about immigra- tion policy is welcome, but it should not be based on partisan politics and should heed the myriad interests of the citizenry, rather than the aspirations of would-be immigrants and those whose presence here is in violation of our laws. Jack Martin FSO, retired Washington, D.C. A Very Different View on the Issue of Migration The three articles in the June issue on migration will not simply be overtaken, but swept aside by future events. The articles variously assert that mass immigration is inevitable, that it can best be managed by distributing the load among recipient countries and that it is a moral duty on the part of recipi- ents to rescue the downtrodden of the world. Such elite shibboleths helped give us the U.S. politics we “enjoy” today. If you believe, as I do, that global climate change will advance too far before the world finally wakes up and belatedly takes serious action, you must accept the inevitability of not tens but hundreds of millions of climate migrants in the century to come, given coastal inundations from sea rise, desertifica- tion, acute water shortages and the loss of agricultural productivity in many areas of the globe, especially in the developing world. Can anyone truly imagine that the United States and Europe—the most desired migrant havens—could even begin to accept this human tsunami without mortal damage to their social systems, economies and political democracy? Just note what the intake in recent years of a “mere” several million Syrian and other refugees has done to the politics of Europe. The answer, I deeply regret to say, is to abandon generosity, which came cheap when migrant numbers were vastly lower; harden our hearts; and for- tify our borders and our internal control systems. And yes, with sufficient will and effort, our borders can be defended. We may be headed toward a more Hobbesian world. Best to get used to it, because the average American voter will , even if some elites cling to noble but outdated illusions. I don’t like the nasty world to come, but a different reality requires differ- ent values. If you disagree, then please tell me why global climate change and resultant epochal, massive attempted migration flows are not going to hap- pen, and why you think the United States could absorb them without catastrophe. Marc E. Nicholson FSO, retired Washington, D.C. Carolinians in the Early U.S. Diplomatic Service Henry Laurens—who was imprisoned in London, as “Henry of the Tower” in the June 50 Years Ago item recounts—was