Essay: American immigration policy

Currently there is a caravan of about 5000 migrants from Central America marching to the United States to attempt to cross the border illegally and ask for asylum here. President Trump has stated that he will not grant them asylum and has said they should return to their nations and follow the process to apply for citizenship in the United States like many other immigrants are currently doing. There are people who feel that the migrant caravan should be let in, and there are people who feel we should enforce our border laws and not let them in. I feel that we should not let this caravan in and would advise the President to not let them in the United States. Our immigration policies should prioritize Americans and allowing a mass caravan of 5000 unvetted immigrants in the country would not be putting American citizens first.
Criteria
The criteria for a sound immigration policy concerning the migrant caravan are that it puts Americans first by keeping citizens of the U.S. safe from harm from criminals who would enter the country, protecting jobs from cheap labor provided by illegal aliens, and keeping illegal aliens out who would be a drain on resources by using welfare services or sending their kids to school in the United States. Stopping the caravan of immigrants will strengthen the United States by keeping potentially dangerous people from entering the country without first being vetted. Illegal immigration has a big price tag attached to it, costing the United States an estimated $116 billion annually (O’Brien and Raley 2018). The cutting of costs makes it practical to cut down on illegal immigration. Keeping American citizens safe is another practical reason to cut down on illegal immigration. We do not need another Kate Steinle situation where an American citizen is murdered by an illegal alien because the Federal Government refused to do its duty of properly guarding the border and enforcing immigration policies and laws. Philosophically speaking, realists and moral skeptics would argue for implementing policies that benefit American citizens before we consider helping citizens of other nations and would support denying access to the caravan of migrants from central America.
Policy Proposal
President Trump should send troops to the border to stop any members of the caravan that arrive at the border. Active duty soldiers from bases in the South should be sent to the border to turn away the caravan. Many people, including President Trump to some extent, feel that we should use military forces to support Border Patrol Agents. There simply aren’t enough Border Patrol Agents to patrol the whole border, and we have 700,000 soldiers in the Army who are capable of support Border Patrol and ICE in their mission to control immigration to the United States. Using military units to help patrol the border would be cost effective as we would not need to hire more border patrol agents and we already have a very large military with soldiers stationed in the region.
Counter Arguments
Some people would feel that the immigrant caravan should be allowed into the United States and then detained as some of them want to apply for political asylum. According to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Website, the process to apply for asylum is as follows “To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.” (U.S. Customs and Immigration Service, 2018). Although the stated United States immigration policy is to present yourself at the border and request asylum, President Trump has came out against the caravan traveling towards our country. He has stated that they should return to their home countries or stop in Mexico and apply for citizenship through the normal process for doing so.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 makes it hard to deploy federal troops on United States soil unless we are under attack or being invaded. This act could prove a signifiant legal barrier to the plan to use federal troops to defend the border. It would probably be easy for a pro immigration lawyer to get an injunction from a federal judge and it would be months before the case made it to the Supreme Court for review, and by then this current immigrant caravan would be a non-issue as they would have made it to the United States by then. A large caravan of foreign nationals marching to the United States is an invasion of sorts, as was seen when Moroccan citizens immigrated in mass to the Western Sahara to gain territory for Morocco (Nelson, In Class, 2018). With that in mind the President could potentially have some standing legally speaking to send troops to the border, even under the Posse Comitatus Act. While the Moroccan citizens’ march was an example of a more powerful country sending citizens into a weaker one (Frank, 1976) , the precedent still stands that countries should have the right to turn away migrants that they feel will not benefit their society.
The Posse Comitatus Act states that:
“From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by Sue not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.” (River and Harbor Appropriations, 1878)
Mark Nevitt provides a description of how Posse Comitatus would be applied in this situation here:
“In contrast, rules for the use of force (“RUF”) are based on a law enforcement and self-defense mission and mindset to include this border deployment. It takes into account domestic legal considerations: This includes the Posse Comitatus Act, the 4th Amendment and existing constitutional provisions. Rules for the use of force cannot authorize force in excess of constitutional reasonableness, nor can it declare certain forces hostile. Shifting from a combat “ROE mindset” to a law enforcement “RUF mindset” is critically important for the troops deployed to the border as it will instruct how they approach real or perceived threats. It will require training, leadership, and working through hypothetical scenarios to avoid mistakes.
The decision to use force is necessarily a fact-specific inquiry – and hopefully military forces are far removed from any possible altercation. But consider how this could play out. Trump initially stated that the military should and could “shoot rock-throwing migrants”. While he has since backed away from this assertion, it certainly muddied the waters on what constitutes the legal use of force at the border. Yet it is difficult to imagine a scenario where rock-throwing or a similar activity would provide the legal justification for the use of deadly force. Under existing use of force guidelines, deadly force is only authorized when there is a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Again, having the proper training and instilling a self-defense mindset to implement the rules for the use of force is absolutely essential to avoid unnecessary casualties. Twenty years ago, Marines were ordered to the Mexican border to help stem the flow of illegal narcotics trafficking. In a tragic case, a Marine killed a young U.S. citizen herding goats at the border. While the exact circumstances of the shooting have been disputed for years, a congressional report highlighted the lack of training on civilian law enforcement measures and the lack of understanding of local conditions.” (Nevitt 2018).
The only law that would apply would be the Posse Comitatus Act in this situation. Migrants outside of the U.S. do not have constitutional rights and would not be protected by the 4th amendment or any other constitutional provisions. Illegal aliens in the U.S. do have rights to due process, but if stopped at the border, the caravan would have no constitutional rights as they would not be in the U.S. yet. As for the President’s assertion that rock throwing migrants should be shot, he is correct. It is not unheard of for Border Patrol to shoot migrants who throw rocks at them, and the National Guard or active duty units stationed at the border would have every right to fire on migrants throwing rocks as it would be an act of self defense.
Alternative Policy Proposals
To many people, sending active duty U.S. Army soldiers to the southern border to stop an immigrant caravan may seem like an extreme measure. A less extreme measure would be potentially sending National Guard Troops to defend the border. It would be more within their mission than that of the active duty troops, and they have been used to defend the border before. It would be easier legally to use the National Guard due to the President’s power to activate them and because they have been used for border defense before, setting a precedent for their use.
Another alternative to using the military would be to allow the caravan to reach and enter the United States. Upon entry the process would follow that they would be detained until they could apply for asylum and be given a review. The problem with this is that some of the members of the caravan would surely escape into the United States without being detained and following the process asylum. We do not know what the intentions of those people are, nor do we know their criminal history or anything about their background. For that reason this option needs to be taken off the table. The sovereignty of the border needs to be maintained. Allowing people to enter the country and then retroactively apply for asylum is not a sound policy and allows for the mass amounts of illegal immigration we see today. Policies like this are in part responsible for us having an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the Unites States.
Conclusion
The President should deploy National Guard Troops to the border to stop migrants. It is against the law to use the active duty branches of the military to enforce domestic laws in the United States. As Mark Nevitt says “First, unlike “Title 32” National Guardsmen and women, “Title 10” active-duty military personnel under federal control are largely prohibited from taking an active and direct role in law enforcement activities. And for good reason: The Posse Comitatus Act has been in place since 1878 and prohibits any part of the Army or Air Force from “execut[ing] the laws.” The Department of Defense has extended this prohibition on taking an active role in law enforcement to the Navy and Marine Corps by regulation (but not the Coast Guard). So any direct involvement in law enforcement – think of a search, seizure, apprehension or arrest – would violate the Posse Comitatus Act as well as governing military directives. That’s a no-go.” (Nevitt 2018). Since active duty troops cannot enforce domestic laws, the National Guard will have to be used to directly support the Border Patrol agents in arresting illegal aliens. Active duty troops can be deployed in supporting rolls such as serving as medics or engineers, but the National Guard units will have to do the heavy lifting of direct support of the Border Patrol. Attempting to use active duty troops would lead to a court battle that would prevent the use of extra forces on the border to help defend the U.S. from illegal immigration. For the sake of the mission and functionality it is best to use National Guard units who are not subject to Posse Comitatus.