On Oct. 3, President Obama reaffirmed his position to act unilaterally on the issue of immigration reform, announcing that he would issue executive orders over the next few months. As much as these orders may bother conservative Republicans, Obama’s position makes significant investments in greater border security.
According to a March New York Times article, the administration’s plan is to “cover 900 miles or 45 percent of the border by 2016 with a dense array of agents.” The other 55 percent will be covered with “persistent surveillance,” consisting of drones.
These exorbitant measures are not only unnecessary, but insulting. The concept of America rests upon immigration. Though that immigration did lead to the persecution and genocide of many indigenous peoples in North America, foundationally it is a North American ethos to accept immigrants. Therefore, the stringent restrictions that exist in the current immigration system create the environment the Puritans were trying to flee. They are inherently exclusive.
What is even more frightening is the opposition on the right. As someone who generally leans conservative, I find that their opposition seems like ideological hypocrisy. It is a fascinating paradigm that the staunchest defenders of “freedom” are the biggest critics of the immigration bill.
For instance, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-T.X., a whole-hearted critic and opponent of immigration reform, responded to Sen. John McCain’s, R-A.Z., description of him as a “wacko bird” by saying: “If standing for liberty and standing for the Constitution make you a wacko bird, then you can count me a very proud wacko bird.” Thus, Cruz self-identifies as “standing for liberty.” Is not the freedom of movement one of the purest forms of freedom?
To me, this is a clear example of the ideological hypocrisy that plagues the Republican Party. Many of its members, especially Cruz, are self-described defenders of freedom, yet on the issue of immigration, they do not believe in freedom at all. But how are any of the current immigrants different from our relatives who came to North America in pursuit of opportunity and freedom?
The answer is that they are not.
The Republican Party’s defense of greater border security is based on the belief that people should enter the country through legal immigration means. The 2012 party platform states that “in an age of terrorism, drug cartels, human trafficking and criminal gangs, the presence of millions of unidentified workers poses grave risks to the safety and sovereignty of the United States.” This platform may sound reasonable, but it is not.
Underpinning the platform’s viewpoint on immigration is the belief that undocumented immigrants are inherently involved in illegal and morally questionable decisions. This viewpoint is empirically false. According to ThinkProgress, a progressive media source, native-born Americans are more likely to commit crimes than immigrants. According to ThinkProgress, “First-generation immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than second-generation and native-born, non-Hispanic whites.”
Therefore, it is my belief that underpinning the Republicans’ viewpoint on immigration is a fallacious belief that Hispanic immigrants are more likely to be involved in criminal acts than their white, “American” peers. Therefore, the sentiment, raised time and time again, stems from xenophobia more than actual consistent policy.
This is exemplified by the emphasis on “border security” in relation to Mexico instead of Canada. For instance, former Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Andrew Thomas, who lost in the primary, emphasized in a campaign video that he “stood up to the gay lobby” and “stopped illegal immigration.” Offensively, Thomas flashed an image of the flag of Mexico with a large red line crossed through it. Illegal immigration is only strongly targeted in relation to one bordering country. Is that illegal immigration more morally reprehensible?
There is an imperative for the United States to pass comprehensive immigration reform that does not impinge on the liberty of immigrants. Additionally, it is important that the political right is ideologically consistent on the issue of immigration. It should embrace free-market principles of choice and decentralized, individualistic decision-making.
Feel free to contact Graham Rotenberg ’17 at graham_rotenberg@brown.edu.
ADVERTISEMENT
