This week we discuss the consequences of restrictive immigration policy in the United States. Wong (2014) focuses policies after HR 4437 can be explained by the partisan divide on immigration issues and the factors related to that and Massey (2019) focuses on how policy after HR 4437 actually affected illegal immigration. Massey proves that a restrictive immigration policy actually increased the undocumented population as well increase the cost (for immigrants to come in safely and for the nation to sustain the policy) and increase the number of deaths at the border. The news article on Forbes is more connected to Massey’s argument. This article discusses how a wall on the Mexican border would actually benefit drug cartels. Drug cartels are known for loaning their smuggling tunnels to smuggle in people as well and a wall would actually raise the cost of people smuggling and make it a more lucrative business. In general, a wall would continue to be as ineffective as Massey describes restrictive immigration policy has been so far. This appears to not be a solution to an ineffective policy but just contributing to it even more.
Discussion Question
- If restrictive immigration policy is ineffective, what could be some effects of less restrictive immigration policy and what would that type of policy look like?
Anderson, Stuart. “A Wall And Trump Immigration Policies Benefit Drug Cartels.” Forbes,
Forbes Magazine, 7 Feb. 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/02/07/a-
wall-and-trump-immigration-policies-benefit-drug-cartels/#aef51e37888b.
A less restrictive immigration policy would firstly cost the American taxpayer less becasue of the reduced government spending on border defense, but would also have many other effects. Rather than making it more difficult for immigrants to enter the US, it would allow for a more free flow of people so that during peak seasons more can enter and then easily move back home once the seasonal work has ended. For example, many farms in the US need more manual labor to harvest crops and a lower skilled immigrant population would be great for this purpose (in addition to many others). In this example, a large amount of workers could tempererilly cross the border, work on the farms to harvest, and then when the work opportunities become scarce, move back to their homes in Mexico. This would increase the US GDP by allowing for cheaper output, and also allow some US workers who may have more skills or experience to contribute to the economy in another potentially more effective manor. Since manufacturing and agriculture in the US has been decreasing while the services industry is on the rise, we should not force our economy into something that it is not—rather than attempt to create a difficult to cross border to unnaturally prop up manual production, we should allow our industries to shift to a service focus.
A less restrictive policy would, hopefully, look like the immigration policy between 1965 and 1986. Immigrants, regardless of their origin would be able to obtain work visas and participate in the circular flow migration. In effect, there would be a diminishing undocumented population and the aging population in Mexico would begin to see more youths. However, since we live in a post-9/11 society, it is likely that the circular migration will not be as free flowing as the 1965-1986 generation.
As Massey pointed out, the more restrictive border policies affected the likelihood of return migration to home countries for undocumented immigrants. If the borders were less restrictive, I would imagine that the likelihood of return migration would go up for a number of reasons. Mainly, the financial burden of crossing would decline and the potential risks (i.e. death rate) would also decline. Since it would be easier for people to come back, they would be able to be more likely to return to their home countries. In general, this might also result in a more free-flow of labor reflecting the free flow of capital right now and likely benefit the working conditions in major manufacturing hubs in Mexico along the border. This is something Ferdandez-Kelly brought up in an article we read in her Urban Studies class.
As for what this might look like, I think a less restrictive policy would mean less capital allocated to the border budget, no expensive wall, and less human border patrol plus more automated methods. This also might mean less intense legal action for being in the country illegally and perhaps more labor programs, like the bracero program in 1942 which oversaw the temporary labor of Mexican farm workers in the US.