The Lament of the American Dream

In 2002, my family and I emigrated from France to America. My father was offered an employment opportunity here. We received temporary visas, which soon became green cards, and five years later we became citizens. But the transition was not easy. My mother did not know a word of English, and my sisters were seven and ten when they arrived. School was difficult for them, and they had to make new friends. I grew up without issue, knowing both French and English. Now, 18 years later, my eldest sister has a PhD in Environmental Science, is married, owns a house, and has a son: the unprecedented first-generation American in our family. It is a wonderful story. It is an immigrant story. Unfortunately, it is an uncommon immigrant story. My family was fortunate. The immigration system favored us, and the pathways were mostly straight. For many others, those pathways are endless labyrinths. At the Mexican border, migrants accumulate and struggle just to have their pleas heard.

Immigration has been one of the most salient and controversial debates in America for over a century. In the 1850s, immigration was spiking, not from Mexico, but from Europe (Ritter 105). Even then we see the same misassumptions of immigrants that are present today, such as that immigrants burden the economy and cause crime to spike. This was the foundation of the nativist “Know-Nothing” Party which gained immense popularity and encouraged the passage of immigration laws that greatly reduced immigration. These policies did not change until the progressive movement of the 1960s when, in 1965, the passage of the Hart-Celler Act, also known as the Immigration and Nationality Act, replaced those severely limiting laws. Since then immigration has been rising and the influx has caused the immigrant share of the population to reach a similar level to that of  the 1850s (Budiman). So, we see extreme nativist attitudes enter politics again. Former President Trump instituted a “zero tolerance” approach to immigration policy that resulted in the separation of families at the border for indefinite periods of time as well as arbitrary detainment (The Trump Administration’s 1). The deplorable and shameful result of these nativist policies is nothing short of a humanitarian crisis.

This paper will first demonstrate how past laws on immigration have contributed to the current crisis at the border and how they are immoral. Afterwards the paper will briefly explain the harmful effects nativism has had on policy and then refute nativist arguments towards immigration in relation to the US-Mexico border by providing evidence that suggests immigration is an overall boon for America. Future presidential administrations of the United States should push to encourage immigration along the US-Mexico border and cease the implementation of nativist rhetoric.

Although the 1965 Hart-Celler Act was a progressive piece of legislation that improved immigrants' situations by lifting the discriminatory quotas that were in place, it is not progressive enough anymore. The Hart-Celler Act dictates that only 140,000 visas be distributed per year and that such allocations can be given to only 7 percent of countries (Krogstad). What this effectively means is that immigrants that come from countries with higher immigration rates, such as Mexico, will be forced to wait longer. For Mexicans, this wait can last months or even years for their applications to be processed with no guarantee of acceptance (Bier). As the United States becomes a more affluent country, more people will want to emigrate from their countries, especially in the case of Mexico. The United States has a GDP per capita of over 62,000 USD whereas Mexico has a GDP per capita of less than 10,000 USD as of 2018 (“GDP per capita…”). It is only natural that people would seek to leave Mexico in search of greater economic opportunity in America. But that is extremely difficult with the 7 percent annual employment visa allocation limit per country. Either the total allocation of visas should be raised, or the 7 percent rule should be replaced with a system that is more equitable for migrants at the US-Mexico border.

Not only is one of the highest laws on immigration obsolete, but laws that have also been passed since then have only exacerbated the issue. The most shameful, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (abbreviated IIRIRA), made it almost impossible for immigrants to get to or stay in the United States. One of the provisions set by the law was that it  “required people fleeing persecution to apply for asylum status within one year of arriving in the country” and as a result “one in five asylum seekers” is denied asylum due to having missed this deadline (Wolgin). Additionally, the law institutes that one of the exceptions to granting asylum is that if there is a “safe third country” that can take charge of the applicant, then the applicant should instead go to that country (IIRIRA 163). This is an unacceptable provision. It is likely that the migrant would be no better off than they were originally. For example, the other countries bordering Mexico are Guatemala and Belize, each of which has a GDP per capita of less than 5,000 USD (“GDP per capita…”). This is far less than that which Mexico has and is subpar compared to the GDP per capita of the United States. If they wanted to go to a country other than the United States, they likely would have. Relocating the migrant to another country is the same as simply denying the migrant of their right to asylum altogether. What’s more, the law also prescribes that asylum may be denied if  “there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States” (IIRIRA 164). Unfortunately, what constitutes a “reasonable ground” is never defined and is therefore subject to broad, arbitrary interpretation.

These policies are even more disconcerting when considering the United States’ long history, albeit intermittent, of nativist rhetoric making its way into immigration policies. The 1850s “Know-Nothing” Party demonstrated how intolerant many Americans were. Luke Ritter, Assistant Professor of History at New Mexico Highlands University, composed an insightful study of 1850s nativism, positing that nativist sentiments were often radicalized to the point of violence (Ritter 128). In the context of the 1850s, the US economy was stagnating at the same time as immigration was rising. According to Ritter, many Americans drew the simple conclusion that the stagnating economy was a result of immigration (Ritter 147). Assuming such a simple and direct causal explanation was a mistake. Communities with dense immigrant populations were impoverished not because immigrants were worsening the economy, but because the economy was already in a weakened state. As Ritter expresses, nativists “lacked imagination” for potential solutions to poverty and crime and so attributed their fears to immigrants (Ritter 146). Ritter cites numerous examples of how riots would typically take place around election polls, the most striking of which was the Louisville Bloody Monday Riot, which took place in 1855. Ritter mentions that much of the testimonies of the day are likely unreliable but one well respected account describes how Irishmen and Germans were beaten outside a courthouse and prevented from voting (Ritter 144). When the riot had finally settled, twenty-two Irishmen and Germans had been killed with many more injured (Ritter 143). Although today the nativist movement is not the violent “Know-Nothing” party that it was in the 1850s, when the majority of immigrants were coming from Europe instead of Mexico, sentiments of contemporary nativism have resurfaced; however, the targets of those policies have shifted from European immigrants to Mexican immigrants.

Nativists believe that immigrants have an overall detrimental effect, commonly arguing that they steal jobs that would otherwise go to Americans. However, according to primary and secondary labor market theory, this is not the case. The primary market is defined as being generally stable and reliable where high skilled jobs such as surgeons and lawyers typically are. The secondary market conversely is subject to fluctuations and is unstable. This is where low skilled jobs or labor-intensive jobs exist (Nadadur 1042). The majority of immigrants are most likely to make up the secondary market upon arriving in the United States since access to the primary labor market would require considerable professional training and scholarly experience. The view that there is competition for jobs between Americans and immigrants within the secondary labor market is untrue. As Ramanujan Nadadur expertly articulates: 

...though the native unemployment rate for food preparation jobs is 9 per cent, 25 per cent of these jobs are held by illegal immigrants. Similarly, though the native unemployment rate is 12 per cent in farming occupations, illegal immigrants hold 20 per cent of them. In short, there are more jobs in the secondary sector than there are native workers to fill those jobs. Further, the labour shortage in the secondary sector is growing. (Nadadur 1044)

This study suggests that the complaint of nativist activists that economic issues are a result of increased immigration is mostly unfounded. The demand for the secondary labor market in the United States is so large that it is capable of accommodating more than what immigrants and Americans currently comprise. Additionally, since the demand in the secondary labor market is not currently being met and the shortage is even growing, immigration should therefore be encouraged in order to meet this rising labor demand. In this view, immigration does not harm the economy but instead is an essential contribution to the economy.

A second nativist argument that must be refuted is that Mexican immigrants increase the crime rate in the United States, a claim that the Trump administration has made in the past and that served as the guiding principle for his stringent “zero tolerance” approach on immigration at the Mexican border. However, studies have shown that not to be the case. One such study conducted by David Green concluded that there “is no significant association between any of the measures of crime considered and any foreign population shown here” (Green 513). Another study concurrently concluded that the relationship between immigration and crime was weak, leaning towards negative (Ousey 64). This can be interpreted to mean that if there is any relationship between immigration and crime, immigration reduces crime. But it should be mentioned that the greater majority of the literature studying immigration and crime concludes that immigration and crime  have little to no relationship. Nevertheless, the claim that immigrants definitively increase crime is entirely unsubstantiated.

Furthermore, unemployment rates and poverty rates are not due to some inherent characteristic of immigration, but instead are a result of the failure of the United States to provide equitable opportunity in the labor markets, an issue which nativism has only exacerbated. According to a report by the MPI, 29 percent of foreign educated immigrants experience skill underutilization in addition to the  21 percent of US-educated immigrants (Batalova 3). Of that percentage 47 percent of foreign-educated Mexican Immigrants experienced skill underutilization and 36 percent of US-educated Mexican Immigrants were also underemployed or unemployed (Batalova 4). All together, the report found that hispanic immigrants were the most disadvantaged group (Batalova 3). It is evident that, immigrants, whether foreign educated or US-educated, experience inequitable employment due to nativist bias and discrimination. This creates unnecessary and avoidable poverty and unemployment in immigrant populations.  

Importantly, immigrants also improve the economy through a theory known as “brain gain,” otherwise known as human capital flight, which occurs “when a country benefits as a consequence of immigration of a highly qualified person” (Srivastava). For example, studies have found that immigrants have a higher rate of entrepreneurship and are more likely to open businesses than native born Americans (West 438). Additionally, there are several high-profile cases that demonstrate the incredible contributions Mexican immigrants have made to US technological and scientific discovery as well as culture. Albert Baez, born in Puebla and emigrated at age two, was a physicist renowned for co-inventing the x-ray microscope and consequently starting the field of x-ray optics (“Hispanic Heritage”). His daughter Joan Baez is a well-known folk musician and social activist. Mario Molina was born in Mexico City and, after obtaining his doctorate at the University of California at Berkeley, discovered the potentially catastrophic effect chlorofluorocarbons could have on the ozone layer; Molina was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995 (Molina). Then there is of course Carlos Santana, popular musician and an inductee in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, who emigrated to the US from Mexico in the 1960s (“Carlos Santana”). These are exceptional examples, but on every level immigrants have contributed to advances in science, business, technology, the arts, and everyday life.

Restrictive immigration policies are completely unethical and undermine America’s commitment to and investment in immigrants. Engraved at the base of the Statue of Liberty is a poem with an indelible motif:

Give me your tired, your poor, [y]our huddled masses yearning to breathe free, [the] wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! (“The New Colossus,” Emma Lazarus)

The Statue of Liberty finished construction in New York harbor, 1886. Since then, it would see the passage of over 12 million immigrants via Ellis Island. Today it exists as a symbol of freedom and hope for every person that seeks to immigrate to the United States. As of 2015, the United States is home to the largest number of immigrants out of any other country (Connor). It cannot be denied that America has been a home to a prodigious number of immigrants and as such they are an inextricable part of the American psyche. Therefore, the principles of multiculturalism should be advocated over the ethnocentric, nativist principles that have dominated the immigration debate. The metaphor of America as a Melting Pot is one that commonly arises. As Ralph Waldo Emerson, an American philosopher, once expressed “The individuality of the immigrant, almost even his traits of race and religion, fuse down in the democratic alembic like chips of brass thrown into the melting pot" (Thornton 126). His sentiments perfectly encompass the ideal nature of the American psyche, in that all the different cultures present in America mix together to become something new and unique. It is even engraved on every American coin: E. Pluribus Unum—out of many we are one. This has been the motto of the United States since 1782 alongside the American Bald Eagle, a popular patriotic symbol (“Great Seal of…”). It is only fitting that these American ideals allow for Mexican immigrants to come into America and add their wondrous culture into the American Melting Pot.

Mexican immigrants have an essential and ethical right to emigrate to the United States,      a right that has been violated by the Trump administration. According to the Refugee Convention and its Protocol, the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees, and the Torture Convention, the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” approach violated the international rights of Mexican immigrants. The first violation is the treatment of asylum seekers from Mexico as criminals, evident by the process of immediate detainment and family separation. The second violation was the use of detention to deter asylum seekers. The final violation was the implementation of family separation, which in itself constitutes an act of torture (Sweatt 681). It is evident that the Trump administration and immigration laws have caused a humanitarian crisis at the border that must be remediated through the amelioration of immigration policies. This can only be accomplished by abolishing or at the very least revising the provisions set in the Hart-Celler Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act which currently dehumanize Mexican immigrants.

Immigration reform is essential. I have discussed how visa distribution is inequitable, how  detention is unethical,  and how the US immigration system dehumanizes Mexican immigrants. The first necessary change to ameliorate conditions for immigrants across the border and reduce backlog is to completely redact the 7 percent rule in the Hart-Celler Act, particularly as it pertains to employment visas (U.S. Citizenship Act). Not only would this reduce the amount of time immigrants seeking employment in the United States would need to wait to hear their case, it would also decrease the cost of skill underutilization and increase the value of human capital flight.  But the removal of the 7 percent rule alone is insufficient to completely reduce backlog. For that, immigration courts must be significantly expanded with greater support staff as well as with expert and truly unbiased judges. In the case of asylum seekers, the removal of the Safe Third Country clause. Immigrants seeking safety and sanctuary cannot be denied entry and the Safe Third Country clause does precisely that.  Detainment and the separation of families is also unacceptable and should be wholly  prohibited. It is reassuring, however, that some of these provisions are being considered in the U.S. Citizenship Act, which has been passed by the House of Representatives, but has yet to pass through the Senate. The passage of this bill into law would surely be a great step forward, but legislation alone is not enough. In order to achieve full immigrant integration, nativist rhetoric must cease and be replaced by a multicultural perspective. This requires that diversity be encouraged in schools everywhere in the US along with understanding and appraisal for immigrant history.

Immigration across the US-Mexico border demonstrates the failure of the American immigration system rooted in unwarranted nativism. Family separation at the border, ignorance of the determinants in the rising immigrant population, and the marginalization of immigrants constitutes an unethical mistreatment of people which is incongruent with American principles. I recall a time, not but a year ago, when my mother told me of the veneration our family had of the United States. In France, they learned that the United States was the bastion of freedom and the land of opportunity. We were given an opportunity for an American Dream, where so many others were denied and continue to be denied. Why us and not them? It is therefore my American Dream to see the day that America fulfills its promise for those marginalized along the border as it has for me and my family. And even though the former president has left office, the fight for immigrant rights still remains. The nativist mentality that has persisted since the 19th century is not leaving with a change in administration. It may be true that the American Dream is only a dream to many immigrants across the US-Mexico border in the United States, but that dream can be made a reality. Immigrants and immigration are inextricably entwined with America, and when that is recognized at the federal level and by the whole of America, the American Dream will finally become more than just a dream.