Summary
Representative Michael Cloud argues that he supports tight border security and restrictive immigration politics to ultimately hinder drug cartels’ abilities to traffick illegal immigrants into the US. Although he claims to have the immigrants’ best interest in mind, previous research shows that his proposals not only have failed in the past, but they also have backfired and worsened conditions for illegal immigrants. It’s understandable that he panders in favor of national security, considering that his district is mostly Republican. However, if he truly wants to help immigrants as he so claims, Rep. Cloud needs to stop voting strictly along party lines on immigration, and he should start considering more permissive immigration policies.
Rep. Cloud needs to stop pandering and start acting to help immigrants.
Representative Michael Cloud wrote a column for the Victoria Advocate a week after the government shutdown. In this article, Rep. Cloud addresses the issues with the state of immigration politics in Washington and the perceived influence cartels have on immigration. He wrote that cartels “maintain an outsized influence” in Mexican and Central American governments, and the lack of a tough border security “allows cartels to amass profits of tens of billions of dollars each year smuggling drugs and humans into our country”. Afterwards, he argued that because there is not enough deterrence against illegal immigrants, cartels took control of the illegal immigration transportation, pushing the immigrants “in danger of human trafficking or death.” Therefore, he calls for strengthening border security to solve “a humanitarian and criminal crisis that is driven by cartels”. It’s completely true that cartels have influenced Latin American governments, and that their crimes have harmed hundreds of thousands. However, if he wanted to truly solve the immigrant crisis, he would actually support more permissive policy that would give more support to illegal immigrants and take them in as refugees instead of leaving them to the mercy of cartels.
His proposal in the article, increasing the funding for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is not unprecedented. According to Princeton University Professor Douglas Massey, funding has increased throughout the past few decades, with the only result that the cost of detainment has risen dramatically. Adjusted for inflation, each apprehension cost $98 in 1983, while it cost over $12,500 in 2016 (Douglas Massey, Mexican Migration Project). As well, this same research shows that while militarizing the border did decrease illegal migration from major entry points, it only pushed immigrants into alternative, more dangerous routes, while encouraging them to not return as migrating became more challenging. Therefore, his argument that increasing CBP funding would help was actually the reason that forced immigrants to take these dangerous routes, worsening the humanitarian crisis at the border.
Rep. Cloud claims that tighter border security will help solve the humanitarian crisis, but research already shows that tighter border security actually helped worsen it. Therefore, why would he support these tight measures on immigration? For starters, the district is solidly Republican, and even if it is majority Latino, it has a small foreign-born population of around 8%. UCSD Professor Tom K. Wong shows that the smaller the foreign born, the less support there will be for immigrant rights in Congress. As well, research has shown that being Republican is the main predictor to determine whether a representative will vote in favor of restrictive immigration policy (Casellas and Leal, 2013). Some might say that the high Latino population should appeal to pro-immigrant views. That’s usually the case in contested elections when the Latino population is a significant minority. Rep. Cloud’s TX-27 is around 53% Latino, which should lean towards pro-immigrant policy. However, that’s usually the case when the Latinos are not the predominant social group, or in-group (McDermott, 2013). In this case, Latinos have to be well integrated, and the fact that Rep. Cloud is married to a Mexican woman shows evidence of this integration. As well, the district is not contested at all, with Rep. Cloud winning reelection in 2018 with 60% of the vote. Considering a significant portion of the Latino population is supporting Rep. Cloud, the Latino vote does not influence his decision. Another reason for his votes in Congress is the perception of competition between whites and other minorities. Even if Latinos represent a majority of the district, 37% of the district is white, and this proportion is currently shrinking. Whenever these trends happen, the white majority tends to support restrictive immigration policies (Abrajano & Singh, 2015).
Considering the research, it is not surprising that Rep. Cloud has voted along party lines on every immigration bill. It is also not surprising that he supports every common Republican measure, as his website shows. Amongst these, he supports building a wall, interior enforcement to detain those who overstay their visas, more funding for the CBP, and defunding sanctuary cities. However, just like he did in his column for Victoria Advocate, he placed the blames and concerns for border security on the drug cartels, an argument that much more people can rally behind. At the end of the day, these policies actually put the burden on illegal immigrants who in many cases are fleeing dangerous situations.
I recommend that Rep. Cloud considers more permissive immigration policies, even if this means moving away from his party on certain key votes. Just like he says in his column, “there should be nothing partisan about ending a humanitarian and criminal crisis.” I agree with this statement. Still, research shows that the methods he is pursuing have become inefficient and worsened the problem. I understand he votes along party lines in Congress and justifies it as a national security threat against cartels. However, to truly solve the humanitarian and criminal crisis, Rep. Cloud should not support increasing funding for the CBP, nor defunding sanctuary cities, and especially not building an impractical, inefficient, and harshly divisive wall.
The main argument of Andres Larrieu’s work was that TX-27’s representative, Republican Michael Cloud, has exhibited attitudes on Latinx immigration in a way that is consistent with his party identity, the demographic composition of his district, and the location of his constituency. Thus, Representative Cloud calls for tighter security of the border, CBP funding, and security against cartels. That being said, however, Larrieu argued that Representative Cloud’s support for militarization of the border is unfounded, given the ineffectiveness of militarization and the ironic effects of such policies on immigrant growth in the country. Therefore, in accordance with Douglas Massey’s policy recommendations, Larrieu believes that Representative Cloud should make his policy decisions based on more thorough research and be willing to vote across party lines.
In general, I agree with Larrieu’s interpretation of the work, though I have some questions. First, because Representative Cloud is Republican, and Casellas and Leal (2013) suggest that partisanship is the most important factor in deciding a representative’s votes, it makes sense that Representative Cloud is voting along party lines to support restrictive immigration policies. Second, TX-27 is only 8.4% foreign-born with a decreasing White population, and Wong (2017), Hopkins (2010), and Abrajano and Singh (2015) suggest that both of those qualities may make a region more supportive of restrictive immigration. Third, TX-27 is geographically very close to the border, and Branton and Dunaway (2009) suggest that spatial proximity to the border may lead to support of restrictive immigration policies and negative media coverage of immigration. I also agree with Larrieu’s interpretation of Massey’s research in regards to the Mexican Migration Project, in that it is clear that militarization of the border, which Representative Cloud advocates for, has been highly inefficient. Thus, I agree that Rep. Cloud ought to think more deeply about the actual impacts of militarization and vote accordingly. I find it interesting, however, that Larrieu linked Representative Cloud’s toned-down speech about the danger of immigrants, as well as his marriage to a Latinx person and family life with mixed children, to his potential willingness to change his vote and be more non-partisan: while Enos (2014) suggested that contact with Latinx or immigrant populations might lead to more inclusionary attitudes, there is a fair amount of contention as to whether or not extended contact with these populations will, in fact, actually lead to more inclusion (i.e. Hopkins 2010). Furthermore, it may be possible that Rep. Cloud’s personal experience with his wife and family is an outlier, and that he views his family as somehow “different” from other Latinx people or immigrants. Thus, though in general I agree with Larrieu’s arguments, I am skeptical as to the research that shows that Rep. Cloud may potentially change his behavior. This work was very interesting, and though it wasn’t hugely surprising, I found it fascinating to learn about the nuances (the large Latinx population but small foreign-born population, for instance) of TX-27 and Representative Cloud’s attitudes towards immigration.
This presentation was very interesting, arguing that the local representative was effectively advancing an anti-immigrant agenda, but in a way designed not to upset the majority Latino population of the district. The presentation made clear recommendations, namely that the Representative should support legal status for currently undocumented immigrants, in line with research by Massey, and that the Representative should be more willing to cross party lines. While these are both nice suggestions, they also seem highly unlikely to take place in our heavily partisan and politicized time in immigration politics. Nevertheless, this was a particularly interesting presentation as it dealt with a border district in which immigration holds a high degree of salience, but is also a solidly Republican despite being majority Latino.
You had a really convincing argument in general. You made good points that covered a range of areas regarding his topic of border security. You touched on the idea of a humanitarian crisis, on Massey’s Mexican Migration Project, and on the predicted effects of this district’s demographics on how your representative is likely to act on the issue of immigration. All of these areas put together create a very strong argument because it is clear you has not just focused on one factor but rather made sure to include several factors to support your overarching argument. If I understand correctly, you essentially asked why your representative is so set on increasing border security when research suggests this does not improve the issues he is so intent on solving. The evidence you used to support your claims came primarily from Massey, Wong, and your district’s demographics. You used Massey’s work to argue that increased border security results in a decrease in undocumented immigrants returning to their country, because of the fear that they won’t be able to cross back to the US once they leave. You explain that your representative votes conservatively on policies regarding immigration but also seems to shed a positive light on immigrants. I would have like to have heard more about this aspect of his character and the reasons why he may be taking this stance. Wong points out that the smaller the foreign-born population, the less support there will be for immigrant rights in congress (Wong 2010) – but what about the demographics of the native-born population? Is perhaps some of the native-born population in favour of more relaxed immigration-related policies? Is this why your representative sometimes talks positively of immigrants, despite his opinions on border funding? You argued that he needs to be willing to vote against party lines – but wouldn’t he then lose votes? Is it more important for him to keep his voters or vote for other things outside of party lines?