Embrace Diversity. E Pluribus Unum

I started these writings in part to answer a friend's question of what can we do? I suggested that the place to start is to treat immigrants, whether here with status or without, as human beings. Much of our rhetoric and particularly the rhetoric coming from the present administration does not do that. It dehumanizes them.

As a second step I am going to suggest we embrace diversity. I planned to address this previously but got derailed talking about due process, which is an enormous issue.

This present administration is at war with diversity. We see the acronym “DEI” for “diversity, equity and inclusion” and the assumption of the administration is that diversity is bad because it tends to favor less qualified people over more qualified, less diverse people. Of course, in that assumption, we are indicating that we believe white male is “normal” and everything else is “diverse.” And by implication, white male is more qualified for just about anything and diverse is not.

Pity accomplished people of color and immigrants because they are automatically assumed under the viewpoint of this administration to have not earned their position. A few weeks ago, there was a helicopter and airplane mid-air collision in D.C. When asked about the cause of the crash, the president's first response was it was probably DEI. That's absurd and in this case not true, but it is telling that that was his go to response. We see it in other areas as well.

Furthering its anti-DEI philosophy, the administration is firing government employees that it concludes are “DEI” and even going after universities and private employers to force them to abandon DEI programs. One might think that “diversity” is a bad word.

Immigration Policy and Diversity.

But let's turn to immigration policy in the US. Does it value diversity?

Immigrants are diverse, almost by definition. So, when the present administration goes to war against diversity, it is natural for immigrants to be included in that. And certainly, there is in this administration a war against immigrants – not just against criminal immigrants as many people believe. Otherwise, why cancel thousands of student visas for things as minor as traffic violations?

But diversity is one of the strengths of our country and has been since the beginning.

We haven’t always valued diversity in our immigration laws, but there are elements in the current design of immigration law that support the idea of diversity.

Did you know that we actually have a diversity visa? It's done by a lottery drawing every year and only certain countries that are underrepresented in our immigration numbers can participate. For example, countries with high levels of immigration to the U.S. such as Mexico, Canada, India, China, etc. are excluded from the diversity program. The program offers 55,000 immigrant visas annually based on a few weeks of online registrations, usually in October and November, but there are millions of applicants. For example, last year over 22 million qualified entries were received for 55,000 places.

Still, it is a chance for people to immigrate to the United States that might not otherwise have an opportunity. Of course, winners are vetted and not everyone selected is able to immigrate. Criminal activity can make someone ineligible. Also ineligible or at least unable to complete the process would be people who were already here in the U.S. but without legal status.

But why have a diversity lottery? In fact, it has often been challenged and efforts have been made to eliminate the diversity program. In 2022 the Trump administration attempted to limit eligibility for the program, but his order was invalidated by the courts. Legislators have from time to time questioned the wisdom of such a program.

The existence of such a program as a lottery to create more diversity in immigration in the U.S. says something about the national ethos. The program was created with the Immigration Act of 1990, but the first lottery drawing for the program was not until 1995.

The chances of selection are somewhat low, but not as bad as the Powerball. I have had clients who have been selected in the lottery and have successfully immigrated to the U.S.

There are other aspects to our current immigration laws that support the idea of diversity, in contrast to some of our previous legal schemes.

For example, we have a quota system on how many people can immigrate each year in different preference classifications. The preference classifications in both family immigration and employment-based immigration have value systems attached to them. In family immigration, for example, there is no quota on immediate relative cases -- that is, for spouses of U.S. citizens, parents of U.S. citizens, and minor children of U.S. citizens, there is no limit on how many can immigrate each year. But there are quotas on other family immigration categories.

On the business side, we favor a shorter wait time for the most accomplished and most educated immigrants to the country.

But within these preferences we also say that not more than a certain percentage each year can come from any one country. This creates severe backlogs for certain countries, but the overall scheme is to promote diversity.

For example, we have high levels of employment-based professionals immigrating from India. But our system each year does not allow more Indians to immigrate than it does any other country, say Belgium. This means that Indians must wait a much longer time to finally complete the immigration process than other countries because of the applicants in line ahead of them. On the family immigration side, of course, people from Mexico have the highest rate of immigration and so they have the longest wait time to successfully immigrate to the U.S.

You can see that there is a certain diversity aspect to that scheme. We don't want to be flooded with one particular group to the exclusion of others. Yet, we can also see that this has a discriminatory effect against, for example, Indians and Mexicans.

Has this attempt at diversity always been a feature of immigration policy?

No, definitely not. But in some ways, it has been an aspirational guideline for us. Consider the statements on the Statue of Liberty (in particular, I like “Mother of Exiles”). Those sentiments have never been the law in the U.S., but they reflect a noble aspiration which we have sometimes sought to achieve.

Every generation has in some ways fought against diversity including going all the way back to people like Benjamin Franklin who thought Germans were unsuitable for US citizenship.

“. . . measures of great Temper are necessary with the Germans: and am not without Apprehensions . . . Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation, and as Ignorance is often attended with Credulity when Knavery would mislead it, and with Suspicion when Honesty would set it right; and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain. Their own Clergy have very little influence over the people; who seem to take an uncommon pleasure in abusing and discharging the Minister on every trivial occasion. Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it; and as Kolben says of the young Hottentots, that they are not esteemed men till they have shewn their manhood by beating their mothers, so these seem to think themselves not free, till they can feel their liberty in abusing and insulting their Teachers. . . . Few of their children in the Country learn English . . .” Benjamin Franklin, 1753, Letter to Peter Collinson.

We see in the founding father’s statements many of the same arguments that continue today. They lack character, they are crude and don’t share our values, they don't know the language, they don't assimilate.

We all know that in later generations, it was the Irish, the Poles, the Jews, the Russians, the Italians and other southern Europeans, all facing discrimination as the nation sought to limit diversity. But each of those waves of immigration have made the nation stronger.

I note that Hitler despised the diversity of the U.S., calling it a “mongrel nation.” That’s one of the reasons the accomplishments of Jesse Owens at the 1936 Nazi-led Olympic games were so significant.

Historically, our laws have not always recognized the value of diversity. Consider the Chinese Exclusion Act which was in effect from 1882 to 1943 and prevented Chinese immigration to the U.S.

In 1924 the U.S. passed the National Origins Act which set severe limitations on immigration from particular regions. The Act set a quota system based on the national origins of immigrants in the U.S. as it existed in 1890. Realize that the makeup of the U.S. in 1890 was quite different than what it was in 1924 because of the massive waves of immigration from Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe in the years between 1890 and 1924.

The National Origins Act was intended to try to preserve an ethnic and cultural immigration makeup in the U.S. of mostly white Western and Northern European immigrants. This Act also made it difficult to accept refugees coming from certain areas such as the European Jews fleeing Nazi Germany.

That law remained in effect until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. That act repealed the national origins quotas and sought to create a more diverse immigration system. It is the forerunner of our current system.

Significantly, the President has stated that he wants to reform the immigration law to focus more on national origins, a throwback to that 1924 Act. https://www.cato.org/blog/new-discriminatory-arbitrary-legal-immigration-system-coming Presumably this is to discourage immigration from “shithole countries” (his words, not mine) and encourage more migration from “nice countries like Denmark” (again, his words, not mine). This proposal would create a total ban on immigration from certain countries and severe limitations on immigration from other countries. It isn't hard to discern the racial preferences at work here.

I suggest this is un-American as well as immoral and contrary to our national interests. It doesn’t match the aspirations of our nation that “all are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. . .”

Let’s ask the question, “Is diversity a good thing?” Certainly, there are nations that are essentially homogenous and resist diversity. There are nations that persecute minority groups and participate in “ethnic cleansing.”

In my opinion, there is no strength in homogeneity. But countries that aspire to diversity, equity, and inclusion have a burden of treating minority groups with equity and inclusion.

The Church and Diversity.

As a Christian, I see the kingdom of God in diversity. Firstly, however, I want to be clear that I am not conflating the U.S. with the kingdom of God. I’m only indicating that diversity in the nation as well as the kingdom, is a source of strength and promotes the humanity and worth of every person regardless of ethnicity and culture.

The church is by design diverse. On the day of Pentecost, considered the founding day of the Church, people were present from every nation and tongues were spoken in every language. In Acts 10:34 we see this from the apostle Peter:

“I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.”

I could produce many other scriptures that indicate the diversity of the early church, including the welcoming of fellowship between rich and the poor, male and female, Jews and non-Jews, etc. Philosopher and theologian, David Bentley Hart, in his book Atheist Delusions argues that the ethic of the early church in welcoming everyone, including the rich and powerful together with the poor and powerless and people of every nation and gender and cultural background, was an ethic unheard of in the Roman world. To lose that ethic in the modern day is a tragedy and weakens the power that the church could see and should have in uplifting humanity.

Yet Martin Luther King, Jr. is surely correct in noting the following about the church in the U.S.:

“We must face the sad fact that at eleven o'clock on Sunday morning when we stand to sing 'In Christ there is no East or West,' we stand in the most segregated hour of America.”

That observation is correct, but it is not good and does not reflect the design of the church from its earliest days. It is a modern embarrassment and contrary to what Christ intended. There is a holiness about diversity that should be embraced.

Diversity should be embraced in the nation because in its essence, it argues for the value and equality of every person. The indiscriminate attacks on immigrants by this administration devalue our shared humanity and ultimately weaken our national character. E pluribus unum.