Online Editor of the LexisNexis Immigration Law Community (ILC)
Let them in. Give them work permits. Watch America thrive.
DAN KOWALSKI
DEC 29
READ IN APP
Reading* the news, it appears that many are freaking out about the “crisis” along the U.S. / Mexico border.
In fact, there is no crisis. Yes, there are logistical problems around feeding and housing migrants, and legal problems around sorting out their legal claims in immigration court.
Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
But the numbers are the numbers: “[T]he past decade has seen unusually slow growth in immigration. In fact, the period from 2012 to 2022 saw slower growth in the immigrant share of the population than the 2000s, 1990s, 1980s and 1970s. You have to go all the way back to the 1960s, when the immigrant population actually shrank, to find a lower growth rate.” – David J. Bier, Oct. 3, 2023
America is graying. We need more immigrants, not fewer, and the younger the better. “With the national unemployment rate reaching a historic low of 3.4% in 2023—and states like Massachusetts (2.5%) and Pennsylvania (3.5%) reaching record lows—employers and elected officials have been desperate to find new workers.” – Andrew Kreighbaum, Dec. 29, 2023.
But under current law, it can take many months, if ever, for migrants to obtain work permits. Meanwhile, they are forced to work for cash, under the table, exposed to horrible working conditions, sub-market wages and the continual threat of deportation. Once they have work permits, however, they gain bargaining power.
Hein de Haas, professor of sociology at the University of Amsterdam, and the author of How Migration Really Works, says: “Fundamental choices have to be made. For example, do we want to live in a society in which more and more work – transport, construction, cleaning, care of elderly people and children, food provision – is outsourced to a new class of servants made up mainly of migrant workers? Do we want a large agricultural sector that partly relies on subsidies and is dependent on migrants for the necessary labour? The present reality shows that we cannot divorce debates about immigration from broader debates about inequality, labour, social justice and, most importantly, the kind of society we want to live in.”
Many years ago I was “on the bus” for a border journalism junket. With me was Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jason Riley. His 2008 book, Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders, is still fresh as a daisy.
Look I get it: I was lucky enough to grow up bilingual, enjoy the benefits of “higher ed,” and travel a lot, so I am not afraid of immigrants. Many Americans aren’t so lucky. Still, unless we are OK with China and India eating our economic lunch, we need to face facts and let in more immigrants, stat.
* Pro Tip: Never watch television.
Thanks for reading Dan’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
*******************************
There’s plenty of empirical support for Dan’s view that we are largely creating a “crisis” while missing a golden opportunity. Indeed, while the U.S. is the world’s richest and most powerful nation, many smaller and poorer countries are able to resettle more asylum seekers, refugees, and other types of forced migrants, by both absolute numbers and proportion. See, e.g., https://www.nrc.no/shorthand/fr/a-few-countries-take-responsibility-for-most-of-the-worlds-refugees/index.html.
What we appear to have is more of a politically-driven crisis of lack of confidence, political will, and basic competence to manage a humanitarian situation that is predictable, largely inevitable, and an opportunity to harness the human capital of migration — the same energy that actually built our nation and made it great. We’ve wasted huge amounts of money, resources, and time on cruel, failed, counterproductive enforcement gimmicks, while underfunding and failing to creatively update adjudication and resettlement functions.
Sadly and disturbingly, politicos of both parties and the Administration are basically pledging and scheming to ignore the advice of experts and creative problem-solvers and to do an even worse job next year and into the future. They will certainly leave a scurrilous trail of fraud, waste, abuse, cruelty, futility, failure, death, and missed oportunities in their wake — if we let them get away with it!
Research Assistant Professor
TRAC-Syracuse
PHOTO: Syracuse U.
Dan’s essay also reminds me of another recent Substack essay from immigration expert and statistical guru, Professor Austin Kocher. Austin’s theory is that backlogs in and of themselves might not be as bad as we often portray them — particularly in light of the alternatives and the intentional failures to make obvious reforms to improve the “robustness” and fairness of our immigraton system. See https://austinkocher.substack.com/p/3-million-cases-are-now-pending-in.
Here’s the core of what Austin says:
First, it is worth questioning our basic assumptions about whether the “backlog”, as it is somewhat sensationally referred to, is actually a bad thing. Unlike the Obama administration, when the rapid growth of court cases was more attributable to people who lived in the U.S. for a long time getting caught up in interior enforcement, the recent growth is almost entirely due to the arrival of asylum seekers into the country. If you believe that asylum seekers deserve an opportunity to have their cases heard, then these numbers might be a positive sign. More people will have at least a nominal opportunity to apply for asylum instead of being turned away outright at the border.
Second, it remains absurd to me that the current practice in the U.S. is to force recently arrived asylum seekers into court in front of an immigration judge rather than to direct their cases toward asylum officers at USCIS who are trained for precisely this purpose. Immigration courts were designed to adjudicate cases of non-citizens who are suspected of violating U.S. immigration laws. The courts are adversarial environments that, as far as I can tell, require far more taxpayer resources and migrant resources than non-adversarial asylum interviews do. The fact that there are 3 million cases in court is, to me, an indictment of a system that treats humanitarian crises through the lens of quasi-criminalization.
Third, since no real change is likely forthcoming, I think we should rethink our sensationalization of the backlog number and simply accept the growing immigration court backlog much like we accept the U.S. national debt ticker in New York City.2 It’s just going to keep going up unless something absolutely fundamental changes about the world we live in. Get over it. This is how things work now. We need to end the delusional thinking that reforms—even much-needed reforms, such as the creation of an independent court system—are going to “solve” the backlog. The U.S. immigration system either needs radically rethought or we need to simply accept that the number of pending cases will reach 4 million, 5 million, or 6 million cases in the next few years.
Lastly, if we really want to solve the backlog, the easiest way to resolve the backlog is for Congress to give everyone with an NTA (i.e., everyone with a pending court case) and who meets certain minimal criteria a special visa that regularizes their status and puts them on a path to citizenship just like other lawful permanent residents. Yes, yes—I know that not everyone will like that solution for political reasons, but at least admit that you don’t like it for political reasons, not because it wouldn’t solve the backlog (because it would). After all, the US Census Bureau is already forecasting absolute population decline in the US within our lifetimes. Three million new citizens now wouldn’t solve that problem, but it might not hurt in the long run.
I was struck by his second point. One of the positive regulatory changes made by the Biden Administration was to confer authority on USCIS Asylum Officers to grant asylum immediately, at the border or in reception centers, rather than referring all arriving asylum seekers who pass credible fear to the Immigration Courts. Nevertheless, as I among many pointed out, the Administration had neither the personnel nor the training in place to make this change effective.
I also argued that without a new BIA of expert Appellate Judges and exceptionally-well-qualified asylum expert Immigration Judges assigned to key Immigration Courts to provide dynamic leadership, de facto supervision, and a series of far better positive precedents guiding adjudicators to grant asylum in many repetitive situations, this positive change was doomed to failure.
Sure enough, the Administration botched the implementation — running inept, timid, and minute “pilot programs” that could only be termed “sad jokes.” To make matters worse, when recently faced with a humanitarian situation at the border, where a “surge” of qualified Asylum Officers working with NGOs to screen arrivals could have made a huge difference, the Administration inexplicably “suspended” this most useful part of their regulations. Meanwhile, they opted to keep more problematic provisions in effect.
To compound the problem, nativist GOP State AGs mounted frivolous court challenges to the expanded role of Asylum Officers. Stripped of its legal gobbledygook, they essentially and absurdly argued that the Administration lacked authority to empower statutory Asylum Officers to grant asylum.
Dan’s essay found favor with well-known expert Careen Shannon:
This post about the opportunity presented by migrants who want to live in the United States is a sensible message with which to end the year. Kudos to Dan Kowalski for stating what should be obvious but apparently cannot be repeated often enough.
🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!
PWS
12-31-23
