Immigration — and the infamous wall — have been very hot topics throughout the Trump
Administration's tenure.
With mid-term elections fast approaching, the topic is as hot in Texas as is the summer
weather. After writing about the first senatorial debate, I promised myself I'd dig more
into the issue of immigration. So I'm approaching it using the debate to level-set and dig
into the topics addressed therein.
Family Separation at the Border was a Deterrent Tactic
I read an opinion article in The Washington Post this morning which stated, in
part, that the Trump Administration's family separation tactic was implemented as a deterrent
to immigration, and that deterrent is ineffective. The administration has also resorted to
bullying the source countries into deterring their citizens from coming north. Republicans
have politicized the issue in an effort to encourage Republican turnout at the polls:
1
Republicans are running dozens of ads across the country that paint undocumented immigrants
as violent criminal invaders. Trump tweets regularly that countries to our south are
deliberately unleashing them on us. This latter idea is foundational to Trumpism: In his
announcement speech, he didn’t merely slime Mexicans as rapists; he
also
repeatedly said Mexico is sending them, which is why he vowed to get revenge by forcing
Mexico to pay for a wall.
As a class, Republicans appear to be peddling fear to voters — they're not only embracing
Trumpism, they're "doubling down" on it (it's become such a popular term during this
administration). I saw an ad by the incumbent Lt. Governor of Texas
telling people the Democrats want to take away their guns and turn Texas into California.
(Dear Idiots,
if the Democrats didn't take away your guns while there was a Democrat in the
White House AND a Democrat majority in the Senate, they're probably not going to do it when
the Republicans control both the White House and the Senate.) And yes, immigration is also
mentioned in his first sentence.
2
And Senator Cruz is not about to play above board, either — I've already mentioned how his
campaign solicited contributions in envelopes marked "SUMMONS ENCLOSED - OPEN IMMEDIATELY."
3
Sen. Cruz' Argument is About Border Security and Deportation
In his debate with Rep. Beto O'Rourke in mid-September, Sen. Cruz stated: "I think when it comes to
immigration, we need to do everything humanly possible to secure the border. That means building a wall,
that means technology, that means infrastructure, that means boots on the ground. And we can do all of
that at the same time that we are welcoming and we are celebrating legal immigrants."
4
Cruz said nothing about the people who are already here, which was Rep. O'Rourke's focus — giving a
path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country, many of whom are doing
jobs Americans simply don't want to do. (To offer some context for that number: The population of the
Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex is approximately 8 million (an estimate in 2017 placed it at 7.4MM. In July, my realtor told me that an estimated 400 people
were moving to the metroplex daily. So deporting 11 million illegal immigrants would be akin to
deporting the entire population of the metroplex plus another 3 million.)
Of course, one might callously remark that there's nothing to be gained in helping them because they're
not voters, nor is it likely they would be before the incumbent is out of office.
DREAMers and DACA
There's been a lot of talk about a group of people who are being called "dreamers." The term,
correctly written as "DREAMers", refer to people who would have qualified under the DREAM Act
5.
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act (S.1291) legislation was
introduced in 2001 as a bipartisan bill in the Senate. The legislative goal was to provide a means
for undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children to gain a pathway to permanent legal
status; provided those individuals achieved certain milestones, including:
- Attending or graduating from an institution of higher learning;
- Be of a certain age to apply;
- Be physically present in the U.S. for a certain number of years;
- Have good moral character; and,
- Not have violated other immigration laws
DREAMers are college kids "who have kept their noses clean," as my dad would say. They
had assimilated into the US culture and were educated by US schools. As LawLogix explains,
there have been at least 21 subsequent bills introduced since the original DREAM legislation
was proposed in 2001.
The Department of Homeland Security implemented a program in 2012 somewhat resembling the DREAM
Act bill called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. While DACA stops short of
providing DREAMers and others here on expired visas a pathway to citizenship, it does extend
their stay in the US in two-year increments as long as certain criteria are met — including
a criminal history review. DACA was originally introduced as a strategem for reducing the
caseload on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) by identifying the biggest
threats to national security and public safety in immigration
6.
To qualify for DACA, applicants must meet the following criteria:
- On June 15, 2012 or before, was under the age of 31;
- Arrived in the U.S. before reaching age 16;
- Lived continuously (without interruption) in the U.S. since Jun 15, 2007 to the time
of DACA filing;
- Physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012 and at the time of DACA filing;
- Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or lawful immigration status expired
as of June 15, 2012;
- Is currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from
high school, a GED certificate, or honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or
Armed Forces of the U.S.;
- Has not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other
misdemeanors, and does not pose any threat to national security or public safety.
I perceive some barriers to both of these programs. The DREAM Act bill required
applications to be attending college. Full-ride scholarships aside, I don't know anybody
who can afford to pay cash to send their kids to college, and so I should think it would
be difficult at best for anyone doing the jobs Americans don't want to do (not
that 11 million are ALL doing those jobs) to save enough to send their kids to college
without use of Federal student loans — and those loans required recipients to
be "on the grid" at the very least — they also required me to prove I had registered for
the Selective Service program ("the draft"). DACA is more lenient, in that it required
the applicant to be in school or have graduated with a high school diploma or a GED, or
be an honorably discharged veteran. I should check with a military recruiter about this,
but I guess that as long as the kid has a social security number, there's essentially
no barrier to entry into the armed forces. (USA TODAY reported in February of
this year that there are 900 DREAMers serving in the military. According to Wikipedia,
over 1.3MM were serving on active duty.) 7
8
Rep. O'Rourke's Argument Supports The DREAM Act Bills
The quote from Sen. Cruz was in response to the first question of the debate which was
posed to Rep. O'Rourke (transcription mine).
Moderator: "You said last week, Representative, that you want citizenship for DREAMers
today, and yet others who've applied to come to America continue to wait. Senator Cruz
has said he doesn't support a path to citizenship for DREAMers, which means they could be
sent back to a country they've never known. Who's right, Representative?"
O'Rourke: "My wife Amy and I were in Booker, Texas ... and the saludatorian from Booker
High School had just been deported back to his country of origin... he'd just been sent
back to a country whose language he didn't speak, where he no longer had family connections,
where if he was successful against those long odds, he'd be successful there, for
that place and not here, for Texas. There is no better people than those of us here
in this state ... the defining border experience, the defining immigrant experience and
state to rewrite our immigration laws in our own image. And to ensure that we begin by
freeing DREAMers from the fear of deportation by making them US citizens so they can
contribute to their full potential, to the success not just of themselves and their
families, but to this country. The economists who have studied it have said that we will
lose hundreds of billions of dollars to the negative if we deport them; we will
gain hundreds of billions to the positive if we keep them here. Senator Cruz
has promised to deport each and every single DREAMer. That cannot be the way Texas leads
on this important issue."
Congressman O'Rourke made several great points in support of the DREAM Act bills. One
observed the social impact of deportation — the boy from Booker High School was being
sent to a country where he didn't speak the language and had no support. But I think the
stronger point was the economic one.
O'Rourke valued the economic impact at hundreds of billions of dollars. Does that
make sense?
'Hundreds of Billions of Dollars'
If you're talking about the earning potential of 11 million people, well, each dollar
they earn amounts to 11 million dollars; if each made $50,000, that's $550 billion —
which is hundreds of billions of dollars.
In February of this year, USA TODAY reported the number of DREAMers — that
is, people who would have qualified for the DREAM Act had it passed — at 3.8MM. It also
reported the DREAMer typically arrived in the US at age 6 and was presently about 25
years old
8. If we were to assume each
of these people, at age 25, was making $20,000 per year — a very low number — then
they're each making $400,000 over 20 years, or over $1.5 trillion.
For Beto to claim that the state of Texas would be missing out on hundreds of
billions of dollars is a plausible claim, based on the simple math above. Obviously
there are plenty of other factors. Every single person in that 3.8 million is not
going to earn only $20,000 per year for 20 years. Also, my simple artithmetic is
free from complex considerations that factor into economic models (like inflation).
UPDATE: Why Is Immigration an Issue NOW?
Why do you suppose immigration is such a hot issue this political season?
The Washington Post published an interesting article answering this very
question yesterday. They report Nationalism took center stage because Republicans'
plans for a middle-class tax break didn't materialize:
[A]s the midterm campaign season was heating up, the [2017] tax law was dropping in the
polls.... Republicans who'd planned to make it the centerpiece of their campaigns
began to look elsewhere... Trump made clear that he wanted a proposal to be made
public in October so voters would know that Republicans planned to continue cutting
taxes, creating a contrast with Democrats. Congressional Republicans never readied a
plan.... Now, with their 2018 tax plans having failed to come to fruition, and their
2017 tax law still polling poorly, Trump and a number of other Republicans have made a
hard pivot away from economics and into nationalism, a debate with heavy racial
overtones meant to energize the conservative base ahead of Tuesday's midterm elections.
9
Militias
Heeding the president's clarion call for border security, militia groups stand
ready to... whoop some ass, I guess. Reporting from The Washington Post
identified the leaders of two such groups based in Texas, who are standing by to
mobilize to the border area within hours. The same report also recounted interviews
with local property owners, some of whom would not allow militia groups on their
lands; one notable exception was the owner of a property the size of Rhode Island.
10
The article brings to light another dimension of the border spectacle: the
land owners. I'm reminded of stories of Civil War soldiers gorging themselves on
fruit from the trees of property owners (and making themselves sick on them).
I don't know how fertile the land is there, or what can be grown on it if anything.
My point is the militias and immigrants alike are probably doing some sort of
property damage — I think the article mentioned one property owner with a shed
or an outbuilding that gets broken into all the time by immigrants looking for
shelter. Naturally, these owners are going to want some sort of law enforcement
protection for their lands and property — not necessarily the same mission as
immigration and border patrol, but definitely related.
My Conclusion
Ultimately, the Senator and the Congressman were talking about two different things.
Senator Cruz was talking about border defense; Rep. O'Rourke was talking about deportation
vs. paths to citizenship. During his response, the Congressman asserted that Sen. Cruz
favored deportation, and the Senator failed to dispute it, simply saying "Legal good,
illegal bad."
Personally, I agree with "Legal good, illegal bad;" but I also agree with allowing
people who were brought here as children to have a path to citizenship — you can't' hold
these people responsible for what their parents did. I believe in the requirements of
the DREAM Act bill. They seem completely reasonable to me. It also seems reasonable that
the US, like its companies, should work to retain good people who make good contributions
to its businesses.
In April,1980, the Cuban government allowed all of its citizens wishing to emigrate
to the US to depart from a port west of Havana. It was later learned that Castro had used
the event to empty his prisons.
I'm not aware of any other countries doing this, but I think it's important to note
that it has happened — nearly 40 years ago. Personally, I don't think a wall is
necessary. I don't think "boots on the ground" — which I interpreted as US military
presence — are necessary. If people are determined to get into the United States
illegally, they're going to get in. By the way, property owners in the border area have
a right to protect their property — from illegal immigrants and vigilantes alike.
Property rights aside, we should remember that the United States is a nation of immigrants.
We became the greatest nation on earth. To protect our borders in such a Draconian fashion
runs counter to the the ideal of The New Colossus:
9
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "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-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
If the United States is not prepared to live up to the ideal that we advertise to the
world with Lady Liberty, then perhaps Lady Liberty is as irrelevant, or offensive, as
the commemorations to the soldiers of the Confederate Army.
We can't have it both ways, Texas. We can vote for isolationism and exclusion, or
we can vote for greatness, prosperity, and the American ideal.
Regarding the update, if immigration is only a platorm for Republicans this year
because their apology to the middle class fell flat, the candidates' positions are still
telling: Cruz is toeing the party line 150%. O'Rourke takes the moral high road, despite
Cruz' efforts to paint him as a liberal (In Texas, it seems there are Republicans and there
are liberals, if Republican campaign ads are to be believed).
Also, the WaPo article made me realize that, in all of these attack ads,
there's not much mention of Democrats' stance on taxation, which has been a bullet in
Republicans' belts forever. Given the unpopularity of their 2017 mega-gift to the
rich, most PACs likely don't dare load it in their chambers -— they're likely to shoot
themselves in the feet.