The Justice asked the president of Brandeis Democrats, Jacob Edelman ’18, and the president of Brandeis Conservatives, Mark Gimelstein ’17, about a variety of polarizing issues. Their back-and-forth dialogue about immigration is included below.

Mark Gimelstein: I do believe that our immigration laws need to be reformed, but I’m going to talk specifically about legal immigration because our illegal immigration laws are very clear, and I agree with those. Our legal immigration laws, currently as it stands, are very open to any type of immigrant in the world. We have very high levels. We don’t have any quotas anymore. We have high levels of immigration. We have, I think, over a million immigrants every year coming into our country, and there are no standards we have immigrants to hold to anymore. That was not always the case. It was not the case during Ellis Island; it was not the case before Ted Kennedy went and signed the new immigration law in the ’60s to drastically change the makeup of the immigrants we brought into this country. And I believe we should have an immigration system in place which looks at each immigrant’s skills, their financial responsibility, whether or not they’re going to go on welfare when they come into this country, crime rates, health status, etc. This is the same thing that was done during the Ellis Island period. I’m a big believer in immigration; I’m the son of immigrants because my parents came from the Soviet Union. But I do believe that, at the same time, we need to — since we do have a welfare state, especially — we cannot have open borders. We need to be selective about the immigrants we bring into this country. We have, as a country, the right to choose who we want and who we don’t want. We have borders. We are not in a borderless society, so, therefore, I think America should be selective, and we should be choosing immigrants that benefit our society, benefit our economy, enrich our lives.

Jacob Edelman: Yes, I’d say that the immigration laws for both legal and not legal immigration on the books both need a pretty substantial amount of reform. First, I will speak about legal immigration. I’ll say that there needs to be a more streamlined system. The system as it is right now — it can oftentimes take many, many years for somebody to legally enter the United States. Even if they’re somebody who’s skilled, even if they’re somebody who has a certain level of education or technical experience, it takes them a fair amount of time to enter this country, and I believe that if somebody has a skill that they can offer us, that yes, it should be much easier for them to enter our country. I feel that they can really be an asset to our community.

MG: I agree with your premise. I just think that our main problem right now is we don’t do that selectivity. I think our problem is that we lump all immigrants together and say that they’re all equal, which I don’t believe. There are different qualities in immigrants. You know, you’re going to have more German engineers, for instance, than in other countries. Obviously, this is off the top of my head, as some sort of example I’m trying to make, but the point is that every different immigrant has a different characteristic, and I think that we should be looking at people that can benefit our economy, who will be financially independent, who will “enrich our lives,” as [you] said. I think we’re in agreement about this, but I think that requires us to change our immigration laws to be more selective. Right now, we don’t have any selectivity, as far as I can understand the laws. … It should be about who do we want, what is our society about? And we should try and have immigrants that fit our society’s wants and needs — not the other way around.

JE: My rebuttal to that is I believe that Mark strikes a bit too hard a tone on this for my taste. I believe that we live in a society where we believe that when you give somebody a chance to do something — that they can achieve things that were not before imagined. Such was the nature of the founding of our country, and such is kind of the American Dream for many, many families. Many of this country’s greatest figures were either the children of immigrants or immigrants themselves who came here, and they didn’t necessarily have many of the assets of which Mark speaks, but they did have work ethic, and they did have dreams, and they were given opportunities once they arrived. So I believe that, in terms of being highly selective and how we choose who can enter this country, I believe that that’s a bit of an abandonment to the American spirit.

MG: To respond, I am not against immigration; I am not against immigrants. I am the son of immigrants, and I agree with [you]. I think that one thing that we overlook, though, is [that] even during Ellis Island, the golden age of immigration, we turned people back. We didn’t accept everybody that came into this country. All that I’m saying is, let’s return to that period in time where we have immigrants that fit our culture, that fit our expectations, and who will not go on welfare and who will contribute to society. I think that that’s a main thing that we should be considering that [you] overlook, respectfully.

JE: And what I will say is that oftentimes, in this country, when you give somebody a chance, they will do great things. You know, you go back to Ellis Island, and we certainly did turn away a lot of people who I do not believe deserved to be turned away. Such has been the nature of turning away immigrants, refugees and many other people to our country, so I would argue that, in terms of choosing who we let in: Are they safe, do they have a dream, can they fit in? Yes, they can be welcomed to our country.

—Editor’s Note: Mark Gimelstein '17 is a columnist for the Justice.

—Editor’s Note: The immigration law that Mark Gimelstein ’17 referred to is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act), which Ted Kennedy supported but did not sign into law, as Gimelstein said. Also, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the United States does give preference to immigrants with valued skills and education, contrary to Gimelstein’s statement.