The topic of immigration, and specifically illegal immigration, is one that has become more and more prevalent over the past few years in American news. This is partly due to President Trump’s 2016 campaign promises to fund a border wall, increase deportations, and limit legal immigration. There are two interesting sources I have found that try to address the question of how the United States should respond to illegal immigration and undocumented immigrants’ presences that I would like to discuss.
In the Californian’s Paul Karrer’s op-ed, “Illegal immigration by armies of the poor is not desirable,” Paul Karrer writes about whether immigration into the United States is beneficial for American citizens. Karrer specifies that he is writing solely about illegal immigration from border crossers from the south, and claims, “Illegal border crossers tend to be desperately poor and under-educated.” He uses this claim to justify why he is, and Americans should be, “against those who cross illegally from the south.”
The author continues by bringing up a survey regarding Americans’ financial statuses. “A recent survey of 4,000 citizens asked how many could deal with a surprise $500 financial hit. The result was frightening- 40% claimed they could not.” He uses this survey result to argue that if 40% of Americans are suffering financially, then how can poor immigrants expect not to? He continues by stating that one in four Latinos in the United States are on some form of public assistance, not mentioning that one in five of all Americans are as well. I disagree with the usage of this survey as an attack on undocumented immigrants instead of as an attack against wealth inequality in the United States. I also believe that the decision should be made by the individual migrants rather than them being told whether they “should” immigrant to the US because of their financial status by someone else.
The author continues by saying “all studies have shown that illegal border crossers have driven down the wages in agriculture, service industry, and construction,” and that “the living costs of those desperate workers is not paid for by their employers. It is subsidized by the taxpayer.” The author here is spelling out that businesses are taking advantage of migrant workers by paying them less and using that to say that instead of making sure that these workers aren’t exploited, we should keep them out of the country in the first place. This is counterintuitive, because the exploitation of these workers is a barrier that will keep them in poverty, which the author claims was the issue with them immigrating into the country in the first place.
An interesting point that the author brings up is that there is an “insatiable” number of migrants entering the country, referencing an estimated 1,400,000 apprehended border crossers in a year. This is an interesting point to bring up, because it doesn’t take into consideration the fact that the “baby boomer” generation is soon going to start retiring and is going to not only leave a large absence of workers, but also add more retirees that other Americans will have to support. This leads me to disagree with the notion that there is an “insatiable” number of migrants trying to enter the country.
I believe this article brings up several valid arguments, but ultimately, I disagree with its core argument, that illegal immigration by armies of the poor is not desirable. I am reminded of a term coined by a German science YouTube channel called egoistic altruism, an oxymoron describing the desire to make the world a better place for others, such that they may be able to make your life better. By claiming that the United States should be specifically against allowing poor border crossers into the country, the author rejects this notion in favor of the idea of looking out for your own, and not the “other.” The author additionally does not acknowledge that these immigrants may be leaving their countries in order to escape the poverty that he specifically cites. By staking this position, the author is placing himself in opposition to the Statue of Liberty’s declaration of “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...” This is a position I cannot agree with and will fight to refute to defend the hardworking immigrants searching for a better livelihood for their families.
A contrasting source is that of writers Jeffrey Miron and Laura Nicolae, in their opinion piece “Trump is doing all the wrong things on immigration.” They cite that the Trump administration has pushed for many proposals aiming to decrease illegal immigration, including border wall funding and increased deportations. They use this fact, though, to argue that Trump's measures do not reduce the incentives for people to migrate illegally, and that there are things we can do that would do so while also helping the United States.
The authors’ first example of this is free trade. The Trump administration has threatened to reinstate increased tariffs on Mexico if they fail to “cooperate on reducing cross-border migration.” This is a detrimental act to both Mexico and the United States’ economies, and would not help reduce illegal immigration, seeing as financial hardships are some of the reasons immigrants leave their country to go elsewhere. They specifically state, “Freer trade with Mexico, China, Cuba or South America would improve living standards in those regions and decrease incentives for illegal immigration in the long run, while improving US economic growth.” This is a great point to bring up because economic concerns are high in the US, and this is a beneficial solution economically as well as helping possible migrants in other countries.
The article’s second example of this is America’s war on drugs. Another big reason that migrants flee their countries in Latin America is because of drug-related violence and gang violence. The authors estimate that ending drug prohibition would not only save the United States around 50 billion dollars and raise 50 billion dollars in tax revenue yearly, but that risks of drug use and related violence would decrease. They specifically cite El Salvador, the second largest source of illegal immigration into the United States, which has one of the highest murder rates in the world in part due to gangs fleeing from the US into El Salvador from because of the war on drugs. I strongly agree with this point, because I believe the war on drugs in the US has had nearly countless repercussions that we should aim to solve.
The strongest argument made by the article is the case for expanding legal immigration into the United States. The United States is after all a nation of immigrants, and the article brings up that research shows that increased immigration leads to increases in both GDP and employment. Specifically, they add that “immigrants produce more patentable innovations than native-born Americans and start new businesses at twice the rate of native-born Americans.” The authors mention specific actions that can be taken to expand legal immigration, such as increasing visa caps, extending guest worker stays, and increase the number of migrant workers exempt from the annual cap. I agree with this idea wholeheartedly, especially as an immigrant myself, because the best way to reduce illegal immigration is by making legal immigration easier and more accessible to potential immigrants coming into the country.
I think the article strikes an interesting middle ground between the two usual arguments. It does not argue whether or not illegal immigration is a good or a bad thing, nor does it reference removing undocumented immigrants or giving them a pathway to citizenship. Instead, it seeks to benefit both the United States and other Southern American countries in a way that will reduce illegal immigration into the US. I agree strongly with this viewpoint and method of solving the issue, because it is mutually beneficial and avoids most of the arguments made when discussing this subject.
Mateus Aurelio