Since the foundation of America, the issue of illegal immigration has been one filled with complexity and controversy; and to this day, it remains one of the most highly debated topics among political representatives and active citizens. In fact, since his introduction to the political spotlight as the forefront leader of the Republican party’ presidential candidate, Donald Trump has built his campaign on the topic of illegal immigration, insinuating the construction of a “great wall” along the Mexican-American border, tightening immigration enforcements, and seeing “a harder crackdown on illegal immigrants in the workforce” (“Donald Trump on Immigration”). Although part of the complexity of the issue is attributed to how facts are weaponized in contradicting perspectives, the debate also involves how the presence and effects of illegal immigrants should be defined.
Historically, the American executive branch’s relationship with its citizens has usually been one that correlates in values and beliefs. The head of the executive branch of the United States, Donald Trump, has explicitly voiced his disproval of current immigration policies and its unauthorized population, deeming the influx of illegal immigrants as a dismal threat to America’s security and society. With many of his proposed reforms that included a tighter grip on immigration law enforcement and the construction of a wall along the U.S. southern border, Trump supported his position with factual statistics, once stating that in 2011, “the Government Accountability Office found that there were a shocking 3 million arrests attached to the incarcerated alien population… [that included] thousands of violent beatings, rapes, and murders” (Trump). Trump’s own reference to factual statistics to justify his views are one of the many instances that stakeholders weaponized numbers to aide in their justifications of such perspectives. Nonetheless, being heralded as “the Voice of the People,” President Donald Trump’s ideology is parallel with the views of the American people. However controversial his media tactics and political proposals may be, Donald Trump champions security for the American people and the well-being of its citizens; his infamous campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” all but reinforce his support of the American people and what he believes is the right direction.
Security, especially in recent years, has been a concern regarding the American public, and that continues with the prospect of illegal immigration. Aside from opposing opinions on amnesty or deportation of unauthorized immigrants and economical aspects of the debate, neither sides encourage the process of illegality in the United States. For the American public, the majority understands the threat of terrorism and security, valuing the aspect of safety above all. However, in terms of the illegal immigration debate, the matter of how “porous” borders are remains an argument of definition. Conservative organizations, such as the Heritage Foundation, expresses that the presence of so many unauthorized people “is a sign of how dangerously open our borders are… [and weakens] the legal and national security environment” (Johnson and Kane). Although Donald Trump and the American people might differ in how they define the status of the southern border, they both share the same values for safety.
Of course, being that the matter of immigration today is rooted in an economic debate, one of those most affected by the outcome of the issue are non-skilled workers. In correlation with Donald Trump’s ideologies, non-skilled workers believe the influx of illegal immigrants in the United States have led to the increase in unemployment of native workers; that is to say, immigrants are taking jobs from Americans. What are non-skilled workers’ reasons for this implication? Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, reflected those implications with statistics, citing from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that “58 million working-age native-born Americans [are] not working… [which] is roughly 16 million more than in 2000” (Camarota). Here, Camarota argues from a logos standpoint, reinforcing his claim with factual evidence that unskilled native workers are losing out to illegal immigrants. Furthermore, unskilled workers take on personal experiences to back their beliefs, claiming that the onset of illegal immigrants have led to the decrease in wages and availability of jobs. “E”, full-time carpenter in Washington, stated that since the first wave of illegal immigrants that he experienced, it “[costed him] any thought of a wage increase for nearly a decade… [and] if you factor in inflation, that would be more than a 30% cut in wages over a 10-year span” (“Washington Workers’ Stories”). While E. uses ethos in his occupation as an unskilled worker during times of illegal immigration, his installment of facts in his experience reinforced his beliefs that illegal immigrants are taking over American jobs. However, the use of the term “American” correlates to the definitional side of the argument on jobs.
As part of the job-stealing debate, a portion of economic argument is that illegal immigrants are taking “American” jobs. Donald Trump in his Speech on Jobs and the Economy, says that his plan will “reject the cynicism that says our labor force will keep declining, that our jobs will keep leaving, and that our economy can never grow as it did once before… [He] will fight for every last American job” (Trump). Here, Trump defines the wording of “our” jobs in terms of “American” jobs, insinuating that jobs created and manufactured by American people in the United States are strictly and rightfully for Americans. That is to say, illegal immigrants are taking jobs previously occupied by U.S. workers, as the Federation for American Immigration Reform clarified: “[Illegal immigrants] … are working in jobs in which U.S. workers are also employed—whether in construction, agricultural harvesting, or service professions” (FAIR). Here, unskilled workers are in agreement with Donald Trump not just in terms of values for the American workforce, but upon factual evidence and definition. Both parties define American jobs as those made by Americans and occupied by Americans, and backing that claim with statistical evidence that the event of the job-stealing by illegal immigrants is indeed happening. To Trump and unskilled workers, the issue is about the fairness to American workers underlying economic implications of illegal immigration.
However, in terms of economic progress, business owners who hire these illegal immigrants think differently. Companies that require unskilled labor have found a cheap alternative to expensive, native-born workers in illegal immigrants who are willing to take substandard pay and avoid detection. In fact, Texas’ booming $54 billion-per-year construction industry is partly due to its “nearly 1 million workers laboring… [and] approximately half are undocumented” (Goodwyn). Why do some companies hire illegal immigrants instead of native-born workers? Unlike some of the values that Donald Trump and unskilled workers hold, these companies do not have a preference on who they hire, while strategically hiring illegal immigrants as a way to increase profits while decreasing wages of workers. To them, the issue of illegal immigration is not about the promotion of native-born workers, it is about efficiency of such work while maximizing profits. Myles Gladstone, vice-president of Miller & Long, a regional concrete construction company, reiterated that Miller & Long “are indebted to the work [immigrants] bring… Without them, Miller & Long would not be as successful, and I would not be as successful” (Swarns). Companies are neither discouraging the employment of native-born workers or encouraging illegal immigration; however, native-born workers are unwilling to work the same jobs for substandard pay. In analysis, companies that require unskilled work and the unskilled workforce lack stasis in both factual and definitional points. Both parties differ in facts that support their claims of economic progress, while also differing in definitional roles of the workforce: unskilled workers believe the problem to be that of the promotion of native-born workers in American jobs, while companies contradict that notion, embodying the claim that the type of workers, legal or illegal, white or Hispanic, doesn’t matter; only that economic progress and efficiency is made while maximizing the company’s profits.
Aside from the economic aspect of the complex debate on illegal immigration, a large portion of the argument stems from the status of illegal immigrants in American society. Specifically in the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) debate, the recent cancellation of the program sparked an uproar among illegal immigrants, as DACA has protected over 740,000 minors to stay (American Immigration Council Staff). Jeff Sessions, Attorney General under Trump presidency, defines the rescission of the program and the succeeding limit on illegal immigration as “it does not mean [immigrants] are bad people or that our nation disrespects or demeans them in any way, [it is about] … properly enforcing our laws as Congress has passed them” (Sessions). Here, Sessions explains the matters of the immigration debate not about relationship between nations or between peoples, it is a matter of enforcement of the law derived from the government. However, back to the definitional argument on the term “American”, DACA recipients reiterated their disproval of the rescission, voicing they have just much rights as a legal citizen. Kathryn Johnston, a supporter in the protest against the DACA rescission, views the United States as “a land of immigrants … [and that] we should welcome immigrants and open our arms to the children who have grown up here … They are Americans in every sense of the word” (Sacchetti and Stein). Illegal immigrants, especially in this aspect of the debate, define themselves as “Americans,” being they were raised in America, learned American values and traditions in school, and some do not have the slightest idea of what Mexico looks like. Both Sessions and illegal immigrants as a whole, vary in their definition of the rescission of DACA: while Sessions view the enactment as the duty of American lawmakers, DACA recipients view the rescission unfair to them, as they consider themselves citizens under American jurisdiction.
Likewise, one of my friends, a DACA recipient, stands by this perceived status of a citizen. He feels that his status should be viewed as an “American” in every sense of the word, insisting that he “values American tradition and… immersed in American culture for most of this life” (KK). Being that he expressed how he expressed the intention of his parents to come here searching for a better life and his history of being in the United States for over 15 years, a recurring sense of emotional appeal is expressed throughout the interview. Although agreeing with the facts that there is evidence of crime and the normalcy of illegal immigration in the United States’ system, he defines himself and those similar in his circumstances as Americans in their embodiment of U.S. culture and contributions to the national economy in forms of taxes and work ethic, restating they are no less American than any other citizen.
Although the issue of illegal immigration and its complexities are intertwined in how facts are utilized to qualify different perspectives, the lack of stasis also involves the defining status of illegal immigrants and how their effects vary in such perspectives. Due to this lack of stasis, the ongoing debate remains disputed among multiple stakeholders of various values, persistent in their own interpretation of facts and definition.