The Gates Test

Immigration faded as an issue during the recent recession, as many unemployed illegal immigrants self-deported. With this context, now is a good time to reconsider our policies. William Bennett, secretary of education under President Reagan, once referred to the "Gates Test":If you open a nation's borders, which directions do people flow? Are a nation's gates, walls and fences keeping people out or in? In the case of the U.S., if we eliminated our border patrol and physical barriers along the 2,000 mile U.S.-Mexican frontier, we would be flooded by millions seeking better lives.

Given that the United States cannot accommodate as many as want to come, how should we prioritize from among those who seek to do so? There are three considerations that should receive primacy in comprehensive immigration reform: education, entrepreneurship and exceptions.

The first group of potential immigrants that should receive preference is those whose education makes them attractive. I would highlight those with advanced degrees, at the master's level or higher, in the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics).

Every year, approximately 50 percent of all graduate degrees from American universities in these areas are awarded to foreign-born students. While some are successful in gaining H-1 temporary work visas, thousands more would stay if they could.

Not only should the U.S. grant more visas to these skilled technical workers -- who work in areas where there are shortages of qualified native-born employees -- we should accelerate the path to citizenship for them.

Why should we educate students from India, China and South Korea -- the top three nations of origin -- in fields where we need their skills and then force them to return to their native countries to compete against us?

Every year, the U.S. runs out of H-1 visas, leaving technology companies and other employers unable to hire graduates from our best universities.

The second group of immigrants we should encourage is entrepreneurs. Under current law, if someone invests $1 million or more, creating at least 10 jobs in the United States, they are eligible for permanent residency. This is an excellent public policy and must continue. If anything, we should consider lowering the limit to $750,000 and five employees.

Given the rising regulatory costs and our current economic situation, we should welcome more investors willing to risk their capital here.

The final group is the exceptions -- categories that are worthy based on moral grounds. I would include among these the spouses and immediate family of U.S. citizens, and a small number of political refugees.

One new category should be foreigners willing to enlist in the U.S. military and visas for former overseas employees of the U.S. government, especially from places such as Iraq and Afghanistan where their lives were at risk on our behalf.

How to accommodate increased immigration in these areas? We must restrict immigration from other categories, including nonimmediate family members and the Diversity Lottery (which grants visas to 55,000 random winners).

Most importantly, the U.S. must enforce existing immigration laws, deport illegal aliens arrested by local, state and federal law enforcement, and invest whatever is necessary to end illegal immigration by land, sea and air. Without excluding illegal immigration, we are in a much weaker position to be able to expand legal immigration.

Reforms that will improve our economy, national security and implement a fairer approach for those who want to come to the United States will be meaningless with continued open borders.

Wayne H. Bowen, professor and chairman of the Department of History at Southeast Missouri State University, is also a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve.