Essay: Immigration on the border (US)

At the forefront of U.S politics, immigration on the border continues to be a pressing, yet complicated political issue. Although politicians consistently debate over what path our country should take towards our borders, a bipartisan solution seems completely unforeseeable in the near future. While Democrats work towards a less restrictive, more welcoming national landscape, Republicans fight for tightly woven/ highly restrictive borders. But neither party works unequivocally with the general idea of an unrestricted border. Both parties work against the same overarching critical question, should the United States embrace the globalized concept of an open border? As a nation identified through sovereignty and independence, adhering to the globalized concept of an open border would prove detrimental to the culture, history, and significance of the United States.
Before diving in to how an open border would play out in the United States, an accurate assessment of what the globalized concept of an open border exactly means, and how it is interpreted by politicians are necessary. An open border is defined as “a border that enables free movement of people between jurisdictions with few or no restrictions on movement” (E.H, L.S). The policy would extend beyond legal immigration, as with open borders the distinction between legal and illegal immigration would no longer exist. Everyone would be legal.
Politicians in the U.S interpret this in various forms depending on political affiliations and personal beliefs. The idea also presents a set of moral and logical questions. For years prior to the election of Donald Trump, Democrats presented themselves as being “tough on border security”, and called for “amnesty for all illegal immigrants” (“Illegal Immigration”). On some occasions, members of the Democratic party would slip from the partisan platform, as Hillary Clinton did in 2013 when she talked about her dream for open borders. Realizing her mistake, she quickly tried to explain away her statement once it became public (“Illegal Immigration”). After the election of Donald Trump, a profound advocate for border security, the platform of the Democratic party took a surprising turn. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, an avid advocate for socialism and open borders took a victory in New York, and is now a member of congress. Cortez routinely encourages supporters “to occupy ICE offices around the country”. The head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Tom Perez, labeled Cortez “the future of the Democratic Party” (“Illegal Immigration”). The “abolish ICE” movement is yet another profound example that portrays the stance of Democrats on illegal immigration and open borders. Advocated by numerous significant members of the Democratic party, the “abolish ICE” movement is an effort to destroy the obdurate primary enforcement agency that catches illegal immigrants coming into the United States. Abolishing ICE would present major security threats to the United States as a whole. No prominent Democrat has publicly opposed this dangerous idea. In San Francisco, local governments began registering illegal immigrants, so they have the ability to vote on local affairs and elections. In the end, Democrats want to destroy the main agency responsible for protecting our borders, they seek to make it easy for illegals to cross the border and stay in the country, and they want to give them the right to vote. These are not just immigrants, they are illegal immigrants that are affording the same rights as legal immigrants and American natives. With this, the Democratic party has unequivocally aligned themselves with a base that works closely with the theory of open borders and minimal border security.
Republicans take an entirely different general stance on the issue. Throughout the history of the party, conservatives have worked and advocated for immigration policies that address the needs of the nation first. An underlying division within the party has existed over how tight the immigration laws should really be. But the overarching idea that “a system needs to be in place to ensure that immigrants who enter this country illegally are not provided with the same benefits that legal citizens are” has always remained the same (“Home”). Republicans continue to welcome those that enter America legally, but believe in devoting extra resources to keeping those out that attempt to enter through illegal methods. Republicans also think that keeping track of when people enter and leave is crucial to the security of America. Republicans uphold their value that providing amnesty to illegals only fuels the fire, as it encourages potential immigrants to enter illegally rather than using legal methods. Although these values represent the general mindset of the party as a whole, similar to the Democratic party there are some extremes. For example, President Donald trump is a prominent figure that heavily opposes illegal immigration and open borders. He is known for making rather extreme statements. On one occasion, at a rally in Virginia, President Trump stated that “The Democrats want to open our borders to a flood of deadly drugs and ruthless gangs”, and they “want to turn America into a giant sanctuary for criminal aliens and MS-13 thugs” (Timm). These remarks were both unforeseen, extreme, and quite frankly: they are false. If the Democrats were seeking to do what Trump stated, then they would not be a prominent political party in America, and they would not have a significant support base. Clearly, President Trump is an example of an extreme right wing view on immigration, similar to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez on the left. Both views on immigration extend beyond the general mindset of their respective parties. In the end, it can be determined that the Republican party does not, and will not support the idea of open borders in America. With this in mind, Rather than solely focusing on the political opinions towards open borders in America, an overview of potential applications of the policy in the international context must be explored.
Although the concept of an open border is often debated in the United States, countries around the world have already either adapted to the idea, or rejected it completely. Before considering the implications of open borders in the U.S, we can use both Japan and Sweden as an illustration for potential effects as they would pertain to the United States. Japan, a country where nationals prefer a homogeneous society, and work to limit the amount of foreign nationalities. In 2010, the foreign body only represented 1.7% of the entire population in Japan (Line). In order to fulfill the desires of the Japanese natives, Japan has adapted to an anti-immigration base of policy. In order to maximize the potential of immigrants, Japan has unveiled a “point based” system in which immigrants are rated based on academic background, business experience, and other factors in an ultimate effort to maximize economic potential. Those who score higher in the system, such as doctors, lawyers, or business managers will be provided with preferential treatment, and ultimately have a higher chance of getting in. Over the past decade, Japan has a positive GDP growth rate; their unemployment percentage is extremely low compared to equivalent countries at 2.5%. Japan has had no terrorist related incidents in the past two decades. In conclusion, Japan’s tightly knit immigration policies have resulted in a strong economy with positive economic indicators, a low level of violence; indicating that their restrictive stance towards immigration has contributed to their success.
Sweden takes an entirely different approach on immigration; they are well known “for welcoming Muslim refugees fleeing war-torn nations like Iraq, Syria, and Somalia” (line). Although, Sweden’s growing unemployment rate which currently sits at 16% among foreign parties is relatively high among comparable countries. Sweden has also encountered a growing amount of violent episodes, which has led to the questioning of their open door immigration policies by prominent government officials. An abundance of exorbitant liberal policies have led to a steady flow of immigrant labor and an increase in jobs, although when the rate of job creation slowed, “working immigrants stopped entering the country while the flow of unemployed, government-dependent asylum seekers picked up” (Line). In 2012 alone, the number of asylum seekers entering Sweden increased by 50% from the past year with 43,900 total. This was the second highest year on record (Line). Sweden’s immigration struggles have hurt the Democratic party in Sweden, and the country as a whole. Anti-immigration activists have a leg up in the argument, as Sweden simply cannot continue on their current path. Sweden’s open door policies have caused domestic turmoil, and have in turn hurt the country economically and socially.
As a sovereign nation, the United States is replete with hard working, opportunistic citizens that strive to succeed; because of this, access is limited, and the right to American affluence is not free for everybody. The concept of “open borders” suggests that immigration is a human right, rather than a privilege that must be earned from a host country. In the case of the U.S, intelligence resources determine whether an immigrant fits the criteria to be allowed entry. With open borders, immigrants flow freely, without any security check to determine their background and potential criminal history, posing a security threat to the country. Those who oppose border security are suggesting a greater concern for strangers, rather then the purpose for which borders exist in the first place: to protect the well being of the country, and the lives of its citizens.
Migrants would logically choose to remain in the United States permanently, inducing economic, and social burdens on the United States as they are typically poor and uneducated. The majority of immigrants would provide minimal skills that would prove to be productive in U.S society. Therefore, the overall quality of life for hard working, taxpaying American citizens would suffer; taxes would go up in order to support the medical, educational, and financial needs of those that are unable, or unwilling to support themselves. Because of this, America would suffer.
In the end, The United States should not adhere to the globalized concept of an open border; doing so would pose many challenges both economically and socially. Economically, the implications posed in Japan and Sweden could apply to the United States. Although the United States is different then these two countries, similar consequences, both positive and negative, could preside. Currently, the United States sits on a $60,000 per capita average GDP, a figure that is four times higher than the global average; proving that the U.S is socially and economically rich. The United States has an unemployment rate of 3.9%, a percentage that is low among comparable countries (Yglesias). Although we are unsure of exactly how many immigrants would immigrate, many have hinted that they would like to come, and these figures are undoubtedly attractive. If the American borders were to open completely, an influx of immigrants would present itself and the United States would suffer similar consequences to Sweden; climbing unemployment rates, and an increase in violence. Legitimizing the theory of open borders rests on the idea that America as a whole is a privileged, counterfeit country. Prominent political leaders assail taxpaying Americans with the theory of open borders, implying that an unspecified amount of debt is owed to burdened civilizations, therefore suggesting that American wealth and prosperity developed from a base of theft, and Illegitimacy. Americans are being pushed to open the borders as a way of repayment, to those that did not partake in American conquest of uncivilized land that developed into a place that was affluent with the ideals of free enterprise, technological discovery, and wealth. This concept, and mere suggestion, is morally illogical to the U.S. Adapting to the globalized concept of an open border in America not only presents negative unforeseen economic and social implications, but it is genuinely indecent to the United States.
08.02.2019