Biden's Plan: Good enough for now, but immigration reform is critical for all parties and countries
On the Need for More Rational Border Control Policies by ALL Parties and Countries
inspired by my agreement with a Newsletter by David Leonhardt (NYT, 2024.06.12)
Shared Gift Link Here may be temporary
Across the board and in most developed countries around the world immigration is without a doubt the centerpiece of election concerns and the genesis of rightwing populist movements. Here in the U.S., I have worried for years, and been very forthright about saying that Dems are blowing it by resisting tighter controls at our borders. I still think that is the case, and I applaud Biden for belatedly injecting some rules into the game.
Two things I should make clear while expressing my belief that border controls are essential. First, is that I fully understand that on balance immigration is good for the US in a number of ways. And that, yes, the numbers of immigrants could be sustainable from an economic viewpoint … and IF THE process were rationalized in terms of visa/entry policies, that it's sustainable at an administrative/bureaucratic level as well.
But my concern is not about rational economic and administrative arguments. It is, rather, about the cultural and electoral blowback from the majority of citizens. And I get that. It's undeniably socially disconcerting and destabilizing to see the kind of international immigration that has happened in the last 15 to 25 years. And it's unrealistic, if not unreasonable, to expect citizens to allow unchecked flows of economic refugees and/or ethnic groups to enter the country. I agree with David Leonhardt in his newsletter today that all countries, all electorates, will sooner or later challenge the cultural and social adjustments necessary to a society-changing influx. And I also understand that he is exactly right that the parties eager to address out-of-control immigration are the illiberal ones given to extremism and authoritari anism. All of which speaks to a grave pragmatic need to control the influx of immigrants.
The Second point is that based on my observations and experience of studying, working, living, and doing research in Guatemala for the last 34 years, I want to discourage emigration for Guatemala's own well-being. There’s no question in my mind that it’s more socially and economically destabilizing to Guatemala for such a huge number of young workers to leave their country than it is for the US to have them arrive here. And most arguments by activist Liberals in the US against border control just don't mesh with my experience. Which is to say that of the many people I know who have come to the US, very few of them would undertake the hazardous and tremendously expensive journey if they comprehended from the outset that there was a high chance of deportation. Perhaps more to the point from the perspective of “asylum,” very few, if any of those I have known, leave Guatemala to escape “physical danger.” They come, rather, to escape grinding poverty and despair that results from a lack of opportunity in Guatemala.
My sympathies and my hopes are with these folks, with whom I have lived and/or worked with for the last several decades. My heart breaks for them. But given the realities in both countries, I cannot justify open borders as an acceptable policy to ameliorate the economic suffering in Guatemala and similar countries. I could and would wholeheartedly support work-visa reform that would allow a higher number of them into the U.S. while also allowing them to return home to their families after some period of time with cash in their pocket. But destabilization of both countries … and the internal conquest of the US by extreme rightwing GOP terrorists … is an unreasonable and unproductive price to pay for unlimited entry of immigrants into our country.