To continue my analysis from a few weeks ago, I want to further analyze a proposal that I mentioned vaguely last time. The adoption of a state-sponsored visa system is something that I have done some extensive prior research on in the past and am a huge proponent of. Currently, the allocation of immigrant visas (individuals looking to relocate to the U.S. on a permanent basis) is a largely complex process. There are a number of quotas that Congress has issued to limit the various types of immigrants that the country can accept per year (i.e. family-based or employment-based). The U.S. currently offers roughly 675,000 immigrant visas per year (American Immigration Council).

Personally, I think the federal system is a bit too centralized and doesn’t necessarily meet the needs of both immigrants and the areas in which they locate to. A state-sponsored visa system would change that, with the federal government allocating their set number of immigrant visas to the states. Each state has much different needs, economies, lifestyles, demographics, etc. For example, why should Idaho be under the same federal visa laws as a state like Texas who receives an immensely higher number of border crossings per year.

If the federal government would design a system that could proportionally distribute their visa quotas to the states who most need them, I foresee a more mutually beneficial visa system for both immigrants and the states that will house them. While merit-based immigration already exists to some extent in the U.S., allowing states to have the jurisdiction to select which immigrants they feel could most positively influence their state economy/society is a necessity. For example, if a particular state was in high demand for carpentry, they could use some of their allotted visas to accept immigrants with skills in this field. This can apply to a vast number of fields and skills, and I believe nurturing this relationship between the immigrant and the state allows both parties to be on a fast track to success.

Centralized power often complicates things and makes systems more complex than they need to be. The division of power between the federal and state government in the U.S. is an essential component of our daily lives. While states handle things like education and infrastructure more directly than the federal government, I think to some extent we need to see a transition in immigration jurisdiction more to the state-level as well. I believe that our national immigrations and customs enforcement agencies must still remain strong and provide the necessary resources to states to succeed, but that more of the selection of visa applicants and granting of permanent residency is something that state governments should have a more direct say in.

Now that I touched on a component that could very well be a major stepping stone in alleviating this crisis, I want to now contend on where I think things may be heading. If you have been following national news recently, you should know that Congress has still not currently raised the debt ceiling. Much of this is due to the Republicans now taking control of the House and looking for concessions to be made by President Biden. Not raising the debt ceiling will eventually push the U.S. into defaulting on its debt, a situation that would have catastrophic effects on the U.S. and global economies. You may be asking why I am bringing up this tense debate ongoing in Washington at this very moment? Well, there is a major reason and a reason where I think the immigration crisis comes into play.

Republicans are basically pulling the “we won’t raise the debt ceiling until you give us what we want” card. A politically savvy move, I can foresee an immigration package resulting from this tit-for-tat between Biden and McCarthy. One of the top agenda items on the Republican platform year-in and year-out is putting an end to the illegal immigration crisis and, in recent years, stopping the record high illegal crossings along on our southern border. While border enforcement has recently been viewed as more of a Republican issue, it is undeniable that the Democrat party has been in hot water surrounding their non-committal nature on cleaning up the crisis. Many more Americans have had their eyes opened to what is actually happening on our southern border in recent years and have become increasingly frustrated by the relative inaction by both parties. As the 2024 presidential election approaches, it is becoming increasingly more apparent that immigration will be on of the top several issues on the minds of a lot of moderate/independent voters as they have seen the record amount of crossings that have occurred under the current administration.

With this newfound pressure, I think the Democrat party can’t ignore the border crisis much larger. President Biden can compile a genius political move if he can compromise with the Republicans on a comprehensive border package. Republicans know they are not going to get everything they want in the package, but I believe at this point they know that something is better than nothing given the current climate surrounding the crisis. If I were a betting man, I would not be surprised if the president’s advisors were currently heavily advocating behind-the-scenes to get some sort of border package done by the end of the year. This would be a monumental moment in the Biden presidency and something his reelection campaign (if he chooses to run again) would easily hammer repetitively on the trail.

A recent Gallup poll shows that a record amount of Americans want less immigration now than ever before, with this tremendous spike all taking occurrence following President Biden’s inauguration in 2021 (Axios). It is apparent the American public will not continue to sit-by and watch the horrors immigrants face when just trying to reach the United States safely. Many are tired of seeing the individuals who truly need the migration get shunned away while cartels are able to utilize their resources to effectively smuggle drugs across the border. Families should not have to be ripped apart and American citizens should not be in danger because of ineptitude regarding the border crisis. We have a legal immigration system for a reason, but it is certainly time we reform it so it meets the needs of immigrants, states, and the American public who help acclimate these individuals to their new home.

In my next post, I will be analyzing some of the effective immigration systems/policies enacted around the world and examining what exact additional policy alternatives the U.S. can deduce from countries who have been successful in alleviating any potential immigration crises of their own.

Citations:

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works

https://www.axios.com/2023/02/15/america-immigration-border-gallup

Year after year, the news cycle turns itself upon its head and changes as many times as one can count. However, one constant that remains unchanged in the turbulent agenda-setting of the federal government is the national debate surrounding immigration. Since the dawn of our nation, immigration has been a topic that has consistently plagued lawmakers in the United States. Going back to the days of Ellis Island, immigration policy debates have often been long and arduous with little ground for compromise. In this series of blog posts, I will be analyzing some of the main policies and policy proposals that have contributed substantially to the immigration crisis we have at our southern border and how the U.S. can compose a comprehensive, bipartisan border plan that can address the concerns of the American public.

Many people think that viewing immigration as one of your top concerns on the federal level means you automatically have to be right-leaning. But, the statistics surrounding the crisis speak for themselves. So much so that President Joe Biden visited the busiest crossing point in El Paso just a few weeks ago. In the last fiscal year, Border Patrol apprehending a whopping 2.3 million illegal immigrants attempting to cross the southern border, the highest number ever (Kim). In the past two fiscal years, total apprehensions along the border have exceeded 4 million, breaking just about every precedent and record there is and provoking Border Patrol to arduously plead for more aid. President Biden reiterated “They need a lot of resources. We’re going to get it for them.” The border crossing point in El Paso, known as the “Bridge of the Americas Port of Entry”, is set to receive $600 million from Biden’s infrastructure plan. While certainly a good step, just throwing money at the problem has consistently shown itself in the past that it cannot alleviate the issues surrounding the root causes of the immigration crisis. 

You may be asking, who are these people that are surging the border in record numbers and why are they coming here? A large bulk of these migrants are individuals fleeing their native countries due to poor economic conditions, the fear of socialism in countries like Venezuela or Nicaragua, and the prospect of finding economic success in the United States. Rather than going through the legal process of immigration which can take multiple years to conclude, these individuals are opting to test their chances to sneak into the country and if caught, test the asylum process. Asylum is the term used to describe an individual who is fleeing a country due to significant human rights violations or poor conditions but is not yet recognized as an official refugee. The asylum process is a long and difficult legal battle, with few actually presenting enough to warrant being granted asylum status.

With the amount of asylum-applicants reaching levels not ever seen before in the history of the United States, what can be done to alleviate the crisis that is undeniably statistically shown to be rampaging our southern border? One policy the Biden administration adopted in the past few weeks granted private citizens the right to sponsor refugees (Jordan). This policy was one of the most significant amendments to the U.S. refugee program in history and is intended to expand the network of sponsors refugees can find by now allowing a whole new demographic to sponsor individuals both logistically and financially. While this is a good policy for refugee displacement, it does not apply to the asylum seekers who do not obtain refugee status or possess a work visa to conduct work in the United States. Visas are issued to individuals who apply to work in the United States and may be sponsored by American businesses or individuals willing to do so. Individuals who come to study in the United States can also apply for visa status to curtail the risk of falling under illegal status.

Keeping these legal forms of immigration (refugee and visas) intact and strong is paramount to addressing the root causes of the crisis. If these legal systems in place to aid immigrants coming into the United States are weak and failing, the entire system as a whole is doing a disservice to these immigrants and the American public. In recent months, a policy known as Title 42 has become widely discussed in the media for its overarching impact on border crossings across the southern border. 

Title 42, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, was a policy instituted that permits border patrol agents to expel migrants trying to cross the border due to an ongoing public health emergency. This policy gave border patrol a brand new legal route of curtailing the ongoing siege of migrants and preventing a total overwhelming of migrants crossing over the border who are fleeing their countries’ failed responses to the pandemic. However, there is a catch. In November, a federal judge issued a ruling that Title 42 was “arbitrary and capricious” and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (Jordan and Sullivan). Per the ruling, Title 42 would have to soon cease to exist and with it, potentially catastrophic circumstances for our southern border. 19 Republican-led states immediately appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, of whom said to hear arguments surrounding the case this February and keep the policy intact for the meantime (Sullivan). Some of these Republican-led states are not doing this solely to establish a political point, as those in close proximity to the border have pleaded vigorously to the federal government that they do not contain the resources adequate to home this potentially historic influx in migrants. 

While the fate of Title 42 lies in the hands of the judicial system, the outlook for the immigration crisis remains bleak. While it is certainly positive that the administration is willing to pour hundreds of millions of dollars in resources that will certainly help border patrol and border states be able to manage the crisis, more bipartisan policy changes are needed to address the fundamental reason that border crossings are at record highs. Looking at ways the asylum process can be more exclusive and not cluttered with hundreds of thousands of immigrants seeking for some way into the United States is mutually beneficial for both sides.

What the administration did with allowing private citizens to sponsor refugees is a good step that I believe can take much of the load off of federal immigration agencies. The visa process is also a highly complex process that I believe should be expanded heavily as well. Giving more businesses and private citizens the resources able to sponsor more immigrants for work or educational reasons is quintessential in improving that part of the immigration process. In regard to Title 42, it is absolutely pivotal that the policy remains in place until our federal immigration/border agencies and border states are adequately equipped to face the repercussions of eliminating this policy.

A policy that I will dive a little more in-depth on in one of my subsequent blog posts is the proposal for state-sponsored visas that would allow state governments to be allocated a set number of visas per year and can choose immigrants that they think will be beneficial to their state’s society and economy based on merit. It is a topic I have done some extensive research on in the past and am certainly willing to continue clawing away at. But, for now, hopefully this first post establishes that the immigration crisis is anything but a “manufactured crisis” and there is an urgent need for a bipartisan solution to the issue to prevent a ransacking of our federal immigration agencies and systems.

Sources:

Jordan, Miriam. “Biden Administration Invites Ordinary Americans to Help Settle Refugees.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Jan. 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/19/us/refugee-resettlement-policy-biden.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-us-immigration&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_top_links_recirc.

Kim, Juliana. “The U.S. Set a New Record for Apprehensions at the Southern Border.” NPR, NPR, 24 Oct. 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/10/24/1130841306/new-record-in-border-patrol-apprehensions.

Sullivan, Eileen, and Miriam Jordan. “Illegal Border Crossings, Driven by Pandemic and Natural Disasters, Soar to Record High.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Oct. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/22/us/politics/border-crossings-immigration-record-high.html.

Sullivan, Eileen. “Title 42 Has Allowed Many Migrants to Be Quickly Expelled, and Others to Stay.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Dec. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/us/politics/immigration-public-health-rule-mexico.html.