When the two big parties’ presumptive Presidential nominees address the same issue on the same day, we don’t expect anyone to address the issue on its merits. But Trump and Biden on the southern border on the same day does tell us there’s an issue. Of course neither will “solve the problem.” No one can. Until we find a way to say what we want deep down, and why, the issue is just a complex exercise in polling and political marketing.
“The border issue” actually has two faces. One has to do with mechanisms we want in place right there at the border, to manage and possibly discourage the floods of people trying to enter the country. But even the smartest, most fully funded and constructed system, humane or brutal, is at best only part of any solution. Symptoms cannot be controlled without addressing causes, which make up the other side of the issue.
People show up on the Rio Grande because the hardships and risks of coming are less onerous than the mix of miserable conditions in their home countries and the prospect of jobs and a better life here. To make migration not worth the trouble, we would have to block access to the benefits of getting across the border, and/or nurture better conditions in countries of origin. In what combination, and by what steps, would we take such actions?
Do we really want to keep migrants away from jobs in the U.S.? We rely on migrants to fill unskilled jobs, some of them vital. A founder of the International Migration Institute suggests that America’s weak laws against hiring illegal migrants reveal an actual preference for them. Their labor serves employers’ interests, but also, as in other rich countries, the macro-economy.
Against this economic interest, many fear an overrun, of social services and order, by swarms of unassimilated, dislocated, and at times disruptive foreigners. And against this impulse, many decry the possible harshness of measures that limit entry to migrants, particularly to the refugees and asylum seekers among them.
On the other side of the question, some have noted how most of the migrants on the southern border are not actually from Mexico. How much of this can be attributed to NAFTA (now USMCA), and the growth of jobs in much of Mexico? Certainly Mexico remains a developing economy overall, but are conditions good enough that the hassle of migrating over the border just isn’t worth it?
Could a similar effect be generated in other countries? What would it take? Was there a net cost to the U.S. from USMCI, and if so, is it worth the reduced pressure of migration? (Many will contend that USMCI provided an economic gain, but the question here concerns the effect on migration.) If trade expansion to other countries isn’t feasible or desirable, would some level of aid to, say, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador be effective and worth the cost? Would an end to the dictatorship in Venezuela alleviate hardships there, and would the costs of our intervention be worth a reduction in human traffic?
What all would we do, and why?
Border systems, more police, walls and deportation policies will work much better if we can reduce the incentives for people to come. But any measures will incur effort and costs, tangible and moral. Which are we willing to bear?
We cannot ask such questions coherently if we cannot first say what we want. Do we just want an orderly society, whether or not with more migrants – i.e. without social service dependents and any criminal or dysfunctional characters? Do we want to reach out to persons facing oppression – and does that mean bringing them to America or aiding to their countries? Or do we truly seek to cut the influx of foreigners, to curtail cultural change we find disruptive?
Our politicians only accuse each other of some wrong – inhumane xenophobia or some ideological politics – as political battle cries. Both sides hedge their expressions, asserting or conceding that “America is a nation of immigrants” that “America is an idea,” and that our borders must be “controlled.”. But neither will engage underlying questions or problems – has real life instability buried America’s idea in disorder and acute change? Do concerns over culture and economics reflect prejudice or reasonable fears? Does our founding mean that anyone who believes in rights as a principle can be an American? If so, can anyone just show up and enter – and how do we verify their belief? If not, how do we draw the line?
Politicians may be craven, but we need somehow to find some comity, at least over terms of discussion. Otherwise they can only craft partisan postures. Our first step is to recall that the nation conceived itself in an abstract, but not naïve, creed of personal rights and government that exists to secure those rights. Only on a base of common terms can America even talk about our priorities, to find either resolution or compromise on them. Only with such an expression of priorities can politicians craft coherent policies. The border presents one of the most perplexing issues of the day. Even to start to make sense about them we must reground our discourse in our common premises.
Common Conviction 