//essays//
Spring 2017
Deciphering the Unintelligible
Trump's Immigration Policy
Kevin Staples
On August 31, 2016, Donald Trump delivered a hard-line immigration speech after a campaign visit to Mexico. In the speech, he claimed that “countless Americans who have died in recent years would be alive today if not for the open border policies of [the Obama] Administration.” Trump went on to describe the fates of Americans who lost their lives due to the crimes of illegal immigrants. To further illustrate these atrocities, he welcomed parents who had lost their children to share the stage with him. These parents on stage served to justify Trump’s plan to build a wall on the Southern border, and reinforce his characterization of illegal immigrants as dangerous detriments to society. His perspective on immigrants and harsh words cannot be forgotten: recall, he began his campaign calling Mexicans rapists.
Trump’s bringing families up to the stage is indicative of a logical fallacy in his characterization of illegal immigrants and sentiments towards non-white immigration as a whole. The focus on these families and their stories cherry picks an example to affirm Trump’s policies while avoiding the overwhelming data that undermines his position. Illegal immigrants do not commit crimes at a higher rate, rather they commit crimes at half to a fifth of the rate of United States citizens. In fact, the likelihood of being killed by gun violence is much higher than being killed by an illegal immigrant. Almost 13,000 people die per year from such attacks; conversely, the probability of being killed by an illegal immigrant is less than 1 in 3.6 million. Furthermore, Obama’s immigration policy was far from open borders. He was given the name “deporter-in-chief”; there were attack ads run against Obama in 2012 by a pro-Romney Super PAC in states like Nevada because he was deporting illegal immigrants at a higher monthly rate than George W. Bush.
To truly engage in the immigration debate, it is useful to have a brief understanding of the legacy of American Immigration policy and its current standing. From 1920 to 1965 the United States employed a national origin quota system that favored Western European countries and restricted Asian and African immigrants. This quota system was overturned by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which essentially banned discrimination based on national origin. Since 1965 there have been a variety of laws that adjust policy on visas, refugees, and border security, but the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 remains a seminal precedent in immigration policy. Today, the United States accepts refugees but only after one of the most intense vetting processes; visa issuance also involves a stringent process where higher skilled and Western European workers are favored. Post 9/11, Border Security spending has significantly increased for the hiring of more agents, the construction of fences, and the deployment of drones, watchtowers, and sensors with the aim of safeguarding the border. The immigration system as is, is quite complex and without a doubt rigorous.
Regardless of the current U.S. immigration policies, immigrants are undoubtedly essential for our economy. The approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the country add much to our country’s well-being and their removal would be short sighted—based on illogical sentiment and racially motivated. If just 7 million illegal immigrants were removed the United States’ GDP would decrease by $4.7 trillion or 2.6% over 10 years. Furthermore, because of their undocumented status, these illegal immigrants don’t benefit from social programs like social security. In fact, illegal immigrants pay millions more into social security than they benefit from it. Rather than being detrimental to society, illegal immigrants actually are exploited by American society: while they contribute to many sectors—especially agriculture—they lack the same protections and safety nets available to American workers.
Trump’s border wall doesn’t take into account the contribution of illegal immigrants both economically and culturally. Without immigrants we would not have Apple, Goldman Sachs, Kohls, or Google. Furthermore, this wall faces multiple challenges including cost, legality (much of the land is privately owned), and geography (inability to build in certain areas). The economic cost to southern states would be particularly high: Republican Senator John McCain believes that his state of Arizona would go into recession if the wall was built. Beyond this, the net migration from Mexico the United States is negligible—practically zero—proving Trump’s comments about Mexican rapists to be baseless and misleading, apart from being overtly racist. It also sends a message of exclusion for immigrants who contribute positively to society. While the first generation immigrants cost the United States economy roughly $50 billion, the second generation adds $32 billion, and the third over $320 billion. America should want to support people who make such a positive contribution in the long run.
Though President Trump has martially proposed building a border wall, the actual implementation and legislation involving the Mexican border has not materialized in any tangible form. However, he has already taken drastic steps to alter immigration policy. Trump’s most direct action on immigration has not been on our southern border, but is instead focused on visitors and immigrants from the Middle East, highlighted by his now twice overturned travel ban. This travel ban sprang from his campaign promise to have a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the United States in order to combat Islamic extremist terrorism.
The original ban sought to prevent people from seven Muslim majority countries (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen) from entering the country for 90 days, permanently ban Syrian refugees, and put a 120-day ban on all refugees. The modified ban removed Iraq from the list of banned countries and excluded current visa holders. He framed this act as protecting America’s citizens’ from the threat of terrorism. Ironically, not a single person from one of these countries has ever committed a terrorist attack on American soil. Importantly, Syrian refugees are themselves fleeing ISIL, the very group which the United States is fighting. Barring Syrian Refugees essentially means they are forced to live in those unsafe conditions the United States fears. Furthermore, there are already quite stringent processes for vetting individuals entering the country, especially for those migrants coming from those seven countries.
Individuals coming from these countries are generally very skilled workers who would be beneficial to the United States’ economy. Hence, banning individuals from these countries is banning some of the potentially most productive immigrants. Motivated by a desire to gain access to the democratic freedom guaranteed by the United States, these are exactly the kind of people who have the potential to combat radicalism and terrorism in their home countries after experiencing liberties inherent to the American experience.
Additionally, this ban, along with the proposed changes to our border policies, threaten the world’s view of America. The Rachel Lazarus poem associated with the Statue of Liberty, the beacon of American Democracy, describes Lady Liberty saying: “Give me your tired, your poor/ Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/ The wretched refuse of your teeming shore/ Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me/ I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Going against our founding beliefs and tenets of freedom, this ban threatens America’s very status as the world’s exemplary democracy. Without stipulations based on religion or national origin, democracies should take in refugees and welcome people of all different creeds.
Despite Trump’s Muslim ban lacking a factual backing, it was very nearly legal. Generally, the executive branch is given leeway with immigration policy—twice Congress has reaffirmed this plenary power by voting in favor of this executive jurisdiction. In the notoriously progressive 9th district court, the Justice Department argued on Trump’s behalf to remove the stay of the order, one of their key arguments being that this power is vested with the executive branch and therefore cannot be subject to review. According to this doctrine, in theory, the executive only has to give a legitimate and strong reason for any immigration order. One argument made against the ban using the Fourteenth Amendment (the Equal Protection Clause) interpreted through a First Amendment lens contended that Muslims who have freedom of religion were not being given equal protection. This argument frames the ban as discriminatory against a religion. Ultimately, the appeals court ruled against Trump’s initial ban, making two claims in this decision. First, that the courts had the right to evaluate the executive’s action, limiting plenary power. Second, that the order lacked a rational backing—inter alia there was insufficient evidence that the individuals subject to the ban posed any discernible danger.
It should also be noted that prior to the executive order concerning the ban, Trump had asked Rudy Giuliani to find a legal way to create a de facto Muslim ban. This intent played a key role in staying the modified ban. The Hawaiian Judge, Derrick Watson, ruled that since the intent of this policy is to ban Muslims, it violates the First Amendment. Trump’s intentions are frankly quite clear. His justification of protecting citizens from terror is clearly weakened by the aforementioned lack of terrorist attacks on United States soil by individuals from these countries. Beyond this, legal scholars also claimed that this order violates the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act that prohibits discrimination “because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” Both versions of the travel ban have been stayed, but this fight may not be over.
We cannot forget that Trump retains vast power over immigration policy. Should a significant threat to national security transpire, it could provide the rational justification for this ban that is currently lacking, thereby superseding the reasons for its current prohibition. What is truly scary about this administration's desire to ban Muslims is this idea of framing Muslims as anti-American. There is nothing inherently violent about Islam. To associate violence with Islam because of ISIL is analogous to associating violence with Christianity because of the KKK. This kind of rhetoric threatens our First Amendment values. There is no recommended or required religion for being American. Setting a ban on a specific group of people is the behavior of an authoritarian state. It is the first step towards eroding civil liberties. When the civil liberties of one group are attacked, then they risk being compromised for all of us.
Immigration is crucial to the American project. The continuous task of maintaining and shaping our democracy depends on the economic value immigrants bring, the cultural texture they add, and the reaffirmation of the American ideals that their acceptance provides. Immigration serves as a constant reminder of the importance of guaranteeing opportunity for all and in turn shapes America in many ways. Once we truly engage with policy and understand it beyond the veneer of its rhetoric can we understand the complexities of this issue, the downfalls of our own simplification, and the importance of immigrants in truly making America great.
Trump’s bringing families up to the stage is indicative of a logical fallacy in his characterization of illegal immigrants and sentiments towards non-white immigration as a whole. The focus on these families and their stories cherry picks an example to affirm Trump’s policies while avoiding the overwhelming data that undermines his position. Illegal immigrants do not commit crimes at a higher rate, rather they commit crimes at half to a fifth of the rate of United States citizens. In fact, the likelihood of being killed by gun violence is much higher than being killed by an illegal immigrant. Almost 13,000 people die per year from such attacks; conversely, the probability of being killed by an illegal immigrant is less than 1 in 3.6 million. Furthermore, Obama’s immigration policy was far from open borders. He was given the name “deporter-in-chief”; there were attack ads run against Obama in 2012 by a pro-Romney Super PAC in states like Nevada because he was deporting illegal immigrants at a higher monthly rate than George W. Bush.
To truly engage in the immigration debate, it is useful to have a brief understanding of the legacy of American Immigration policy and its current standing. From 1920 to 1965 the United States employed a national origin quota system that favored Western European countries and restricted Asian and African immigrants. This quota system was overturned by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which essentially banned discrimination based on national origin. Since 1965 there have been a variety of laws that adjust policy on visas, refugees, and border security, but the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 remains a seminal precedent in immigration policy. Today, the United States accepts refugees but only after one of the most intense vetting processes; visa issuance also involves a stringent process where higher skilled and Western European workers are favored. Post 9/11, Border Security spending has significantly increased for the hiring of more agents, the construction of fences, and the deployment of drones, watchtowers, and sensors with the aim of safeguarding the border. The immigration system as is, is quite complex and without a doubt rigorous.
Regardless of the current U.S. immigration policies, immigrants are undoubtedly essential for our economy. The approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the country add much to our country’s well-being and their removal would be short sighted—based on illogical sentiment and racially motivated. If just 7 million illegal immigrants were removed the United States’ GDP would decrease by $4.7 trillion or 2.6% over 10 years. Furthermore, because of their undocumented status, these illegal immigrants don’t benefit from social programs like social security. In fact, illegal immigrants pay millions more into social security than they benefit from it. Rather than being detrimental to society, illegal immigrants actually are exploited by American society: while they contribute to many sectors—especially agriculture—they lack the same protections and safety nets available to American workers.
Trump’s border wall doesn’t take into account the contribution of illegal immigrants both economically and culturally. Without immigrants we would not have Apple, Goldman Sachs, Kohls, or Google. Furthermore, this wall faces multiple challenges including cost, legality (much of the land is privately owned), and geography (inability to build in certain areas). The economic cost to southern states would be particularly high: Republican Senator John McCain believes that his state of Arizona would go into recession if the wall was built. Beyond this, the net migration from Mexico the United States is negligible—practically zero—proving Trump’s comments about Mexican rapists to be baseless and misleading, apart from being overtly racist. It also sends a message of exclusion for immigrants who contribute positively to society. While the first generation immigrants cost the United States economy roughly $50 billion, the second generation adds $32 billion, and the third over $320 billion. America should want to support people who make such a positive contribution in the long run.
Though President Trump has martially proposed building a border wall, the actual implementation and legislation involving the Mexican border has not materialized in any tangible form. However, he has already taken drastic steps to alter immigration policy. Trump’s most direct action on immigration has not been on our southern border, but is instead focused on visitors and immigrants from the Middle East, highlighted by his now twice overturned travel ban. This travel ban sprang from his campaign promise to have a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the United States in order to combat Islamic extremist terrorism.
The original ban sought to prevent people from seven Muslim majority countries (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen) from entering the country for 90 days, permanently ban Syrian refugees, and put a 120-day ban on all refugees. The modified ban removed Iraq from the list of banned countries and excluded current visa holders. He framed this act as protecting America’s citizens’ from the threat of terrorism. Ironically, not a single person from one of these countries has ever committed a terrorist attack on American soil. Importantly, Syrian refugees are themselves fleeing ISIL, the very group which the United States is fighting. Barring Syrian Refugees essentially means they are forced to live in those unsafe conditions the United States fears. Furthermore, there are already quite stringent processes for vetting individuals entering the country, especially for those migrants coming from those seven countries.
Individuals coming from these countries are generally very skilled workers who would be beneficial to the United States’ economy. Hence, banning individuals from these countries is banning some of the potentially most productive immigrants. Motivated by a desire to gain access to the democratic freedom guaranteed by the United States, these are exactly the kind of people who have the potential to combat radicalism and terrorism in their home countries after experiencing liberties inherent to the American experience.
Additionally, this ban, along with the proposed changes to our border policies, threaten the world’s view of America. The Rachel Lazarus poem associated with the Statue of Liberty, the beacon of American Democracy, describes Lady Liberty saying: “Give me your tired, your poor/ Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/ The wretched refuse of your teeming shore/ Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me/ I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Going against our founding beliefs and tenets of freedom, this ban threatens America’s very status as the world’s exemplary democracy. Without stipulations based on religion or national origin, democracies should take in refugees and welcome people of all different creeds.
Despite Trump’s Muslim ban lacking a factual backing, it was very nearly legal. Generally, the executive branch is given leeway with immigration policy—twice Congress has reaffirmed this plenary power by voting in favor of this executive jurisdiction. In the notoriously progressive 9th district court, the Justice Department argued on Trump’s behalf to remove the stay of the order, one of their key arguments being that this power is vested with the executive branch and therefore cannot be subject to review. According to this doctrine, in theory, the executive only has to give a legitimate and strong reason for any immigration order. One argument made against the ban using the Fourteenth Amendment (the Equal Protection Clause) interpreted through a First Amendment lens contended that Muslims who have freedom of religion were not being given equal protection. This argument frames the ban as discriminatory against a religion. Ultimately, the appeals court ruled against Trump’s initial ban, making two claims in this decision. First, that the courts had the right to evaluate the executive’s action, limiting plenary power. Second, that the order lacked a rational backing—inter alia there was insufficient evidence that the individuals subject to the ban posed any discernible danger.
It should also be noted that prior to the executive order concerning the ban, Trump had asked Rudy Giuliani to find a legal way to create a de facto Muslim ban. This intent played a key role in staying the modified ban. The Hawaiian Judge, Derrick Watson, ruled that since the intent of this policy is to ban Muslims, it violates the First Amendment. Trump’s intentions are frankly quite clear. His justification of protecting citizens from terror is clearly weakened by the aforementioned lack of terrorist attacks on United States soil by individuals from these countries. Beyond this, legal scholars also claimed that this order violates the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act that prohibits discrimination “because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” Both versions of the travel ban have been stayed, but this fight may not be over.
We cannot forget that Trump retains vast power over immigration policy. Should a significant threat to national security transpire, it could provide the rational justification for this ban that is currently lacking, thereby superseding the reasons for its current prohibition. What is truly scary about this administration's desire to ban Muslims is this idea of framing Muslims as anti-American. There is nothing inherently violent about Islam. To associate violence with Islam because of ISIL is analogous to associating violence with Christianity because of the KKK. This kind of rhetoric threatens our First Amendment values. There is no recommended or required religion for being American. Setting a ban on a specific group of people is the behavior of an authoritarian state. It is the first step towards eroding civil liberties. When the civil liberties of one group are attacked, then they risk being compromised for all of us.
Immigration is crucial to the American project. The continuous task of maintaining and shaping our democracy depends on the economic value immigrants bring, the cultural texture they add, and the reaffirmation of the American ideals that their acceptance provides. Immigration serves as a constant reminder of the importance of guaranteeing opportunity for all and in turn shapes America in many ways. Once we truly engage with policy and understand it beyond the veneer of its rhetoric can we understand the complexities of this issue, the downfalls of our own simplification, and the importance of immigrants in truly making America great.
//KEVIN STAPLES is a senior in Columbia College. He can be reached at [email protected].