Cedars, January 2019

January 2019 10 ANALYSIS The United States Immigration Crisis Powerful for politicians and resistant to reform by Breanna Beers T he United States has often been called a nation of immigrants. The most recent wave of immigration, however, is different from many that came before it, both in quantity and in kind. According to Cedarville’s political sci- ence professor Dr. Mark Caleb Smith, con- cerns about immigration have heightened as the number of refugees worldwide sky- rocketed to 25.4 million, according to the United Nations High Commission for Ref- ugees (UNHCR). “We’re looking at tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, sometimes mil- lions of people immigrating into a country,” Smith said. “There’s a fair bit of difficulty that comes with incorporating large pockets of people like that.” The number of new immigrants enter- ing each year has actually fallen since its peak in 2005, according to Pew Research Center. Even so, more than half of U.S. pop- ulation growth over the past 70 years has been because of immigrants, their children, and their grandchildren. The landscape of immigration to the U.S. has shifted in recent years. Historically, immigration to the United States was dom- inated by very distant countries such as Ire- land, Italy or Japan. Today, however, over half the immigrants residing in the U.S. come from Mexico or other Latin American countries, according to the Pew Research Center. “That alters their incentives to assimi- late,” Smith said. “It provides them the abil- ity to go back and forth … to stay attached to that culture because they don’t feel attached to our culture.” According to Smith, providing a clear path to citizenship would alter these incen- tives by formally declaring the U.S. “home” and alleviating the responsibility many feel to often return to their country of origin. As things stand, however, the path to legally immigrate, let alone obtain citizenship, is a long and difficult one. Legal immigration can only be sought under three categories: request of an em- ployer, reunification of a family and protec- tion for refugees and asylum seekers. Many would-be immigrants simply don’t fit any of these three categories, and even if they do, they face per-country caps and long wait times often spanning over a decade even with a family connection, according to the American Immigration Council. Ac- cording to history and law professor Dr. Marc Clauson, the process to legally enter the U.S. is outdated and needlessly cum- bersome. “It’s bureaucracy,” Clauson said. “They develop more and more and more rules that tend to accumulate, and that makes it hard- er to get into the system. The key is to make the processing quick, easy and cheap. Basi- cally it should be a simple system that re- quires only a very strict screening of people to make sure they’re not criminals coming in. Otherwise I think we should feel free to let them in.” Clauson argued that immigration should essentially be open to anyone, re- moving per-country and occupation quo- tas, while retaining strict screening to block criminals and terrorists. Streamlining this system would incentivize legal immigration and enable more consistent enforcement of the border. However, while systematic reform could help prevent future problems, the U.S. still has to consider the estimated 10.7 million undocumented immigrants current- ly living within its borders, according to Pew Research Center. Illegal immigrants are decried as crim- inals fleeing prosecution, parasites of the welfare economy and thieves of American jobs. However, numerous studies indicate that undocumented immigrants have little effect on the crime rate, typically pay more into the tax system than they take out, and work primarily in sectors avoided by Amer- ican workers. Though illegal immigration numbers have fallen over the last decade, many Americans still grow increasingly concerned. “For most people it seems to be just a sense of injustice,” Clauson said. “The borders have become so porous that these people are just allowed to come in. It takes years for them to be processed, and in the meantime they can disappear. They may not be criminals, true, but they still came in ille- gally. They didn’t follow the rules.” This sense of unfairness combines with concerns over shifting culture and fears about national security, amplified by rap- id globalization, sensationalist media, and changes to the immigration landscape. In Clauson’s view, both sides tend to go too quickly to extremes. He acknowledges that deportation seems an impractical solution on such a massive scale, but full amnesty would likely incentivize further illegal im- migration. Instead, Clauson favors a model that involves a small fine, then sets partici- pants on a path to citizenship, with fur- ther fines if they fail to complete each stage of the documentation process. This system has the dual benefit of incentiv- izing following the legal procedure from the outset while still allowing currently undocumented residents to retroactively enter the process — it would at least par- tially pay for itself. Various other solutions have been pro- posed, both for managing illegal immigra- tion and for reforming the process for legal entry. Despite disagreements over what changes need to be made, both sides of the aisle broadly agree that the current immi- gration system is outdated and overdue for reform. However, the only legislation since the Homeland Security Act in the wake of 9/11 were the Secure Fence Act of 2006, a large- ly ineffective act mandating a still-incom- plete fence along the southern border, and a series of executive orders from Presidents Obama and Trump. In other words, Con- gress can’t agree on anything. The polarized dialogue around immi- gration precludes reform, Clauson said. It’s easier to build walls on the border than it is to actually deal with the outdated and ineffi- cient system for legal entry. “It’s a dangerous political football,” Clauson said. “They don’t want to hold it. They want to get rid of it to somebody else. No matter what you do, you’re in political hot water, so they don’t do anything.” However, it’s not just that the parties are stymied by fears about re-election. In many ways, they, along with other political entities, actually benefit from the divisive dialogue surrounding immigration, which raises the emotions and engagement of vot- ers. “There are too many people in posi- tions who benefit from the strife,” Smith said. “Think of the media outlets, think of the politicians, think of the parties, think of the interest groups. For the media, Donald Trump is gold. For interest groups on both sides, this is fundraising, this is volunteers, this is activism, this is passion. They can’t manufacture that stuff.” While partisan issues can force their way through Congress when one side ob- tains a majority, immigration policy does not split neatly down party lines. Instead of dividing liberals from conservatives, Smith said, immigration divides elites from the rest of the country. For liberal elites, im- migration can bolster the progressive voter base, while for conservative elites, immigra- tion can provide cheap labor for business interests. This division of interests may be one reason why reforming the immigration system is such a challenging political proj- ect, Smith said. “It would take push from the people into the system to the point that the sys- tem feels pressured to change something,” Smith said. “I think Donald Trump has done some of that, but he’s created so many enemies in so many other ways that he’s not in a good position to solve this