Not immigration, but welfare policy
By Choi Yearn-hong
(0).jpg?w=728)
Immigration policy was one of most important issues in President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address. However, he does not know how to hit the right button. He has been insisting on a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border since he ran his presidential campaign. This is just ridiculous.
Even when his chief of staff tried to scrap the idea of the wall, he insisted on his wall as an anti-immigration policy. I first heard of the wall as a metaphor for his anti-immigration policy.
After all, Trump should have learned the lesson of China’s Great Wall that did not deter the invasions from the Mongols and Manchurians into China’s mainland. It was of no use. Fortunately, it is now one of the best tourist attractions in the world.
Trump should pay attention to my neighbors’ chit-chat. My conservative neighbors, retired army colonels, tended to support Trump, as a presidential candidate, but not his wall. They just openly said to me that, “We don’t mind the immigrants like you coming. You came here as a poor foreign student, but you worked hard to earn a doctorate and taught at colleges all your life. You did not take any taxpayer money. That is what we like.”
The key words were: “You did not ask for any penny from Uncle Sam.” Middle-class American people are concerned about immigrants who are relying on generous American welfare programs. Generous welfare programs are basically humanitarian programs. However, the government cannot provide the ideal state of living for all people. I would like to share an ancient Korean saying with my fellow American people, that even a wise virtuous king cannot provide three meals to all people.
The U.S. government since the New Deal has expanded the welfare policy and programs to the level of serious budget deficits, resulting in the unmanageable, threatening the nation’s economic well-being. Skyrocketing welfare programs have escalated the anger of middle-class American people that guided it to an anti-immigration policy. Trump took advantage of this anger for his presidential campaign.
I believe their discontent deserves care from the president and Congress now. I know one foreign student couple received all kinds of humanitarian care from the welfare program for their unwanted pregnancy. They were grateful for the welfare system. However, all the care given to a pregnant woman from a foreign country is costly. This is just one example.
Some immigrants took advantage of this kind of welfare state. It is very difficult to change this kind of situation. However, this kind of welfare policy and programs should be stopped somewhere. Simply because we cannot afford them. Our resources are limited.
The United States is a great country. It can afford to do a lot. That may be Utopian thinking. I may be an anti-Utopian thinker. Public administration is not seeking Utopian policy-making, but seeking the best cost-benefit analysis. The university is an ivory tower inviting Utopian thinkers and scholars. However, the government is the place of Hamiltonian pragmatists.
I know a generous and humanitarian welfare program may benefit America’s future in the long run, but it should be curbed. If not, the government will face bankruptcy sooner or later. The welfare programs need a dramatic overhaul now. It is not easy. I have seen proposals for welfare reform since the 1960s, but they did not bring any significant results.
I complained, “We reached the moon in less than 10 years. However, welfare reform cannot be done in 20 years and 30 years.” “Well, one is human affairs and the other is scientific and technological,” my fellow public administration scholars responded.
My simple welfare reform proposal is: Welfare benefits should be open only to U.S. citizens who have worked 20 years and paid their taxes. Those who cannot find a job and support their lives should knock on the doors of charity organizations. All donations to charities should receive tax benefits.
My two children have been working on Wall Street. They have had good times and bad times. Wall Street is not always rosy. It has its ups and downs. They were once unemployed for a year or so. They survived on their savings. They did not ask the government to take care of them. They were proud of themselves not to resort to welfare programs.
In the 1960s, my home country Korea did not have any welfare program. However, people survived, because they helped each other when they needed help. The family is the building block of society and welfare programs. The American people need to take care of their family members in need. If the family is missing in the U.S., it should be revived.
I know welfare reform cannot be as simple as I propose. But it should provide the foundation for forthcoming welfare reform. That will be the first step toward an immigration policy. The government is not a charity organization. Let each citizen take care of his or her life. That should be the premise of all welfare policy and programs.
Dr. Choi is retired public administration scholar. He was an assistant for environmental quality in the U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense in the 1980s.