A substantial amount of controversy inflames the immigration debate within the U.S. Born into Polish-American family that emigrated to the U.S a mere 30 years ago, the debate remains exceptionally relevant and deeply personal to my family and I alike. Living within the midst of the 2016 presidential election, I became enveloped within this lively discussion, the topic strategically woven into several of my classes this fall, including my community psychology and research-based psychology course. Marked by its pronounced hostility and rancor, this years’ presidential race brought discussions surrounding illegal immigration to the forefront of political climate. In a responsive mannerism, I embarked on an intellectual journey in hopes of better understanding the multifaceted and complex nature of this politicized issue.
A significant proportion of Mr. Trump’s contemporaneous political success can be accredited to his seemingly austerity and unrelenting rigidity upon this particular issue, exemplified through his countless calls for the creation of a “beautiful” southern-border wall and the deportation of all undocumented illegals currently holding residence within the U.S. Upon further research and analysis, however, it remains unbendingly clear that Mr. Trump’s immigration propositions are reprehensible at best, rooted in falsehoods and social myths. His self-serving vilification of illegal immigrants as the source of our nation’s ills objectionable and entirely unforgivable. The future remains unforeseeable and we know not which specific promises Mr. Trump may undertake during his tenure as the 45th president, but the prospects remain slightly unnerving.
At the forefront of Mr. Trump’s immigration proposals remain his rallying cries for mass deportations of all illegal immigration currently holding residence within the U.S, vocalizing that “anyone who is in the United States illegally is subject to deportation.” This illegitimate and unfeasible policy proposition ignores factual evidence, turning an intentional blind eye to legitimate points stemming the opposing side of the political spectrum. Apart from being an evident breach of human rights and exacerbating the due process clause of the 14th and 15th amendment, Mr. Trump’s calls are rooted in the largely accepted social myths. Although many Americans, including a large proportion of Mr. Trump’s supportive base, believe immigrants steal American jobs and decrease wages most practicing economists find little evidence of this at play. In all actuality, the vast majority of illegal immigrants satisfy a domestic demand for labor, economists staunchly propose.
The U.S state of Georgia serves as an emblematic depiction of this phenomenon in its most sincere operation. An article entitled “The Law of Unintended Consequences: Georgia’s Immigration Law Backfires” discusses Georgia’s immigration enforcement law, House Bill 87, which grants police officers the outright authority to demand immigration documentation from detained personnel and creates stricter penalties for employers found to be hiring and/or harboring illegal immigrants. However, as the article’s title implies, throughout its adaptation process, Georgia is suffering through a series of unintended consequences after the bill’s successful implementation that flawlessly demonstrate the issue at hand. Without a large majority of the agriculture workforce, per a University of Georgia study, farmers were approximately 40% short of the workforce necessary to cultivate and harvest the annual crop in 2011. Consequently, many farmers were forced to leave their produce to rot and/or choose to cultivate less crop after immigrant workers were seemingly forced to flee and take refuge in other localities. Accordingly, approximately 56% of Georgian farmers’ report they had trouble finding replacement workers (Time.com). Likewise, a study conducted by the Perryman Group, estimates that the state may potentially lose $21.3 billion in economic activity and $9.5 billion in gross state product.
Yet, Georgia’s unemployment rate remained stagnant in 2011, hovering around 10% with no definitive upsurge in citizen employment. Rightfully so, opponents of the Georgia’s bill claim the law incentives racial profiling, granting police officers the absolute authority to choose whom is subject to investigation. An op-ed published in the Huffington Post, suggests the bill “undermines the fundamental American value of fairness and equal protections”. Opposition for such legislation and other similar legal propositions has increased in recent years, especially in states with industries that heavily rely upon seasonal workers. In 2016 alone, there was an approximate 140,000 of agricultural works given temporary stay within the U.S under the H-2 Visa work program.
Similar bills have also passed in Arizona and Alabama, both costing the states billions of dollars in state revenue. Unskilled workers earn much less in hourly stipends, which is precisely why the vast majority of Georgia’s locals are not inclined to work within the back-breaking agricultural industry and/other low-paying positions held by the undocumented. As such, most illegal immigrants do not ‘steal’ the jobs of hard-working Americans, yet alternatively, grant Americans the ability to hold other occupations, typically more skilled professional positions. Likewise, on average, unskilled workers earn much less, which is why the clear majority of citizens do not readily flock to fill vacant positions once held by undocumented immigrants as demonstrated in Georgia.
Another unnerving prospect of Mr. Trump’s new administration are his vows to defund sanctuary cities, promising to “cut off federal grants to any city which refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement.” Over the years, sanctuary cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and South Tucson, have adopted a policy of protecting undocumented immigrants. These traditions are typically de facto practices, but some may be enforced in accordance to state laws. The term is often used derisively and dismissively by those who oppose their continued existence, including Donald Trump himself, but the residents and governance of such cities evidently understand the objective truth. Accordingly, in 2015, the U.S Senate voted on a bill entitled Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, mockingly labeled as the Donald Trump bill. Democrats successfully blocked the bill (in a 54-45 vote) that would have withheld federal funding from states refusing to comply and turn over undocumented immigrants with illegal residence. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid spoke about the bill, pronouncing that “this Donald Trump Act was designed to demonize immigrants and spread the myth that they are criminals and threats to the public” (The Daily Signal).
Yet, in sharp contrast to the ostentatious language of Mr. Trump and Republicans alike, most sanctuary cities voted largely democratic during the 2016 presidential election held on November 8th. Why, you may ask? As citizens of these geographic localities, these individuals understand that undocumented immigrants are not the source of the nation’s ills and they simultaneously reject Trump’s vilification of the undocumented. They do not believe that the current illegal immigrant pool holds down salaries and keep unemployment high despite Mr. Trumps barrage of vehement rhetoric concerning the matter. Indeed, most undocumented immigrants hold occupation that are primarily low-wage jobs and require relatively little to no formal education. Undocumented immigrants are woven into the fabric and culture of these localities and thus, their citizens disapprove of Mr. Trump’s rallying campaign messages. In a complementary manner, many agricultural and/or sparsely populated counties whom have potentially never interacted with an undocumented immigrant nor firsthand ever the felt supposed economic inflections caused by undocumented immigrant workers voted in strong numbers in favor of Mr. Trump.
Although this present article only scratches the minimalistic surface of the immigration debate, I persistently encourage my fellow readers and university students to vigilantly oppose Mr. Trump on his reprehensible rhetoric, especially if he chooses to continue spouting falsehoods and erroneous half-truths. In our own unique but collective mannerisms, we can encourage Mr. Trump to reform our nation’s draconian immigrations laws, introducing common sense immigration reform, including an expedited path towards citizenship for law-abiding undocumented peoples. As Dianne Guerrero suggests, apathy is our worst enemy. We, as our nation’s youth cannot succumb to fear nor woeful ignorance. Let us stand in solidarity with our undocumented brothers and sisters for they are also humans whose struggles, fears and pains have been dealt a blind ear for far too long. I encourage everyone to freely condemn our president-elect on necessary and relevant matters. No, Mr. Trump, undocumented immigrants do not “have one route and one route only.” Let me be clear and forthright Mr. Trump, the American people will ensure everyone’s rights are upheld without apprehension nor hesitation. We will stand united against ignorance and prejudice. Let’s create change! This is your world. Shape it or someone else will.
Above all else, I fear an apathetic, heartless man. We all should.