Immigration Reform

Why Immigration Reform is Needed
Immigration reform has almost always been a thorny issue in America. Though it is popularly believed that America was born of a nation of immigrants, the reality is that the original 13 colonies largely consisted of individuals from one specific part of Europe—England—and from the time of the War for Independence onward it was a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASPs) ethic that served as the fulcrum for American power and politics. It was this fulcrum that established the concept of “Manifest Destiny”—i.e., the idea that it was America’s (that is, the WASP’s) destiny in life to expand and take over the land as far as it could see (O’Sullivan). “Manifest Destiny” was used to justify taking land from Mexico and it was implicitly used to justify American expansionism overseas. In other words, WASPs wanted to expand their control and exert their influence and power. The arrival of immigrants from other parts of the world was never really something that sat comfortable with them. That is why they passed immigration and naturalization laws restricting the rights of Asians, Jews, and Catholics in the 19th century. The Exclusion Act restrict the rights of Chinese immigrants (Hafetz), the Irish were viewed as a political (and social) threat (McCaffrey), and Mexicans were almost always treated poorly—particularly via the Bracero Program (Calavita). Thus, in this context, talk today of immigration reform has to be understood as a long process of push and pull in which ethnic groups have fought back against the WASP establishment and attempted to ensure that immigrants be allowed to continue to come to the U.S. This paper will discuss the issue of immigration reform and show what the problem is and how to solve it.
The current issue with immigration today is that President Trump wants to build a border wall to stop illegal immigration. Many radical Democrats want more of an open borders policy where immigrants can come into the country, receive services (like free health care) and even vote, without ever having to go through a naturalization process or become citizens. And while the plaque on the Statue of Liberty reads: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”—the reality is that America has always placed a limit on the number of immigrants who are permitted in at any one time. When it was in U.S. corporate interests (i.e., WASP interests), immigrants were welcomed: this was the case when the Chinese were used to build the railroads in the 19th century (Hafetz) and when Mexican laborers were needed in the West during WWII and so were encouraged to emigrate under the Bracero Program (Calavita). Yet, when the U.S. no longer had any need of their services, it restricted the flow of immigration and placed limits on their rights as citizens. The same can be said of today with immigrants from Asia who come over to work in the IT sector.
One particular issue has been the DACA program, also known as the Dreamers program, in which children of immigrants are allowed to become citizens in the U.S. if their parents are here. Trump threatened to end this program because he felt it was too liberal on the issue of immigration. Simply finding a meeting place between Republican and Democratic views has been the hardest part of the whole issue of immigration: the two sides find it very difficult to work together. Democrats want immigrants because they view this is as their voting based. Republicans want to restrict immigration because they have arguments about fiscal conservatism and so forth. They also do not want Democrats becoming stronger politically on the backs of immigrants, whether legal or illegal.
One of the big causes of this problem, aside from the WASP issue that is still in existence in government, is the political squabbling that occurs over all issues today. One could easily make the case that illegal immigration poses a security threat because of the drugs and violence that are often linked with illegal immigration. However, that does not mean all immigrants are bad or that there should not be a program or system in place that can make sure they are processed and allowed into the country in an orderly manner. In the past, attempts to solve the problem of immigration and immigration reform have failed because there is typically always an element of race and racism involved, particularly because of the WASP ethic that still dominates modern politics. On the other hand, those who oppose this ethic tend to embrace more of a radical approach to immigration, which puts off voters and constituents on both sides of the political aisle.
Attempts to solve the problem have thus far been unsuccessful because they have basically been, at best, compromises between an effective solution that is fair to all and on that will ensure safety and security for the country. Because the costs simply to care for immigrants are so high, it is clear that a solution needs to be quickly arrived at. As the Federation for American Immigration Reform (2013) points out, “illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level…The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117...Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion.” These costs are simply not sustainable, given the fact that the U.S. is once again at its debt ceiling needs to address its debt issue badly.
One possible solution, therefore, to fix the problem of immigration would be, indeed, to construct a border wall and drastically reduce the flow of illegal immigration into the U.S. This would help the country to address the crime, drug and cost issues associated with immigration while working on a way to admit immigrants fairly through a documented process that not only gives them and their families admission into the U.S. but also pairs them with a social worker to ensure that they are able to stand on their own and find success in this country.
The way to gauge whether this possible solution is successful is to monitor the flow of illegal immigration once the wall is completed and to also measure the cases of drug dealing and violence committed by illegal immigrants over that same time period. The costs spent on immigrants, too, should be measured. Taking these measurements over a ten year time period will show whether the border wall in conjunction with the social services pairing project was successful or not. If the measurements show no real or substantial change in terms of crime, drug dealing and cost, it would mean the wall and the social worker program was not a successful solution. If however it is seen that more immigrants are coming into the country legally than illegally, that crime and drug dealing has been reduced, and that immigrants are being better supported to stand on their own without relying heavily on government subsidies and taxpayers, it could be said that the intervention is a success.
In conclusion, the best way to address the problem of immigration reform may be to give the Trump Administration what it wants but also to make sure that immigrants who do come in are given social worker support to ensure a fair chance at making it. This would be the most humane and effective way to address the issue, considering both the WASP ethic still in play and the need to be fair to all. It is a solution that could be achieved and measured to see if it is successful over time.
Works Cited
Bartoletti, Susan C. 2001. Black Potatoes: The Story of the Great Irish Famine, 1845-1850. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Calavita, Kitty. Inside the State: The Bracero Program, Immigration, and the I. N. S. New York, NY: Routledge, 1992.
Federation for American Immigration Reform. “The costs of illegal immigration on United States taxpayers—2013 edition.” FAIR. https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-Immigration-2013
Hafetz, J. “Immigration and national security law: Converging approaches to state power, individual rights, and judicial review.” ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 18.3. (2012): 628.
O’Sullivan, J. L. “Manifest Destiny,” in Voices of Freedom: A Documentary History, 4th edition, ed. Eric Foner. New York: W.W. Norton, 2014.
McCaffrey, Lawrence John. The Irish Catholic Diaspora in America. CUA Press, 1997.