#1. a. Blue

Author: Ellen Mauldin Anderson on Sep 17, 2024

Addressed to: David Treppendahl & Wolfe Washauer

More on point 3 (and somewhat… 1, 2 & 4 inclusive as well…)

It is true that undocumented immigrants are breaking immigration law by entering or remaining in the U.S. without authorization. It is also true that immigration laws are subject to change and reflect political and social values at different points in time—in other words, not all laws fit our modern context (hence why we consistently revise them). Historically, the U.S. has adjusted its approach to immigration based on labor needs, humanitarian, and national security concerns. I’m sure many such adjustments over time come to mind, but here are some examples:

– Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)

– Immigration Act of 1924

– Bracero Program (1942-1964)

– Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

– Immigration Reform and Control Act (1986)

– Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) (2012)

– Executive Order 13769 (2017)

Perhaps the law should shift now to meet the demands of our time (i.e., immigration reform). There are points that abound supporting the benefits of immigrants to us fiscally, but how about addressing the detriments?

In a recent interview with Ezra Klein, Alejandro Mayorkas (Secretary of Homeland Security), argued that the current immigration system incentivizes undocumented immigration by virtue of its extreme inefficiency, and he is correct. Mayorkas pointed out that the overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants are essential members of our workforce especially in industries like agriculture and construction, yet they have “no viable path” to legal status under current laws… at-least, not from their perspective or the perspective or the very organized criminal enterprises that often coerce them into paying to make the (often horrid) journey here. As a result, millions remain in the shadows, working and paying taxes—about $13 billion annually into Social Security alone—without the ability to access benefits or fully integrate into society. Mayorkas noted that comprehensive immigration reform would allow these individuals to obtain legal status, making their contributions fully transparent and ensuring they pay into the systems they are already supporting. Reform wouldn’t weaken the rule of law at all, rather it would strengthen it, as it would create clear and enforceable pathways for entry without squandering the benefits of immigration here or overburdening local resources all at once.

Moreover, as Mayorkas pointed out, the lengthy and often decades-long delays in obtaining citizenship create a pervasive incentive for immigrants to enter illegally… The current system essentially traps people in legal limbo, where they can live and work for years without ever achieving citizenship. A shortened, streamlined pathway to citizenship would drastically reduce the incentive to enter the country illegally, as immigrants would know they could achieve legal status in a reasonable timeframe and understand there is no benefit to a prolonged sojourn here illegally. This change would not only decrease illegal crossings but also help stabilize communities and enhance national security by ensuring better vetting and tracking of those entering the U.S.

Which candidate is promoting reform but also tightened security?

Which candidate is promoting an economically hazardous series of human rights violations?

Because, remember… these are all fully fledged human beings we are discussing… and often, very vulnerable.

Hypocrisy in the Rule of Law Argument:

If the rule of law is truly a fundamental concern, it’s important to ask why some are so willing to support a party and a leader who have consistently flouted the rule of law? Former President Trump and his followers have demonstrated disregard for legal norms whenever it suits them to do so… From the numerous criminal indictments Trump currently faces, including charges of attempting to overturn a lawful election, to his well-documented obstruction of justice refusing to respect the peaceful transfer of power… Trump has shown that he only cares about the law when it works to his advantage. Even more disturbing is how he encourages his followers to disdain legal institutions when they contradict his personal or political goals, advocating for a culture of selective law enforcement.

If adherence to the rule of law is truly the priority, supporting a political movement that undermines it at every turn presents a glaring contradiction requiring a mother-load of cognitive dissonance to justify.

While undocumented immigrants may break immigration laws, they are also part of a system that desperately needs reform (and as noted previously in this thread, are some of the most law abiding citizens around due to their tenuous status here.) In contrast, Trump’s blatant disregard for the law and his repeated violations should be far more concerning to those claiming to defend legal norms…

Sources:

1. Ezra Klein Show interview with Alejandro Mayorkas (New York Times, 2024)

https://podcasts.apple.com/…/the-ezra…/id1548604447…

2. Immigration and Crime – What the Research Says (Cato Institute, 2015)

https://www.cato.org/…/immigration-crime-what-research…

3. Geographic Mobility and Annual Earnings in the United States (Social Security – Office of Retirement and Disability policy, 2020)

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1.html

4. What the Data says about Immigrants in the U.S. (Pew Research Center, 2024)

https://www.pewresearch.org/…/key-findings-about-us…

I could list a few more in support of what I’ve written but 🥱