By Peter Pavarini
Immigration has long been a divisive subject in American politics. It’s about to become the defining issue of our time. As the world teeters on the edge of war, pandemic and potential famine, people are moving across the globe in unprecedented numbers[i]. Assuming surveys[ii] are correct, millions more say they are prepared to leave their homelands if they can find a better place to go. By far and away, the US remains the number one choice of these potential migrants.
America’s broken immigration system has been blamed for a myriad of problems. At different times it has been attacked from both the Left and the Right. [iii] No matter who is in the White House or in control of the Congress, few are happy with our existing immigration laws. While Donald Trump’s “zero tolerance” enforcement policy and his attempted wall-building along the US-Mexico border certainly energized this debate, our actual immigration statutes have hardly changed since 1986. On the other hand, during the past 14 months, we’ve seen how another president can effectively nullify these laws through a policy of non-enforcement and by dismantling our border security agencies.
What the End of CDC’s Title 42 Order Means.
Since March 2020, CDC’s Title 42 emergency health authority has been used to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus from foreign countries into the US. Whether intentionally or not, this governmental order has stopped approximately 1.7 million migrants from seeking asylum in the US.[iv] However, despite the fierce opposition of many border state leaders, including members of Joe Biden’s own party, this Title 42 restriction is unlikely to be extended when it expires on April 1, 2022.[v]
Due to the media’s obsessive coverage of the Ukraine conflict, little attention has been paid to this impending change in US immigration policy. Hundreds of thousands of migrants are reportedly waiting in Mexico and other Latin American countries ready to cross the US border once the Title 42 order is lifted. Countless millions are said to be right behind them. This situation presents an existential threat to US sovereignty as well as to the general welfare of the American people.
Creating a Humanitarian Crisis.
How can any nation – even one as large and resourceful as the US – absorb 200,000 or more unvetted migrants every month without creating a humanitarian crisis for both the migrants and the natives of the country they wish to enter?
In thinking about this problem, I knew it was time to reconsider why Progressives strongly favor open borders or, at the least, a very lax immigration policy. [vi] Leaving aside the often-stated expectation that most immigrants will eventually become Democrat voters, here’s a summary of what I found:
Reasons for Open Borders.
- Compassion. Allowing anyone who wants to migrate to a rich country like the US is the ethical, compassionate thing to do. It’s only fair that we share our wealth with those who have been oppressed by political, economic and social conditions elsewhere. This is right out of the Progressive Playbook. You either accept the rationale it or you don’t. Nevertheless, there is currently no law, treaty or social compact that requires the US to do anything of the sort.
- Save Lives. Allowing unrestricted entry into the US will supposedly “saves lives”. This is debatable. There is no accurate count of the people who have died trying to migrate to the US and enter illegally, but that number is not insignificant. At the same time, there is a very good argument that an unpatrolled border has allowed staggering amounts of fentanyl and other illicit drugs into our country which claims tens of thousands of American lives annually. If border agents are too busy processing and caring for uninvited migrants, they have little or no time for drug interdiction.
- Humans Are Migratory. Throughout history, people have frequently changed their domiciles. Borders rarely stop them. While this is generally true, it doesn’t make uncontrolled entry a good national policy. Humans are also sexually driven, but we have laws against rape and other sex crimes. A regulated border, which has been the norm in most parts of the world for more than a century, is a reasonable and modern way of dealing with a world population of 8 billion constantly on the move.
- Environmental Concerns. Borders are said to negatively affect ecosystems. For the most part, this is not about Trump’s border wall which allegedly interfered with the migratory patterns of animals. Rather, environmentalists claim the impact on the planet would be lessened if people could go wherever they wished. That seems to contradict environmental concerns about consumerism and the fossil-fuel consumption associated with travel. Didn’t we help the planet “heal” while we were locked in our homes for two years because of COVID? Just because John Kerry needs to fly around the globe in his private jet to stop climate change, we can’t ignore the carbon emissions generated when “impoverished” people take commercial aviation from faraway places like Nigeria and Yemen in order to wade across the Rio Grande into the arms of the US Border Patrol.
- Reparations. Permissive immigration policies are a form of reparations. This assumes that the US is somehow obligated to people all over the world because of whatever injustice they have historically faced. It’s not enough to settle the score with the descendants of African slaves who were brought to America; we supposedly owe a debt to the descendants of slaves and oppressed people everywhere.
- Everybody Wins!!! Yes, there are economists who say with a straight face that the cheap (below market rate) labor of people from other countries benefits working-class people already here. If you follow this reasoning, migrants become consumers of goods and services which create many new jobs and a bigger pie for everyone. Tell that to the high school student who is replaced by someone who doesn’t require $16.00/hour to flip hamburgers. Tell that to the single mother trying to stay off of welfare but can’t get by on whatever employers are willing to pay her for her unskilled labor.
- Providing Sanctuary. Open borders are just another part of the Sanctuary Movement – the same movement that seeks to suspend any law Progressives don’t like. See also prison abolition, defund the police, etc.
I must acknowledge that proponents of open borders are right about one thing – the nation-state is a relatively modern concept. For most of history, before surveyors and satellite imaging, it was hard to know where one country ended and another began. Countless wars (like the Ukrainian conflict) have been fought over this issue. But that’s not to say borders never mattered. They mattered greatly to monarchs and other sovereigns who derived their wealth and power from the number of people within their claimed borders. Even modern nations, both democratic and autocratic ones, see value in their citizenry – if only as a source of tax revenue.
Open Borders vs. Welfare State.
In general, nations have been more tolerant of unrestricted immigration when they were early in their development towards a modern, industrialized society. Even the US before 1914, when it was starved for workers, encouraged immigration with offers of free land and relatively unrestricted entry. But in every case, those permissive policies only existed when the host country didn’t offer a social safety net for those unable to care for themselves.
As Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman once said:
“You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state… As long as you have a welfare state, I do not believe you can have unilateral open immigration.”
The Twentieth Century fundamentally changed the quid pro quo of immigration. The Great Depression and the advent of FDR’s New Deal opened the spigots of governmental largesse. Consequently, succeeding generations of native, naturalized and prospective Americans have come to expect – if not demand – certain economic and social protections that never existed before the tightening of US immigration laws.
This following statement by The Nation writer John Washington illustrates what open borders advocates really want:
“To be a true freedom, the freedom to move across borders, therefore, must be accompanied by the ability to access all the rights that native-born residents enjoy: The right to pay into and social programs and ultimately benefit from them. The right to be protected by labor laws, to access minimum wages, overtime protections, and more. The right to unionize and to collectively bargain without fear of reprisal. The right to live free from fear of being hounded by police or immigration officers. The right, perhaps after a period of residency, to vote in your new home and have say in its future. There’s no reason for these rights to be tied to citizenship.”
Why Most Nations Close Their Borders.
Herein lies the crux of the problem. All but the most ardent nativists agree that regulated immigration is generally good for society. Bringing the talents and ambitions of new diverse people can be a catalyst for both economic growth and positive change. However, if today’s immigration comes with a price largely borne by the citizens of the host country, then there first needs to be an open and honest discussion of how that price will be paid.
To understand the dynamics of Twenty-First Century immigration, we must consider why previously open countries began closing their borders in the first place. [vii] In most instances, these countries encountered difficulty meeting the needs and expectations of their existing populations. Underwriting the assimilation of foreigners was more than they thought they could handle politically much less economically.
However, what if the would-be immigrants brought some immediate benefit to the host country and its citizens? After all, a number of smaller countries already allow foreigners to buy citizenship and a passport for a hefty fee.[viii] Even larger countries offer “golden visas” that, while not full citizenship, provide the right to reside in those nations for an indefinite period of time.[ix] Arguably, if a country quickly gets something of value in return for allowing an immigrant to enter, its existing citizens may be more receptive to a lax immigration policy.
A Modest Proposal.
Realizing that the vast majority of asylum-seeking migrants could never pay hundreds of thousands much less millions of dollars, why can’t the US instead establish a carefully regulated program for these people to provide uncompensated[x] services to our nation for a minimum number of years – such as the military or public service required by other countries? Surely, with countless unfilled jobs in the US right now and a stagnant if not declining birth rate, some economic guru should be able to make the numbers work.
Of course, Progressives will say this amounts to involuntary servitude. But, it doesn’t really. Nobody needs to come here if they don’t like the proposed terms of entry. For the vast numbers of migrants who don’t have legitimate asylum claims (particularly military age, single men) nor fit into any other permitted immigration category, why shouldn’t we make a deal with them?
Rather than secretly distributing them in the dead of night to various corners of the US, expecting them to fend for themselves as part of an undocumented underclass, why not give these migrants a legitimate status akin to what guest workers have in other countries? Providing provisional jobs will (i) increase the likelihood they stay out of trouble, (ii) allow us to keep track of them, and (iii) allow them to contribute to American society rather than become dependent upon our public welfare system. After a minimum term of years, if they satisfactorily fulfil certain obligations, they would be allowed to apply for permanent residency or return to their homelands, hopefully with some skills they didn’t previously possess.
Practically speaking, what could these migrants do? Because the days of building railroads and mining coal are mostly over, we’re probably looking at other services people can be quickly trained to do. Priority would be given to those positions that are difficult to fill no matter what wages are paid. For example, there’s a chronic shortage of nurses’ aides in hospitals and senior living facilities throughout the country. As the US population ages, all kinds of in-home opportunities will also become available. Additionally, the famed “shovel-ready” jobs created by last year’s Infrastructure Bill also come to mind. Even the U.S Postal Service also could use some help delivering the mail on time.
As younger Americans increasingly reject the notion of doing work they consider “beneath them”, especially when they are in debt for their nearly worthless college degrees, many entry-level positions (especially the ones that can’t be automated) provide a way to absorb immigrants who want to earn a piece of the American Dream.
The Next 100 million Americans.
As the grandson of uneducated Italian immigrants who arrived in America with little more than their will to work, I’ve struggled trying to find a solution to our nation’s immigration conundrum. More than ten years ago, I read a book by demographer Joel Kotkin, The Next Hundred Million[xi]. In it, Kotkin convincingly argues that, only by growing to 400 million people by 2050 will America ensure its long-term economic strength. His contention now seems prescient in light the geo-political and economic challenges presented by Communist China.
I still don’t approve of open borders. I’d rather finish building the wall on the southern border, give the border patrol and immigration officials all the resources they need to enforce the laws we have, and fix things like DACA. But if we must accept some version of open borders, then we should at least use what draws people to America to make our nation stronger and even more exceptional than it is.
[i] According to the UN, the estimated number of international migrants worldwide was 281 million in 2020, up from 173 million in 2000. www.worldimmigrationreport.iom.int That number has likely grown recently due to COVID and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
[ii] Neili Esipova, “More Than 750 Million Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could”, Gallup News, December 10, 2018. This represents about 15% of the world’s adults. Presumably, an equal number of dependent children would follow with them.
[iii] Andrew Soergel, “Confusing Customs”, U.S. News, July 10, 2017.
[iv] During the Biden Administration’s time in office, the US reported 2,276,871 immigrant arrests, 63% of which were turned into Title 42 expulsions. These numbers do not include the tens of thousands of “got-aways” – migrants who were able to cross the border without being intercepted.
[v] Camilo Montoya-Galvez, “What is Title 42, the COVID-19 border policy Democrats want Biden to end?”, CBS News, March 18, 2022.
[vi] Alex Nowrasteh, “The 14 Most Common Arguments Against Immigration and Why They’re Wrong”, Cato Institute, May 2, 2018; John Washington, “What Would an Open-Borders World Actually Look Like?”, The Nation, April 24, 2019; Zoey Poll, “The Case for Open Borders”, The New Yorker, February 20, 2020. In contrast, consider Victor David Hanson’s new book, The Dying Citizen (Basic Books, 2021), particularly the chapter on globalism.
[vii] Bryan Caplan, “How Open Borders Died in Five Countries”, Econlog Post, October 10, 2018.
[viii] Antigua, St. Kitts, St. Lucia, Grenada, Dominica, Cyprus and Malta (usually in amounts exceeding $100,000).
[ix] Spain, Canada, Portugal, Greece, New Zealand, the U.K., and others. See Laura Bagley Bloom, “Want to Escape from America? 12 Countries Where You Can Buy Citizenship(And a Second Passport)”, Forbes, July 28, 2020.
[x] E.g., An unpaid internship that covers basic living expenses.
[xi] Penguin Books (2010).
Be First to Comment