"Failing Politics of Undocumented Immigration" by Oscar Benitez, M.E.Ch.A. de UPenn

Failing Politics of Undocumented Immigration

By Oscar Benitez C’ 09,
Urban Studies Program at the University of Pennsylvania
MEChA de Penn

The US government has historically intended to resolve the “immigration problem” through the use of force, exhausting the belief that if it only remains tough on undocumented immigration, all will be good. The greatest challenge to fixing the problems associated with excessive immigration is the politics of perception surrounding the issue.

It is intuitive to believe that a powerful border patrol will yield a decrease in undocumented immigration. Throughout the 1990s, highly funded initiatives in El Paso and San Diego successfully obstructed the undocumented flow of migrants by increasing fencing, surveillance, and ammunition on the border.

Scholars, including Doug Massey, Jorge Durand, and David Spener, however, have proven that militarization of the border since 1986 has failed as a whole in preventing undocumented migration. Highly militarized zones like those in El Paso and San Diego have diverted undocumented immigrants to less patrolled, rugged, and life-threatening regions. Furthermore, the tax burden in 2000 for funding a militarized and fenced border increased as much as threefold despite the fact that apprehension probability was not much higher than that of the early 1980s.

Militarization not only suggests an impregnable border, but implicitly highlights efforts to do what it takes, even if it means endangering the lives of border crossers, to reaffirm that Capitol Hill is in command of its boundaries. It is ineffective policy that elicits a vote of confidence from a “threatened” America.

As a result, border policy has narrowed the scope of the issue into one of security and the legality of immigration. Manning the border with the second largest armed branch of the government (outside of the military) and heightened sensitivity to homeland security after 9/11, coupled with cultural nativist sentiment, have created an environment that identifies migrants as threats to the well-being of the country. There are those like Lou Dobbs and Congressman Tom Tancredo who have effectively manipulated public perception by linking lax border security to terrorist attacks, rape and other crimes, and the extinction of the English language.

The politics of a perceived border control fails on two accounts. It does not to adequately prevent crossings and most importantly, funnels the public scope of immigration into one of defense, with a strict focus on the legality. “They are breaking the law. Their presence is illegal. Send them back.”

We must go beyond these inflammatory appeals. Our immigration policy should address border security and the heart of the issue: “Why are people coming to the US?” Even if the border is completely walled off, choices to emigrate are fundamentally linked to global labor markets, the affects of globalization and free trade, and poor governance of sending countries. Economic strategies like NAFTA, for example, contradict border policy. It seeks to merge international markets, promoting the free flow of everything economic while refusing to take labor into account. There are economic reasons aligned with the migration of labor that might explain why people chose to risk their lives to reside in the US. Failure to incorporate these aspects in our conversation on immigration leads us to incomplete and polarizing arguments on security, legality, and language.