An Immigration Debate Worth Having

For anyone who has been paying attention, the role of immigration in the just concluded presidential election (it ranked behind only the economy as the reason cited by voters for their choice of candidate) could not have come as a surprise. Across the Western world, concerns about high levels of immigration and the perceived failure of the establishment to address nagging public disquiet about its ostensible effects on social integration and infrastructure have sown mistrust between the electorate and the political elite. The success of the nationwide referendum to withdraw the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU) in January 2020 (also known as Brexit) was due in large part to popular anxiety over immigration, particularly EU migration to the UK. So also the spike in the popularity of “hard-right” parties in places like Austria, Germany, France, Finland, Italy, and Hungary, where such parties have progressively claimed a larger share of the vote than pundits had thought possible.

The current stalemate in the United States sums up the misjudged reaction to this rising tide.

Take, for instance, the Democratic Party, whose immigration policy, at least for a large portion of the Biden presidency, has been to effectively open the southern border to all comers, causing a political and security crisis that it could have avoided had it left intact its predecessor’s 2018 Migrant Protection Protocols, or the “Remain in Mexico” policy. Since President Joe Biden and his advisors could not have failed to anticipate the likely aftermath of overturning "Remain in Mexico,” one is left to conclude that the president bowed to pressure from the ultra-progressive wing of the party which appears to favor open borders. At any rate, the move was unpopular among Americans who felt that the administration was giving preferential treatment to migrants who had crossed the border illegally over ordinary citizens. At the same time, it triggered resentment in immigrant communities where those who migrated legally and had run the bureaucratic gauntlet as the price of full citizenship understandably saw the Biden administration’s policy as essentially unfair.

By contrast, not only is the incoming Republican administration set to increase security at the border, it appears determined to end “two Biden administration programs that have allowed more than 1.3 million immigrants to enter the United States legally” as well as mobilize U.S. agencies to deport hundreds of thousands of others. If President-elect Donald Trump’s appointment of former acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Tom Homan as “border czar” is not enough indication of determination to combat illegal migration, the new appointee has revealed his plans to “crank up workplace raids” as part of the new administration’s “immigration crackdown” and in order to “address labor and sex trafficking.”

As things stand, therefore, the United States is wedged between two extremes: open borders on the one hand, and mass deportation on the other. Both extremes, suffice to say, miss where majority of Americans stand on the matter. While an increasing number of Americans across the political spectrum want to curb immigration to the country, according to a recent Gallup poll, a comfortable majority of Americans—64 percent—still say that “immigration is a good thing.” When it comes to deportation of illegal immigrants (the numbers change depending on how the question is framed), “more than half of Americans—including 42 percent of Democrats—said they would support mass deportations of illegal immigrants.”

While, based on the foregoing alone, public opinion would seem to be in favor of mass deportation of those living in the country illegally, it is a different matter whether such a move can survive the inevitable avalanche of legal challenges from pro-immigrant groups, never mind the logistical feasibility of deporting close to eleven million people, many of whom currently reside in self-identified “sanctuary states.” In the event of mass deportations and family separation, those who currently support mass deportation as a matter of principle can be counted upon to change their minds. Besides, economists have warned that mass deportations would most likely “degrade productive capacity, balloon deficits” and “bring inflation roaring back” because potential deportees dominate the workforce in agriculture, food processing, and meatpacking. Can the incoming administration really persevere with the push for deportation in the face of ebbing public support and rising inflation?

If neither open borders nor mass deportations addresses the nub of the issue, how should the United States go about putting together an immigration policy that is simultaneously sensitive to the country’s overarching economic and strategic interests, and the reality of contemporary immigration?

In the first place, there is a need to acknowledge the apparent policy consensus on the centrality of immigration for U.S. competitiveness. David J. Bier, the director of immigration studies at the right-leaning Cato Institute, has argued persuasively for seeing immigrants as “collaborators” rather than “competitors,” and that “a freer, more orderly, and more lawful immigration system benefits Americans.” The takeaway from this is that the United States should, as a matter of pragmatism, if not principle, seek to balance secure borders with generous immigration. By (1) refraining from dismissing public anxiety over the threat that unrestrained immigration is believed to pose to social integration, and (2) countering such with reasoned and evidence-backed arguments, the incoming administration can open a new chapter in American immigration discourse.

While the United States needs immigrants to remain globally competitive, and while it is well within its sovereign rights to insist on orderly and lawful immigration, there is no denying that the country remains a magnet for potential immigrants from various parts of the world, most of them attracted by the promise of economic opportunity and the country’s famed political and social freedoms. Recognizing American exceptionalism as arguably the only place in the world where such freedoms and assurances are baked into its founding charter, U.S. policymakers are faced with the daunting challenge of balancing realism about the volume of immigration with the country’s founding commitment to the “tired,” “poor,” and “huddled masses.”

Up until now, those who, perhaps rightly, insist on U.S. faithfulness to this sacred self-imposed mission have insisted that the country has a duty to accept asylum seekers, numbers be damned. Their opponents counter that citizens are right to wonder why attention should be paid to asylum seekers when ordinary Americans are struggling, and that at any rate the asylum system is prone to abuse. Either way, an overhaul of the asylum system is long overdue.

In the long run, realistically, the United States cannot avoid getting involved in immigrant-sending countries by throwing its weight behind local initiatives aimed at elite political accountability, economic opportunity for young people, and civil rights for all. Ultimately, the best immigration policy is one that helps developing countries hold on to their best.