Biden’s Immigration Plan
By Matthew P. Daley
This is a first look at President Biden’s immigration plan and will likely be followed by analyses in greater depth as the Congress takes up his proposals. Upon first reading, one is hard pressed to identify any major “ask” of the advocates of increased immigration that has been omitted. Together with President Biden’s Executive Orders, this proposal, if adopted, will vacate restrictions on immigration adopted during the Trump Administration and ease a number that were in place during the Obama Administration. Absent is a clear commitment to controlling our borders (however that is done) and returning illegal/unauthorized aliens to their homelands. The result will be significant increases in immigration of all types to the US, the exact magnitude of which is difficult to forecast due to uncertainties regarding future enforcement policies and factors which drive immigration. The Biden plan does not announce “open borders” as its objective, but one may be forgiven for suspecting that is the direction in which the US will travel under it.
To date, the major themes have been articulated and a 100 day pause in deportations ordered, including those who are subject to judicial removal orders, but while the pan has been sent to Congress, an actual bill has not yet been introduced. Immigration law and issues associated with it are complicated and the expression “the devil is in the details” will often apply. Broadly speaking, the proposal will offer amnesty to most of nearly 11 million illegal aliens in the US, facilitate family-based immigration, increase refugee admissions, ease asylum standards and grapple with employment-based immigration. The thrust of the various proposals will be to increase immigration of all types. Major headings and some indication of where contention will arise follows.
The Dreamers
Biden’s proposal would cover the “dreamers,” or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, i.e., those young people who were brought to the United States illegally as children by adults, and makes them immediately eligible for green cards which denote legal status and permit them to work, as well as being on a pathway to citizenship. There is broad support for this measure and if put to a stand-alone vote in the House and Senate, it most likely would pass.
Other Undocumented/Illegal aliens
All those who arrived before January 1, 2021 would be able to apply for some form of temporary legal status, but initially would not be eligible for green cards. Five years after passage of the law, those in this group who pass background checks (the criteria for which have not been specified) and have paid their taxes could apply for green cards. They would become eligible for citizenship after another three years. This part of Biden proposal will likely encounter strong debate as some Members of Congress will be reluctant to put those who crashed the gates on a path to citizenship as opposed to offering them legal resident alien status. In a symbolic step, the proposal would also replace the word “alien” with “noncitizen” in federal regulation and laws. Administrative guidance to agencies dealing with immigration issues has already banned use of the term “alien.”
Increasing Refugee Admissions
The Biden plan will significantly increase the number of individuals admitted to the US as refugees, a step that will be generally welcome. The reductions in refugee-admissions numbers under President Trump left many Americans with a sour taste in their mouths, especially given the service that thousands of Iraqis and Afghans undertook in direct support of US military operations.
The No Ban Act
This is part of the plan titled the “No Ban Act” that would prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion and curb the authority of the President to issue bans in the future. The ban on religious discrimination is likely to pass easily since our national security concerns can be addressed through other mechanisms. President Biden has already rescinded the Trump Administration ban that applied to several Muslim majority nations as well as a couple of non-Muslim countries. Since the country specific ban was symbolic rather than substantive (we have other ways to address who receives admittance to the US) it has little import.
Temporary Protected Status and Agricultural Workers
The TPS program provides legal status to individuals from countries afflicted by natural disaster or violent conflict, but who were expected to return home at some point. Under the Biden proposal, they and agricultural workers would be eligible immediate permanent residency.
Encouraging Family-Based Immigration
The Biden plan would make a number of changes to reduce wait times and increase country visa caps. It would eliminate discrimination against LGBTQ+ families and allow some to join their families in the US while waiting for green cards to become available. We will need to see the text of the bill to learn how it defines “family.” If extended families were eligible as opposed to nuclear families, the increased immigration would be substantial.
Asylum
Asylum claims would no longer need to be filed within a one-year deadline and protections for certain categories such as victims of crimes would be increased as would the number of visas available to those categories.
Employment Related Immigration
The plan would increase employment-related immigration through a number of steps, including allowing dependents of certain visa holders to obtain work permits. It also aims to “incentivize” higher wages for non-immigrant, high-skilled visas to level the playing field for American workers.
Border Security
The plan would authorize increased budgets for border security by investing in screening technologies aimed at criminal enterprises, but apparently not at reducing the number of illegal/undocumented migrants crossing the southern border. Of course, authorizing increased funding for border security is not the same thing as appropriating the funds. Safe to assume that wall construction will halt. After the actual text of a bill becomes available, one could seek for language dealing with people who enter legally with a visa, but overstay or otherwise violate the conditions of the visa. This category accounts for a significant proportion of those now illegally in the U.S., but it would not be accurate to call them “undocumented.”
Rationalizing immigration is likely to be good for everyone – US citizens and immigrants. A few of the reasons:
1) Increase wages – Contrary to popular opinion, legalizing undocumented workers is likely to place upward pressure on all low-end wages. Currently, employers use the undocumented status of workers to pressure them to accept sub-standard wages. This also places downward pressure on US residents looking to fill similar jobs.
2) Balance age demographics – The US population is aging. We need to fill in the younger age demographics to ensure the stability of our social and economic structures.
3) Innovation and dynamism – Immigrants tend to be motivated and hard-working people. They took the initiative to leave there own country and work hard work and and bring new ways of thinking.
To make this work, however, we will need to make illegal immigration rare. We can do this two ways. First, ensure there are enough slots for legal immigrants including refugees. Our economy depends on these people – let’s welcome them. Second, drive down illegal immigration by eliminating the jobs that attract economic migrants. Do this by providing deterrent punishments for employers who hire illegal immigrants. Make it in their best interest to hire legal US residents. We’ll need to make it easy to determine who can work legally in the US.
Walls and deportation won’t work but eliminating the jobs that attract illegal economic migrants might.
In order to solve this problem, we need to be honest about why undocumented workers are here.
Undocumented workers are here in the United States because we invited them here. We invited them here by giving them jobs. We gave them jobs because they would do jobs for wages that documented workers won’t accept. We tell ourselves they do jobs that American’s won’t do. But that isn’t true. They do jobs that American’s won’t do at the same depressed wages. Hiring undocumented workers allow companies to subvert the usual labor market forces. They are here because we want cheap labor.
We made a deal. We told undocumented workers that “You can come here and do our least desirable jobs but, to keep you in line, we’re not going to legalize you. We’ll keep a constant low level of pressure via threats of deportation so that you don’t start feeling comfortable and demanding better wages.”
We’ve become dependent on undocumented workers. Like the antebellum South couldn’t imagine what their economy would look like post-slavery, we can’t imagine what our economy would look like without undocumented workers. Many companies have build a business model around the availability of undocumented workers. We can’t imagine what would happen if we had to pay itinerant farm laborers a living wage. We can’t imagine who would cut our grass, who would pack our meat, who would clean our houses, who would do all the tasks that we’ve come to depend on undocumented laborers to perform. We just assume it would be bad.
Unfortunately. low wage Americans get hurt by this arrangement so we need to appear to oppose it. So we engage in theater. We build a theatric wall. ICE performs the occasional theatric raid on an employer. We do enough to keep the pressure on immigrants and appear to populist Americans that we are trying to do something about the problem. In reality, they are token gestures that are not intended to solve the problem.
To glimpse just how disingenuous the discussion is, take a look at Trump. As he was railing against undocumented workers and constructing the wall, he was employing undocumented immigrants as groundskeeper and housekeepers at his Bedminster Golf Course. On one hand, he wanted a scapegoat, on the other, he wanted cheap labor. In general, the discussion is little better. We refuse to acknowledge our dependence on undocumented workers while we rail against amnesty.
Before we can solve the problem of illegal immigration, we need to acknowledge and accept our complicity. Anyone who has benefited from illegal immigration (all of us) are part of the problem. We’ve built our lifestyle around illegal immigration.
For those who don’t like Biden’s plan, come up with a better one. But make sure that it acknowledges reality. Waiting for a wall to curb illegal immigration isn’t a plan, it just maintains the status quo.
I share Mr. Ritchie’s view that rationalizing immigration is a worthy objective even as I either differ with or am uncertain about some of his arguments. There is no doubt that some – perhaps many -employers abuse the illegal/undocumented workers and this places downward pressure on the wages of US citizens and legal resident aliens. Punishment for employers who hire illegal/undocumented workers is an appropriate tool to that end and one that would be facilitated by adoption of a national identity card. That option, however, raises a different set of issues.
I also agree that increased immigration can help us balance the age/demographic challenges that confront the US. I argue that the US has a comparative advantage over many societies in our ability absorb immigrants from diverse cultures and allow them to flourish. That said, we need to be clear-eyed regarding the skills and attributes we seek. Our focus should be on individuals with solid educations. Manual labor positions will continue to be in relatively less demand. The U.S. already has too many fit, working age males who have withdrawn from the workforce. We could, for example automatically, offer green card to those foreign students who complete a M.S. or PhD in stem subjects. Obviously, the “in-need” skills will evolve over time and require periodic adjustment. I would not, however, subject refugee admissions to a skills test and welcome the Biden Administration’s decision to increase such admissions.
I disagree with Mr. Ritchie’s assertion that “Walls and deportation won’t work…”. In certain circumstances, walls are an effective and necessary part of controlling a border. Ask either the Palestinians or the Israelis about the effectiveness of walls. That said, walls are not sufficient per se to assure border security. A lot of other policies and capabilities need to be in place and one of those is deportation. In the foreseeable future, our economy that will attract economic migrants who enter illegally; deportation will be essential to address that problem as well as the small subset of the immigrant population that engages in criminal behavior.
Comment
If you are really interested in reducing conflict, it would seem like a good time for all three editors to condemn the rioters at the Capitol yesterday (6-Jan) in bold letters on the home page of your site.
EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS COMMENT WAS RECEIVED ON JANUARY 7 AND NOT POSTED AT THE TIME BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ON THE TOPIC OF THE JAN 7 ISSUE. ON REFLECTION, WE DECIDED THAT IT WARRANTS BOTH PUBLICATION AND A REPLY (SEE BELOW)
Mr. Ritchie’s assertion that “If you are really interested in reducing conflict, it would seem like a good time … to condemn the rioters at the Capitol yesterday (6-Jan)…” is perplexing. The purpose of Chesapeake Observer is foster the exchange of rationale and respectful views on the issues of the day, not to reduce conflict. If such an exchange results in a reduction in conflict, fine. Speaking for myself, over three weeks after the assault on the Capitol, I could not think of anything more to say in way of condemnation that has not already been said and said by more articulate voices than mine. In that circumstance, I would regard a masthead condemnation as an empty exercise in virtue signaling.
On the topic of January 6, we need to more fully address the woeful failure of the leadership in the then Republican-controlled Senate and the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives as well as in the Office of the Architect of the Capitol which oversees the Capitol Police. There was, on the ground, a very clear line between the protestors and the insurrection. The Capitol, our legislators and staff and the police officers themselves should have been defended from the insurrectionist mob by all necessary means, including the use of deadly force.