Donald J. Trump had plenty of radical changes in mind when he assumed the presidency in 2017. Likely leading the list were migrants: unauthorized individuals and families who had been trudging through Mexico, after managing to get away from the horrors of their home countries (largely in Central America), planning to enter the United States. Some would seek asylum. Others intended to simply slip across the border and somehow make their way farther north, to seek work and the possibility of a better life.
At rallies and on social media during his 2017-21 term, President Trump regularly made insulting, derogatory comments about Mexicans and Central Americans at or approaching the border. He called incoming Mexicans rapists and criminals. Detention centers and family separation were central elements in his administration’s response to the migrant influx. He enacted a Muslim Ban, barring persons practicing that faith from entry. He denigrated African nations as “s___hole countries,” and wondered why more Norwegians (that is, more white Europeans) weren’t seeking to migrate to the U.S.
If any imagined enemy has stirred American emotions as much as socialists and terrorists, it’s migrants. Most notably, undocumented workers from Mexico and points south.
Early in his term, the Trump Administration responded vigorously to the presumed threat by introducing a “zero tolerance” policy that required arresting anyone caught illegally crossing the border, which resulted in separation of families. In a presidential term that would be fraught with troubling words and actions, another of the most egregious has to be the Mexican-American border fence, still promoted year after year by former-president Trump, though it never came close to completion.
How ironic it is that so many citizens have been joyful about that fence along the Rio Grande. After all, not only is America a nation of immigrants, it’s a country that took such pride – as directed by President Ronald Reagan – in helping to eliminate the Berlin Wall in 1989. “Tear down that wall,” Mr. Reagan insisted at the time; and before long, it was done.
Why weren’t 21st-century political figures calling out “tear down that fence!” instead of backing plans to broaden Mr. Trump’s pride-and-joy project further. He even supported raising its height to make it more impenetrable – and ugly.
What makes the anti-immigrant movement absurd is that the world has become so much smaller due to dramatic communication speed-up, coupled with growth in international travel. More and more people have wound up working in other countries, too, though getting permission to do so can be far more difficult than many Americans tend to believe.
As recent current events have demonstrated vividly, the U.S. is far from alone in anti-migrant attitudes. Despite our shrinking world, unwelcoming, suspicious attitudes toward new arrivals and hopeful migrants persist and grow like quick-blooming weeds.
Estimates vary as to the number of “illegal aliens” (the derogatory term used to designate undocumented migrants) currently in the U.S. The Federation for American Immigration Reform declared that as of mid-2023, 16.8 million of those “aliens” resided on U.S. soil. The Center for Immigration Studies calculated a lower total: 12.3 million, while NBC News estimated 11 million.
The presence of 11 or 12 million undocumented migrants in the U.S. in recent years is actually a dilemma on both sides of the political aisle. Any favorable treatment can be seen as laxity, while a call for harsh treatment draws ire from immigrant advocates and civil libertarians. As it should.
First braceros arrive in Los Angeles by train (1942)
Looking backward, we may need to revisit the bracero program that once allowed Mexicans to enter the U.S. to work. Initiated during World War II, that program lasted through 1964, though its heyday ended a decade earlier. (An earlier bracero program began during World War I, lasting into 1921.
Although it’s been subjected to considerable criticism in recent times, as historians and analysts pointed out the poor treatment received by those migrant workers, we have to wonder why a modern, well-organized, humane equivalent hasn’t been seriously promoted.
Why is there no modern, large-scale bracero program, simply allowing foreigners to work here (and pay taxes).
Naturally, safeguards would have to be established, to prevent travesties like the mistreatment and exploitation of farm workers brought to the U.S. under the old program. During the 1950s, under the Eisenhower Administration. about a million of those Mexican workers are thought to have been abruptly deported – allegedly including some who were U.S. citizens. On an individual level, consider the woman who appeared in Salt of the Earth, a leftist-leaning 1954 film documenting Latino farm workers. She was deported for simply appearing in the movie.
In the 2020s, we’ve been inundated by tales of thousands upon thousands of northbound migrants facing and enduring incredible hardships while traversing the principal route from Central or South America to one of the entry points along the U.S. border. Most harrowing of all has been the 65-mile stretch known as the Darien Gap, devoid of any roads, that separates Colombia from civilization in Panama.
So, what do those migrants, many seeking asylum, face if/when they reach the Rio Grande? Are they welcomed enthusiastically by thankful U.S. officials who know those northbound trekkers, some of whom have been journeying for months, could easily be placed into thousands of semi-skilled and low-skill jobs that go unfilled in the U.S.?
Not a chance. Instead, they’re barred at the border. Or at best, they face a highly restrictive immigration process, perhaps including threats of deportation, overloaded detention and sheltering facilities in border cities, and family separation (a prominent theme during the Trump Administration).
Most anti-immigrant Americans, mired in denial, gloss over simple facts. For instance, practically every American restaurant seems to have Latinos and Latinas in the kitchen and busing tables – and you can bet that many, if not most or all, are “illegal.” Their retort that Americans should have those jobs falls flat. When offered jobs in farm labor and minimum-wage restaurant work, there’s rarely a clamor by American citizens to apply. Those aren’t the jobs that are high on anyone’s hoped-for list – unless you’re an illegal, thus presumed to be willing and eager to work dreadfully hard for low pay and no benefits of any sort.
Everybody seems to realize this, yet they continue to toss out the same tired old canard every time: that immigrants are “stealing” American jobs. Well, if Americans don’t want them, and they’re sitting there waiting, who wouldn’t take advantage?
Furthermore, the fact that U.S. employers benefit mightily gets short shrift in another example of willful denial. As the Covid pandemic died down and businesses re-opened, the reality of staff shortages often threatened their very existence. Without a work force on hand, restaurants, hotels, care facilities, and countless other businesses cannot function.
At the same time, thousands upon thousands of migrants, many awaiting action on their asylum cases, crowd into such border cities as El Paso and Eagle Pass, in Texas. As anyone who has lived in Mexico or farther south knows, or should know – contrary to long-standing erroneous belief – practically every female person has been a caregiver of some sort, whether for pay or for their own family. Nearly every male has driven a truck or a bus – two other jobs for which workers have been in short supply. Apart from the well-to-do, most are accustomed to hard work. They would be overjoyed to take one of those vacant positions.
Instead of erecting more barriers at the border, and punishing those who try and enter, we should be stationing employment recruiters right along the Rio Grande, ready to sign up every entrant who expresses a desire to work. Which means, just about everyone teenaged and older. In addition to offering adequate pay, the worker could start not next week, next month, but right away.
Buses could be waiting to take them to other cities and different work sites, if needed. “This way to the bus for Chicago,” workers might be told. “Volunteers are waiting to guide you along the way, toward new and worthwhile lives.”
Instead, in 2023, Texas governor Greg Abbott took the lead in anti-migrant action, shipping busloads of undocumented individuals and families to northern cities – especially those run by Democrats – so someone else would have to deal with them.
Such recruiters were employed during that old bracero program, helping temporary migrants find their way to jobs in the U.S. – especially farm workers and other seasonal employees. An updated, humane version could be a win-win-win today – for the eager worker, for the employer that needs help, and for the government (which gains a new taxpayer). Instead, we keep maintaining a process that’s certain to be a loser, day after day, year after year.
Virtually every politician and pundit who talks about immigration and undocumented migrants refers to the “pathway to citizenship.” Nothing wrong with establishing such a path. But they totally ignore the fact that not everyone entering the United States with the intention of working is eager to become a citizen. At least, not now. Many would be quite content simply earning some money here, then going back to their home country.
Migration doesn’t run in only one direction. Just look at all the expatriate Americans who reside – and often work – in countries around the globe. As of 2023, according to the Association of Americans Resident Overseas, at least 5.4 million U.S. citizens lived abroad. The State Department reports a considerably higher figure (9 million), whereas World Population Review estimates 8 million.
Many expats are retirees; but others, typically helped by availability of remote work, have found ways to pursue their occupations and professions in another country. Early reports in 2024 indicate that a substantial number of Americans have been leaving the country lately, or intend to do so soon, largely because of the turmoil resulting from the presidential election.
Mexico alone has about 800,000 expatriates from the U.S., according to the World Population Review. Are they all champing at the bit to become citizens of that nation? Far from it. Even Americans who’ve lived overseas for decades typically display no interest at all in relinquishing American citizenship, and being granted that status in another country. Those who do so are the rare exceptions. Whether they eventually intend to return to the U.S. or not, most overseas residents fully intend to cling to that American passport as long as they’re away. Why should Mexicans or any other “foreigners” settled into the U.S. be any different?
Some critics have sternly objected to any reform that lacked such a pathway to citizenship on the grounds that a guest-worker program would bring in a rash of second-class persons. No one wants to see a duplicate of the original, flawed bracero program; but neither should we automatically assume that eventual citizenship is invariably a goal.
Those who insist that immigrants are the ones who made the country great in the first place are correct. Why should it be any different now, just because the bulk of those trying to enter are darker-skinned and speak another language?
If a person wants to come here and live – working or not – and commits no crime while here, where exactly is the harm? Requiring that a newcomer support himself and his family in some way is a valid standard; but then, we should make it possible for that person to do exactly that, not stand in their way.
A limited number of migrants continue to be granted permission to enter and work in the U.S. each year. They range from farm workers entering to work on specific harvests and specified locations, to highly educated professionals given permission to live and work for a specific time period. Far more are denied legal admission, or held back by long waiting periods for permission, despite moans from right-wing leaders that migrants should take the proper steps to obtain legal entrance.
It won’t be a free world until all can travel freely – and that means staying on for a while, if the grass happens to look greener than it was where you came from. Such ambitious folks deserve to be praised and encouraged, not accused and endangered.
While writing a preliminary article on this topic a decade ago, prospects for an immigration reform bill that might get through Congress suddenly looked brighter. The prospective bill was even likely to include a “guest worker” program. Business leaders, who’ve always favored the idea of cheap labor from Mexico and elsewhere, looked ready to pay more acceptable wages. Labor leaders also appeared satisfied, believing that higher wages for immigrants would ease the fears of union members that the presence of more immigrants would drive down wages for everyone.
A couple of years later, the likelihood of truly beneficial immigration reform looked a lot bleaker. Opposition to any loosening of immigration laws was back in full force. A coterie of opponents in Congress, including several potential presidential candidates for 2016 (led by Donald Trump), took formidable stands against easing the “path to citizenship” for undocumented residents, much less allowing additional “illegals” to slip into the country.
Even the “dreamers” exception, which would have granted legal status to successful young people who’d been brought to the U.S. as children, without “papers,” was on the way out. That Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program has been in jeopardy ever since it was announced by President Obama in 2012.
“Protect the border” was the only immigration-related step that could reliably draw support from the political right in Congress. Instead of allowing a few more law-abiding seekers of a better life into America, crossing the border safely, opposition leaders – led by angry anti-immigrant forces in Arizona, in particular – sought to raise and extend the frightful fence that runs along the Rio Grande and into the Mexican-American desert of the southwest.
In June 2024, President Biden announced a program that would allow undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens to remain in the country, with access to work permits and, possibly, that vaunted “path to citizenship.” Sounds good to advocates of reform, but it could be more prudent to make citizenship an issue for later. What most migrants need right now, today, is a place to live and permission to work. Period.
Let’s not forget, too, that many who oppose immigration by “illegals” aren’t exactly thrilled to see those newcomers who enter “their” country via legal means.
Some of us envision a more general, all-inclusive perspective on hiring practices in general and the barriers to employment. In our view, if person A needs a job, and person B has a job to offer, bringing them together is a victory for everyone. Does such a logical principle have even the remotest chance of broad public acceptance? Any gambler would call that a long shot at best.
Note: A variant of this essay is scheduled to appear in the author’s forthcoming book, Absurdities: Logical Lapses in everyday life and thought.
© All contents copyright 2024 by James M. Flammang (Tirekicking Today)
Image source: Public domain (Dorothea Lange, working for U.S. government)