I do realize given the status quo, my strongly pro-immigration views are highly unpopular. And I don't view this essay as a vehicle of being a strident blast against the wind. Even a significant number of libertarians belong to the Rothbard/Kinsella/Hoppe wing of libertarians justifying immigration restrictions. In fact, Rothbard had a more orthodox pro-liberty perspective during his earlier years, consistent with the principles of free trade, against the corrupt protectionist special interests abusing general government authority. [Some libertarians also oppose open borders as exacerbating the unsustainable welfare state or trespassing/private property concerns.] For example, in my short 5-year career as a university professor, I worked in 3 different states (WI, TX, IL) and I went on campus visits (sponsored on-campus visits/interviews) in a mumber of others (AL, OH, UT, CA, LA, NY, and RI). I didn't need a visa or passport to migrate between states. The same thing hols true of my post-academic career in IT: I've also lived and,or worked in FL, MD, CA, SC, MO, VA, DC and AZ and seriously pursued jobs in NC, PA, DE, NH. and KS, not to mention busibess travel to OK, UT, MI, MN, NY, and GA. Going from interstate freedom of movement to international is a natural progression in principle.
I've been particularly critical of the Milton Friedman welfare system lure argument. We had strong free immigration throughout the largely uncapped nineteenth century, a key factor that made us the world's largest economy. There was no general government welfare system. The federal government had a small budget largely funded by tariffs. My Franco-American ancestors were part of the Quebec diaspora, largely motivated by a growing population outstripping province resources (e.g., available farm land). They were religious with a strong blue-collar work ethic, not unlike the recent-generation Latinos I befriended in high school and college. My maternal grandmother was proud of her weaving skills working the tough life in Fall River's textile mills. My maternal grandfather ran a mom 'n pop grocery store, somehow surviving the Depression with scores of customers never fully paying off their accounts; he talked to me about opening up his store at night for customers needing say a quart of milk or loaf of bread. My dad spent his teen summers working on a relative's farm. My relatives had a lot of pride and would never go on the government dole--and I think that's the same for millions of new immigrants and their descendants.. (Both sets of grandparents were American by birth.)
But arguing that migrants are risking their lives and savings for a bleak life afforded on government subsistence programs, which many of us consider a permanent underclass og general government dependency? Actually, blog source Peter St Onge, not exactly pro-immigrant, has pointed to employment gains which he largely attributes to migrants, presumably provided with a work permit. Why would they choose to work?
Under PRWORA, unauthorized noncitizens are not qualified aliens (see the Appendix) and thus are not eligible for most federal benefits. PRWORA defines federal public benefits as (A) any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license provided by anagency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States; and (B) any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States.12
The federal public benefits that meet this definition includes programs such as non-emergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),13 Supplemental Security Income (SSI),14 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),15 and most housing assistance programs, 16 among many others. Unauthorized noncitizens are also ineligible for Federal Pell Grants for student financial aid as well as Affordable Care Act (ACA) health care subsidies, and they may not purchase unsubsidized health care on ACA exchanges. Additionally, PRWORA prevents unauthorized noncitizens from receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) by requiring that the Social Security numbers of recipients (and spouses) be valid for employment in the United States.17
Even for "legal immigrants", there is a waiting period of roughly 5 years until eligibility for federal individual/family benefit programs. There are a variety of nuances/exceptions, including asylum status, minor vs. adult, certain emigrate nations (e.g., Cuba), and some states do allow unauthorized aliens to be eligible for certain programs, like SNAP/"food stamps" But generally speaking, immigrants of any kind are ineligible for government assistance in the short term, which generally busts the anti-immigrant Friedman myth of a morally corrupt government-benefits lure to migrants.
So what kind of work do unauthorized aliens do? Not surprisingly, the vast majority work at lower-earning blue collar vs. professional/managerial/higher-earning jobs, e;g., childcare, maid, landscaping, cook, construction, etc.
I have been pro-immigration my whole life. I think it is based on my Franco-American heritage. I was born to bilingual parents and grandparents on both sides. French, in fact, was my preferred language when I started kindergarten.I would say I embraced our ethnic heritage probably more than my own folks. My mom, for instance, recalls primary schoolmates mocking her then accented English, and when my school warned about my French, the folks stopped speaking French around me and my younger siblings. I still celebrated our Catholic roots and some cultural cuisine, particularly cretons, a seasoned ground pork spread, still my favorite sandwich, and meat pies (also pork-based). To a certain extent, I was very empathetic with my Latino classmates in high school and college. In fact, I have lived in or near border town communities in Laredo, El Paso, and Yuma. OLL, my undergraduate alma mater, was located in a southwest barrio community. My closest friend at OLL was Latino, and I have dated Latinas. I have worked or studied with immigrants or foreign students, including China, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, including one of my best friends who in 1999 was still working on his green card. I had seen him exploited by his sponsor, even at one point forced to take a pay cut (in the high cost Bay Area), and he spent an ungodly amount of money on lawyers and paperwork. I knew he had spent years waiting for his opportunity to work in America, with tiny quotas of available work visas, often exhausted within hours or days. To anyone like me quotas of products or workers are gross violations of open markets..I don't attribute my pro-immigration views to any academic or researcher, but my views have been influenced by Nowrasteh and other Cato Institute scholars, particularly on statistics showing unauthorized aliens are more lawabiding than native Americans, and Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek has underscored that immigration restrictions, eg., "merit-based immigration", are unjustifiable on grounds of principle and economics.
I'm not going to get into a debate over the Friedman welfare net lure hypothesis but not one immigrant I've ever met ever mentioned a government benefit; I think it's presumptuous to believe that today's immigrants are motivated by any lesser motivations than the first century-plus of open immigration than a variation of an opportunity of a better life and freedom for themselves and their children. Many sacrificed their home, culture and way of life, their savings to a new country, culture, language with uncertainty, sometimes having to start over in a new job/career, possibly dealing with unwelcoming natives. For example, my Franco ancesters were targeted by the KKK as immigrants and Catholic; the Gray Lady regarded French Canadian emigrants as culturally isolated, unwilling to assimilate into (then Protestant-dominated) public schools, and uncontrollably breeding. Relocating is intrinsically difficult. I remember falling in love with a Brazilian lady, but she was not interested in leaving her home country: it meant leaving her support sustem, her extended family and beloved country behind. She wasn't the only one; my project manager claimed he could negotiate me a 6-figure salary to join our Brazilian client. That was double what I was making at the time and that kind of money would go a long way in Brazil. But I wasn't interested, even for love and money. Similarly, my Indian colleague had waited for years "in line" to get his American opportunity. Not only that, but on the side he was marketing his jointly developed web expenses application, plus he owned a house in San Jose at a time houses were going for $450K+ over 20 years ago.
I don't want to repeat Trump's unconscionable attacks on immigration But let's reprise GOP history on the issue. I don't mean to suggest US policy was unblemished prior to the quota bills passed under Coolidge nearly a century ago. There were formal or negotiated restrictions from Chiba or Japan for racial or labor protectionist reasons. Lincoln was committed to more open immigration but the GOP transitioned to a labor protectionist restrictions through Hoover:
When Lincoln won the presidency in 1860, this new civil rights party stated that the GOP was “in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.” During the darkest days of the Civil War, the Republican Party was ardently in favor of a free‐market immigration policy. The party platform of 1864 read, “[F]oreign immigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development of resources and increase of power to the nation, the asylum of the oppressed of all nations, should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy.”...After World War II the GOP returned to its pro‐legal immigration, anti‐illegal immigration stance–a position it has generally held throughout the past 50 years. The Eisenhower administration, with opposition from congressional Democrats, supported the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 that allowed the admission of those fleeing the aftermath of WWII. The 1950s saw more immigrants arrive in the United States than had the 1930s and 1940s combined. “The Republican party,” stated the 1956 platform, “supports an immigration policy which is in keeping with the traditions of America as a haven for oppressed peoples.”
As I have repeatedly mentioned elsewhere, Trump after Romney's 2012 loss to Obama attributed it to Romney's "cruel" self-deportation policy.:
Nov. 27, 2012-- Billionaire Donald Trump is the latest in a string of Republicans to criticize the party for failing to recognize the increasing diversity of the country."Republicans didn't have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians," Trump told Newsmax.He told the site that Republicans appeared hostile toward minorities this election cycle."The Democrats didn't have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren't mean-spirited about it," he said. "They didn't know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind."Trump also told the site that Romney's suggestion that people "self-deport" gave Hispanics the impression that Republicans do not care about them."He had a crazy policy of self-deportation, which was maniacal," Trump said. "It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote. He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country."
If you fast-forward to Trump's campaign announcemeny, you read
Mexico is not our friend. They are beating us at the border and hurting us badly at economic development. They are sending people that they don’t want—the United States is becoming a dumping ground for the world.
Related comments: "[Mexico] are sending people that have lots of problems, and they are bringing those problems to us. They are bringing drugs, and bringing crime, and their rapists,” the business mogul said.
Trump's lies and slanderous rhetoric, including insane, unsupported claims that Mexico was emptying its prisons across the border is infinitely more toxic than what Trump accused Romney of doing in 2012. The GOP had sought solutions in the form of temporary work permits, not unlike the Bracero program which Dems and their union constituency killed off in the 60's. In fact, Obama and other Dems killed off Bush's initiative by killing key cocessions on temp workers. But be clear: the 2007 bill also got lukewarm support from legislative Republicans who weren't thrilled with "amnesty" provisions:
[T]he 2007 bill died amid a confluence of hard-right opposition to legalization, union opposition to new guest worker programs, and the decision of the new Congressional Democratic majority not to prioritize the issue, despite support from a Republican president and many of his allies in Congress.
Now flash forward to 2015-6 and the enigma of Trump's unlikely candidacy which still largely escapes me. I do understand Trump's celebrity status and universal name recognition were a huge competitive advantage. I can understand how his outsider status could appeal in a change election year, and his lack of a public policy record left him without a mixed record to defend. But I never thought that middle-class Republicans would buy rhat an unprincipled narcissistic corrupt self-serving plutocrat identified with their political best interests, he bragged about his ectramarital affairs in one of his books and is 3 times married in a family values party where arguably where Nelson Rockefeller's divorce and next marriage may have cost him the 1964 nomination, that someone who had spent most of the prior decade as a registered Dem and changed parties a handful of times at best a New England moderate/liberal Republican, normally referred to as RINO by conservatives (historian Brion McClanahan calls him a NY New Deal Dem). I think Trump used his quixotic embrace of birtherism (i.e..evidebce of Obama's US birth) and on unauthorized immigration to appeal to the right wing of the party.
I still have a cynical view of Trump's hypocritical (re: Romney loss analysis) pursuit against unauthorized immigration because in fact there is strong evidence there was a net DROP in the number of unauthorized alien residents since 2007 during the Great Recession and Obama's reputation of Deporter-in-Chief. It would be one thing if Obama's Presidency had led to huge growth in the aggregate number of unauthorized migration, but even his policies were inconsistent: he was arguimg labor protectionism and wanting to renegotiate NAFTA which he felt favored Mexican businesses and workers, especially in the auto industry. Never mind if work opportunities lured unauthorized aliens, a thriving Mexican economy meant less incentive to cross the border.
The rhetoric was grotesque, false, racist and immoral. The promise that Mexico would pay for Trump's overhyped wall was laughably absurd. He would then assert that tariffs would be paid by Mexican companies, ignoring the fact that tariffs are really paid by US consumers. Not to mention his unconscionable family separation policy which he falsely insisted was also a policy of the Obama Administration. But even as Trump unconstitutionally tried to shift funding from DoD for his border wall. Not to mention for all the hype Trump only built about 52 miles of new wall, most of the other 450 or so wall built or replaced existing barriers.
More on Trump's real record on immigration: Trump was far more successful at reducing LEGAL vs unauthorized immigration:
By the end of 2020, the Trump administration had reduced by more than 80 percent the number of green cards issued and drastically cut refugee arrivals by 92 percent. Some of that can be attributed to the pandemic, but the numbers of green cards and refugees started to decrease the moment Trump came into office. Additionally, he reduced the whole of the legal immigration system by half by July 2020... Starting in January 2017, our already failing immigration system faced an assault unlike any in American history … For the first time since the Refugee Act of 1980, an administration unilaterally nullified asylum law to send people back to persecution and torture.” :
{Reread the above record on asylum the GOP supported after WWII, The lawless Trump regime essentially scapegoated refugees from persecution.]
Did Trump's Draconian cuts in "good faith" immigration have consequences? Yup; bad ones:
Reducing legal immigration most harms refugees, employers and Americans who want to live with their spouses, parents or children, but it also affects the country’s future labor force and economic growth. “Average annual labor force growth, a key component of the nation’s economic growth, will be approximately 59% lower as a result of the administration’s immigration policies, if the policies continue,” according to an analysis from the National Foundation for American Policy. “Economic growth is crucial to improving the standard of living, which means lower levels of legal immigration carry significant consequences for Americans.”
In 2020, the removal of illegal immigrants from the interior of the United States was the lowest as an absolute number and as a share of the illegal immigration population since ICE was created in 2003 (Figure 3). Trump failed to increase removals because local jurisdictions refused to cooperate with his administration, continuing a trend begun during the Obama administration in response to their deportation efforts. As a result, the population of illegal immigrants remained about the same as when he took office
And, while we're at it, about Trumpist propaganda on Biden "catch and release"
During the Trump administration, DHS made 1.4 million arrests—what it calls “encounters”—in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 (24 months). Of those people arrested, only 47 percent were removed as of December 31, 2021, which includes people arrested by Trump and removed by Biden, and 52 percent were released into the United States.Under Biden, DHS made over 5 million arrests in its first 26.3 months, and it removed nearly 2.6 million—51 percent—while releasing only 49 percent. In other words, the Trump DHS removed a minority of those arrested while the Biden DHS removed a majority. Biden managed to increase the removal share while also increasing the total removals by a factor of 3.5.
This is not to say Biden has handled the transition well, particularly after long-expected COVID-19 migration restrictions Title 42 expired.in May 2023. In part, Biden was caught flat-footed with the asylum surge. I think Biden did a poor job setting expectations. Waiting mere months before a general election to announce a legally/constitutionally dubious executive action on asylum reeks of political desperation. Granted, Trump's sabotage of the most GOP-friendly immigration compromise in years is morally indefensible, worried that Biden was co-opting his signature political issue and high-ranking campaign issue. There are times you have to put the country first over your personal ambition. Trump clearly failed this test of leadership. The fact remains Trump, short of an unlikely landslide victory, will likely do no better with the Dems stonewalling his policy preferences or make any progress with hostile sanctuary cities..
