The Only Way to Promote Legal Immigration at the U.S.-Mexico Border is to Stop Illegal Immigration
October 8, 2022
Elected officials in northern Democratic states are beginning to understand the magnitude of the ongoing crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border as southern states have started to shift the burden of that crisis in their direction. The transportation on buses and airplanes of migrants who illegally enter the United States to northern states and the nation’s capital is a strategy that recently has captured national attention. What factors have combined to bring us to this stage of the crisis? The aim of this article is to explore these causal factors and the consequences for everyone involved with the hope that this analysis might point in the direction of a lasting solution to the problem.
The United States has experienced surges of migration at its southern border in the past that have put a great strain on the resources of southern states. For example, in their effort to escape the Castro regime, “[f]rom April until October [1980] some 125,000 Cuban immigrants (nicknamed “Marielitos”) crossed the Straits of Florida to the United States, severely straining the capacity of U.S. immigration and resettlement facilities” (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2022). As The Wall Street Journal recently reported, the apprehension of 175,000 Cuban immigrants in FY2022 far exceeded the number of Cuban migrants that entered the United States during the Mariel boatlift in 1980 (Perez and Hackman 2022). Far more shocking, however, is the fact that these apprehended Cuban migrants only constitute a small fraction of the total number of migrants who illegally entered the United States during FY2022. Specifically, The Wall Street Journal reported on August 15, 2022, that “Border Patrol agents [had] made about 1.82 million arrests at the southern border so far in [FY2022]” (Perez and Hackman 2022). Furthermore, “[t]he number beats the record set last fiscal year, which was 1.66 million apprehensions in the year ending September 2021” (Perez and Hackman 2022). The problem of illegal southern border crossings is thus large and growing. ?
The changing composition of the migrant population that is illegally entering the U.S.
The composition of the immigrant population that has illegally entered the United States also has been changing. For example, “Mexican adult males dominated most crossings in the 1990s and 2000s, [but] that began to change about a decade ago, when Central American families and children started to cross in greater numbers” (Perez and Hackman 2022). As Perez and Hackman (2022) explain, “Mexicans and Central Americans from the so-called Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala continue to be the two biggest groups of migrants, [yet] other countries such as Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are sending far greater numbers than ever before[.]” Furthermore, “the number of migrants from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador has been falling, with 50% fewer migrants coming from those countries in August compared with the same period a year ago” (Hackman 2022b). At the same time, an increasing number of migrants have illegally entered the United States from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (Hackman 2022b). These increases have been accompanied by an increase in the travel distance and in the level of danger that migrants attempting to illegally enter the United States encounter.
The changes to the composition of the migrant population that has been illegally entering the U.S. are highly significant in terms of the impact that immigration is having on the southern border states. The reason is that a migrant’s country of origin influences whether the migrant will be returned to the home country or allowed to remain in the United States. Regarding migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, Perez and Hackman (2022) explain that “[m]igrants from [these] countries can’t be deported because the U.S. doesn’t maintain good relations with their governments, and the countries have refused to take back deported citizens from the U.S., adding to the draw of coming. They are most often released into the U.S., or sometimes detained, while pursuing asylum claims.” Furthermore, according to Hackman (2022b), “Migrants from Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua are driving the continued record pace of illegal migration at the southern border, with more than three times as many migrants from those countries arrested so far this year as at the same point in 2021, government data show.” The surge from these countries is, therefore, a great concern because these migrants cannot be returned to their home countries, and they are significantly adding to the already large number of asylum-seekers in the United States.
There are two reasons why this trend is concerning, and neither reason involves prejudicial feelings towards immigrants. First, many migrants who arrive from Central America have no destination in mind, which is a change from prior to 2021. As reported in The Wall Street Journal (Hackman and Lukpat 2022), “Until last year, nearly all asylum seekers came from Central America and arrived with arrangements to stay with a family member or friend in the U.S. More recently, though, larger numbers of migrants are coming from South America or the Caribbean, and a larger proportion are coming with no destination in mind, increasing the likelihood they will wind up in homeless shelters.” Although America has a long tradition of welcoming immigrants, it is difficult to see how this outcome would be beneficial either to migrants or to the American people. Furthermore, migrants from more distant nations are more likely to become victims of violence or to suffer serious physical injuries during their journeys. For example, as Perez and Hackman (2022) explain, “To reach the U.S. southern border, asylum seekers must cross Mexico, where they become targets of kidnapping or extortion by criminal groups and corrupt government officials.” Therefore, although it may sound welcoming, an immigration policy that emphasizes openness at the U.S.-Mexico border incentivizes long journeys that endanger migrant families, provide few or no opportunities once migrant families arrive in the United States, and strain the resources of social services organizations in the United States.
Both Democrats and Republicans recognize the problems that these changing patterns of migration are causing. Vice President Harris’s message to Guatemalans to “not come” (Naylor and Keith 2021) applies with equal force to migrants from more distant locations who are considering migrating to the United States. Nevertheless, this admonishment is not enough to discourage immigration. Migrants need to firmly believe (1) that they will not illegally enter the United States and (2) that they have available to them a legal option to request entry into the United States. Hence, the message must be credible to discourage illegal crossings and to encourage the pursuit of legal options. Words alone will not suffice.
What is behind this new pattern of migration?
The primary reasons for this new pattern of migration that we have been observing resemble the factors that drove the wave of Cuban immigration in 1980. As the Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (2022) explain, “most of the Marielitos were seeking relief from political repression and a stagnating economy. Many of them settled in the Miami area and became legal U.S. residents under the Cuban Adjustment Act.” In many ways, history is repeating itself. “Most migrants are fleeing poverty and unemployment amid the pandemic, high crime or political instability” (Montes 2021). Much of the motivation for the long journeys then is based on economic considerations. As Perez and Hackman (2022) state, “Part of the explanation for the historic numbers is supply and demand. The pandemic hit Latin America’s economies harder than any region in the world, throwing millions of people out of work and creating a far greater supply of low-wage labor looking for jobs.” At the same time, in the countries from which we are observing a surge of migration, political persecution is playing an important role. As Hackman (2022b) states, in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, “a combination of political repression and economic hardship made worse by the Covid-19 pandemic has driven hundreds of thousands of migrants to head to the U.S.” Unfortunately, these root causes for the new pattern of migration have joined with an inadequate U.S. border policy to encourage migrants to make the long journey north and attempt an illegal border crossing with all the corresponding negative consequences for everyone involved.
The growth of the smuggling business
One especially harmful consequence of the new pattern of migration that is being observed at the southern border is the support it is giving for the growth of organized crime. As migrants undertake the journey north to the U.S.-Mexico border, many seek help from smugglers. The profitable business of smuggling migrants into the United States has led to deeper connections between smugglers and organized crime. Both American and Mexican authorities have identified “stronger links between smugglers and organized crime” as an area of concern for both the U.S. and Mexico (Cordoba et al. 2022). This relationship can only be expected to strengthen under present conditions.
The deepening of the connections between smugglers and organized crime organizations is not surprising given the staggering amounts of money that migrants pay to smugglers each year. According to The Wall Street Journal, “Migrants from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador pay an estimated $1.7 billion a year to smugglers known as coyotes, according to a 2021 United Nations study” (Cordoba et al. 2022). Two cartels are linked to the big business of smuggling migrants into the U.S. As Cordoba et al. (2022) explain, “The smuggling networks have grown from a cottage industry in rural communities of Mexico and Central America into a big business coveted by criminal organizations such as the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels, which are the leading suppliers of fentanyl to the U.S.” America’s current border policy of inadequate enforcement is encouraging migration and boosting the profitability of the smuggling business, which, in turn, is indirectly promoting the growth of the illegal drug trade. The causal connections have become clear. Our failure to ensure law and order regarding southern immigration is spilling over and undermining our ability to resist the importation of illegal drugs.
The links between organized crime organizations and smugglers involve the use of drug gangs much like private security forces. According to The Wall Street Journal, “Local smugglers work increasingly closely with drug gangs that control many of the routes traveled by migrants and force smugglers to pay hefty fees for safe passage across those areas” (Cordoba et al. 2022). The prices charged to smugglers for these protection services has soared in recent years. The Wall Street Journal reports that “[m]igrants often pay thousands of dollars to get to the border” (Montes 2021). According to Cordoba et al. (2022), Honduran migrant smugglers say they have had to more than triple the prices they charge migrants to take them to the U.S., from $4,000 a person to about $13,500. Much of that money is to pay tolls to pass through territory controlled by Mexican cartels.” That is, smugglers have increased the amount of money they collect to transport migrants because the smugglers must pay drug gangs linked to the cartels for protection. These payments to drug gangs, of course, imply that the drug cartels have greater resources to expand their businesses.
There is evidence that the drug cartels have begun to capture the lion’s share of the revenue from smuggling operations. Cordoba et al. (2022) explain that “[s]ome smugglers say they keep less than a third of what migrants pay, with about 70% going to cover expenses such as transport costs and payments to the cartels.” Smugglers are also responsible for multiple payments as they transport migrants to the border, including payments to several local gang leaders and to Mexican security forces in some areas (Cordoba et al. 2022). Adding to the danger for migrants is the fact that the smuggling business has changed over the years from one in which a single smuggler would transport a migrant from one place to another to one in which multiple smugglers are involved in the transportation process. According to the president of the Migration Policy Institute, “the days of the community smuggler who took you from where you lived to your destination in the U.S. are largely over” (quoted in Cordoba and Harrup 2021). Therefore, the need to purchase protection from drug gangs and the interaction with multiple smugglers during the journey have increased the risks involved for migrants en route to the U.S.
The high cost of illegal migration: deaths and detentions
The sad fact is that thousands of migrants have died because we have yet to solve this problem at our southern border. According to the Associated Press (2022), “[i]n the last three decades, thousands have died attempting to enter the U.S. from Mexico, often from dehydration or drowning.” Additionally, the number of deaths recently has risen. According to Cordoba and Harrup (2021), “More than [] 650 people died [in 2021] attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, more than in any year since 2014, the United Nations International Organization for Migration said[.]” To the extent that American’s border policy is contributing to the problem, we have an obligation to reform our policy to address it.
Tragedies involving migrants en route to locations in the U.S. have been occurring on both sides of the border. A major source of these tragedies is the transportation of large numbers of migrants in trucks. As The Wall Street Journal reported, “Smugglers have been packing U.S.-bound migrants into trucks such as the one in the fatal crash that killed dozens in southern Mexico to avoid stepped-up inspections of passenger buses, human-rights workers said” (Cordoba and Harrup 2021). This crash involved a trailer truck that ran into a bridge in southern Chiapas, leading to the deaths of at least fifty-five migrants and injuring more than one hundred (Cardoba and Harrup 2021). The truck was carrying primarily Central American migrants, and it is “the worst accident involving migrants” in Mexican history (Cardoba and Harrup 2021). This terrible accident serves as an example of how migrants from distant countries hoping to avoid detection subject themselves to dangerous conditions that increase the risk of injury or even death.
Deaths of migrants have also been occurring north of the U.S.-Mexico border. For example, as The Wall Street Journal reported on June 28, 2022, “At least 46 people were found dead Monday in a tractor trailer in San Antonio, Texas, who were believed to be migrants being transported to the U.S. in a smuggling operation, authorities said” (Caldwell and Ansari 2022). That the tragedy occurred in San Antonio should come as no surprise. As “one of the nearest big cities to the South Texas border, [San Antonio] is a common hub for migrants, who often pack into one vehicle for the trek north” (Lukpat 2022). Like the tragedy in Mexico that involved the transport of migrants in a trailer truck in 2021, this accident set a record in the United States. Caldwell and Ansari (2022) report that “[t]he number of fatalities is the highest ever in a suspected migrant-smuggling operation in the U.S., said federal officials with knowledge of the incident.” The day the migrants’ bodies were discovered, temperatures in San Antonio reached 103 degrees (Caldwell and Ansari 2022). According to Lukpat (2022), “[t]he bodies [] found in and near the vehicle [] were hot to the touch.” The number of migrant deaths due to this accident eventually rose to fifty-three and “ranged in age from 13 to 55” (Lukpat 2022). The fact that records have been set in the past two years in both the U.S. and Mexico in terms of deaths resulting from the smuggling of migrants compels us to task how our border policy is contributing to these problems.
Migrants have also been perishing attempting to cross the Rio Grande. As the Associated Press (2022) recently reported, “At least eight migrants were found dead in the Rio Grande after dozens attempted a hazardous crossing near Eagle Pass, Texas, officials said[.]” Many other migrants attempting the river crossing were rescued and detained. Specifically, “U.S. crews rescued 37 migrants from the river and detained 16 others, while Mexican officials took 39 migrants into custody” (Associated Press 2022). Crossing the Rio Grande to illegally enter the United States is extremely risky. As the Associated Press (2022) reports, “The Border Patrol’s Del Rio sector, which includes Eagle Pass, has been especially dangerous because river currents can be deceptively fast and change quickly.” Many other migrant deaths also have occurred in this area. Between October 2021 and July 2022, the authorities “discovered bodies of more than 200 dead migrants in the Del Rio Sector[,] . . . [which] extends 245 miles along the Rio Grande” (Associated Press 2022). Surely, a border policy that fails to discourage such dangerous behavior needs to be reformed.
Reforming our border policy is the best option for everyone, especially migrants. Many believe that building a barrier to ensure border security is anti-immigrant, but it is not if it is combined with pathways to legal immigration. We can stop these dangerous journeys and border crossings either by securing the border or by completely throwing open the border. The latter approach completely disregards the welfare of the Americans in the border states given the instability such a mass migration would create. Border security does not mean a closed border. It means a border where immigration decisions can be made and implemented in an organized and thoughtful way.
Aside from migrant deaths, the large number of detentions of migrants in Mexico is another reason to discourage migrants from traveling through Mexico to gain illegal entry into the United States. As The Wall Street Journal reported, “In October [2021], more than 600 migrants, including some 350 children traveling in three double-trailer trucks, were detained in Tamaulipas. The majority were from Guatemala” (Cordoba and Harrup 2021). Furthermore, the “majority of the children were unaccompanied by a parent or legal guardian” (Montes 2021). According to one Mexican official, “there were children as young as 3 years old” in the group (Montes 2021). This arrest added to a huge surge in the number of apprehensions of migrants in Mexico between 2020 and 2021. As Cordoba and Harrup (2021) report, “Through October [2021], Mexican authorities [] apprehended close to 193,000 migrants from Central America, compared with 76,000 in all of 2020” (Cordoba and Harrup 2021). This surge in the number of detentions of migrants in Mexico in 2021 should also lead us to ask how America’s border policy may be making a bad situation worse.
How the Mexican government is trying to manage the movement of migrants through its territory
One aspect of America’s border policy that is easily overlooked is how much the United States depends on the efforts of the Mexican government to restrain the surge of illegal immigration at its southern border. As Perez and Hackman (2022) report, “The Mexican government has turned Tapachula, a city of some 350,000 people near the Guatemalan border, into a migrant containment point.” A migrant may only leave the city when the Mexican government issues that individual an asylum visa (Perez and Hackman 2022). Furthermore, approximately “30,000 soldiers and immigration agents have been deployed by the Mexican government to break up caravans of migrants and help turn away hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers heading north” (Perez and Hackman 2022). These considerable efforts to restrict the flow of migrants lead one to ask what the situation would be like at the U.S.-Mexico border if the Mexican government changed its policy to permit these movements. Although difficult to imagine, the current border crisis would likely turn into a situation that is almost unmanageable.
Recent shifts in America’s border policy
As the number of migrants from more distant countries increases, the peril that migrants encounter during their journeys is likely to grow as well. The best way the United States can discourage such dangerous treks is to send a strong, clear message that illegal attempts to enter the United States at its southern border will not be successful. The only way to send that message is to strengthen border security so much that the message is credible. This message must be combined with an equally strong message that America has in place a consistent and orderly process for migrants to legally enter the United States. The construction of a wall or barrier with multiple points of legal entry will make it possible for America to regain control of its immigration process.
During Pres. Trump’s term in office, the federal government moved America’s border policy in this direction. The progress included the construction of 458 miles of border wall, consisting “mostly of 18- to 30-foot steel bollards anchored in concrete. The barriers also feature sensors, lights, cameras and parallel roads in some places” (Hansen 2022). During construction, measures were also put in place to control the flow of illegal migration at the southern border. First, under the Trump administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, in January 2019. This policy requires migrants who apply for asylum to return to Mexico while their asylum claims are being considered (Shaw 2020). According to the Trump administration, this policy greatly discouraged migrants from making the journey north, and it reduced the time required to process asylum claims from years to months (Shaw 2020). These consequences are the objectives of a rational border policy. That is, the policy discourages migrants from undertaking a dangerous journey in the first place, and it promotes an orderly process of legal immigration.
Critics have sharply condemned the Remain in Mexico policy. Opponents warn that the policy “sends migrants into dangerous areas in Mexico, where they are at risk of violence and kidnapping” (Shaw 2020). This argument overlooks how dangerous these long voyages are for many migrants and how a policy of lax enforcement of immigration laws in the United States is encouraging migrants to undertake these trips. As Shaw (2020) reported in March 2020, “[t]he expansion of MPP has coincided with dramatic results at the border–including a more than 70 percent decrease in apprehensions since the highs of May [2019].” Additionally, the policy led to the return of about 60,000 people to Mexico with the DHS estimating that a significant number of migrants returned to their homes (Shaw 2020). By the time the program ended, the number of migrants returned to Mexico was estimated to be 68,000 (Alvarez 2021). The policy demonstrates that stronger border enforcement reduces the need for it because it sends a strong signal that only lawful and orderly immigration processes will be permitted.
Any progress that had been made in terms of discouraging migrants from undertaking the long, dangerous journey to the U.S.-Mexico border has been lost since the MPP ended. On June 1, 2021, the “Biden administration formally ended the Trump-era policy of returning asylum seekers to Mexico until their court dates in the United States,” which the Biden administration had previously suspended (Alvarez 2021). The Biden administration’s policy change likely contributed to the recent surge of illegal immigration at America’s southern border. Indeed, “a federal judge in Texas . . . ruled in August [2021] that the [Biden] administration improperly ended the program because it failed to properly consider its benefits in controlling the number of migrants crossing the southern border illegally. The suit was brought by the Republican-controlled states of Texas and Missouri in April, arguing the Biden administration’s decision to end the program contributed in part to the most-recent border surge” (Hackman 2021). To cope with the influx of asylum-seekers, “[t]he [Biden] administration [] said it [] hired contractors to stand up tent courts at ports of entry in the Texas border cities of Laredo and Brownsville, where migrants seeking asylum will go for their hearings” (Hackman 2021). Like so many policies that are well-intentioned, the Biden administration’s approach does not account for the signal it sends to countless migrants who will expose themselves to danger and how it will prevent the United States from enforcing its immigration laws.
The Biden administration has also tried to end another Trump-era policy referred to as Title 42. Under President Trump, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an order in March 2020, “aimed to stop the spread of Covid-19,” by permitting immigration “authorities to swiftly expel migrants at US land borders” (Shoichet 2022). Even though the Biden administration has been trying to terminate Title 42, like the Trump administration, it has been sending migrants back to Mexico under the policy (Hackman 2021). On April 1, 2022, the CDC, under President Biden, announced its intention to terminate Title 42 as of May 23, 2022, but the action was blocked in federal court (Shoichet 2022). The legal challenge to the termination of Title 42 was brought by Republican-led states, such as Texas (Perez and Hackman 2022). Critics of Title 42 argue that due to the expulsions, “tens of thousands of families from Central America . . . are now stranded in Mexican communities along the U.S.-Mexico border” (Perez and Hackman 2022). Although a policy reversal might seem like the most humane approach, a termination of the policy would encourage more Central American migrant families to undertake the dangerous journey to the U.S.-Mexico border. They are also likely to join the U.S. homeless population because so many migrants lack a destination in the United States.
In any case, these policies aimed at preventing a surge of illegal immigration should only be regarded as short-term measures aimed at securing the border. A lasting solution requires a far stronger method of enforcing border security than an approach based on sporadic arrests of migrants illegally crossing the border. Title 42 and the MPP were not sufficient to stem the flow of illegal immigration, although they have had an impact. They sent a message to migrants considering an illegal border crossing that they were unlikely to succeed, which had a powerful deterrent effect. The Biden administration’s proposal to eliminate both policies has communicated the opposite message, and the consequence has been a surge of illegal immigration. As in the realm of monetary policy, the formation of expectations about future policy changes plays a key role in determining what happens today. For example, smugglers have been telling migrants that Pres. Biden’s immigration policies are likely to be more lenient (Perez and Hackman 2022) based on this publicly available information. The example demonstrates how important it is to frame proposed policies very carefully. If a policymaker sounds like she will not approach a problem in a very disciplined way, then it can affect current behaviors and worsen a problem.
Thus far, the Biden administration’s efforts to end the Trump-era immigration policies have failed due to the legal challenges they have faced. In addition to the Biden administration’s failure to terminate Title 42, a federal court ordered the administration to resume the MPP in November 2021 (Hackman 2021). The United States Supreme Court declined to block the federal court order (Hackman 2021), which reinstated the Remain in Mexico policy for migrants seeking asylum in the United States. Nevertheless, the Biden administration’s efforts have most likely encouraged more illegal immigration due to the message of leniency that it has been sending. ?
The growing conflict between the states is a threat to national unity
The potential for conflict among the states due to the differential impact of national policies dates to the founding of the nation. One of the earliest and most well-known examples of a dispute stemming from the potential for such conflict pertains to an issue that arose at the 1787 Constitutional Convention regarding how the most populous and the least populous states would be represented in Congress. Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed the resolution of this dispute. In what is now known as the Connecticut Compromise or the Great Compromise, a bicameral legislature would be formed in which state legislatures would choose two senators to represent each state in the Senate–the upper house–and proportional representation based on state population would be used to determine the number of representatives in the House of Representatives–the lower house (OpenStax 2015: 203). In their great wisdom, America’s founders were able to anticipate many sources of future conflict that might arise in the new Republic. However, they could not have predicted the current dispute involving America’s southern border because the southern border states at the center of the conflict did not yet exist. We are now seeing how much national unity can be undermined when a handful of states believe that the federal government is ignoring their voices and failing to adequately address their concerns.
An unfortunate characteristic of our federal system, then, is that the federal government has responsibility for America’s immigration policy and yet a handful of specific states experience the greatest consequences of that policy. The consequence of this disharmonious situation is that the southern border states are resorting to alternative measures to impose law and order where it has diminished. For example, in Texas, a new state law “allows migrants to be arrested for trespassing” (Findell 2021). To enforce the law, the sheriff of Kinney County has been “cooperating with groups of armed private citizens to help patrol the border and arrest migrants” for violating the law (Findell 2021). This effort to fill a gap where the federal government is failing to ensure the rule of law is leading to conflict within the state of Texas as some “[s]tate authorities have resisted these private operations” (Findell 2021). Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union and nine other organizations have filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, calling for an investigation into the matter (Findell 2021). With so much conflict over the issue, one can easily lose sight of the fact that at the root of the problem is the federal government’s failure to ensure an orderly and lawful immigration process at America’s southern border.
What is happening in Texas also demonstrates why measures like Title 42 are not long-term solutions to the crisis at the southern border. Under Title 42, “[s]ingle men from Honduras or Mexico . . . are usually deported in a day or two when caught by the Border Patrol” (Findell and Caldwell 2021). Many migrants deported in this way become repeat offenders, trying illegally to enter the United States again. Governor Abbott thus “initiated a new policy of arrest and jail–instead of President Biden’s catch and release program–to stop this revolving door and deter others considering entering illegally” (Findell and Caldwell 2021). Unfortunately, the border states must incur considerable expense to address the problem. For example, in 2021, Governor Abbott “shifted more than $250 million from various corners of the state budget, including Texas’ prison system, to help pay for Operation Lone Star. The Republican-controlled state legislature approved an additional $3 billion for border security” (Findell and Caldwell 2021). Therefore, a different, lasting solution is necessary to avoid the continual expulsion of migrants and the endless taxing of southern state government budgets.
Texas and other southern border states also are responding to the lack of law and order at America’s southern border by busing migrants to northern states run by Democrats. Beginning in April 2022, Texas started transporting migrants by bus to the nation’s capital (Hackman and Abdel-Baqui 2022). According to a spokeswoman for Gov. Abbott, “More than 5,200 migrants have so far been bussed to Washington” (Hackman and Abdel-Baqui 2022). Gov. Abbott announced the plan to bus migrants to Washington, D.C., in response to the Biden administration’s announcement that it intended to end Title 42 (Hackman and Abdel-Baqui 2022). Although the deportations under Title 42 have led to repeat attempts at illegal border crossings, the termination of the policy would leave Texas with an even greater number of illegal border crossings to address.
Arizona is another southern border state that has sent many migrants to Washington, DC. As The Wall Street Journal reported in July 2022, “Arizona more recently joined in, busing migrants to Washington from Yuma, a small border town in southwest Arizona. Arizona has sent over 1,100 migrants by bus to the capital, according to Gov. Doug Ducey’s office” (Hackman and Abdel-Baqui 2022). Texas and Arizona have spent considerable money on this effort to pressure Democratic leaders into reforming border policy. “Texas has spent about $13 million to bus nearly 11,500 migrants out of state, while Arizona has spent some $4 million transporting nearly 2,000 people” (Caldwell et al. 2022). Chicago also recently has become a destination city for migrants from Arizona and Texas.
This strategy of busing migrants to the northern, Democrat-controlled states is a direct consequence of (1) an inadequate federal policy and (2) the disproportionate impact that the burden is placing on the southern border states that lack the authority to deport migrants who illegally have entered the country. Although the southern states cannot deport migrants who illegally have entered the United States, they can transport them out of their states. As Hackman (2022a) reports, “Migrants released into the U.S. to seek asylum can travel freely, including on planes, with their court documents serving as a form of identification. They must attend their court hearings and regularly check in with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to maintain that right.” This freedom of movement within the United States is what has allowed the southern states to adopt the strategy of busing migrants to northern cities. The policy is a rational approach to coping with cost pressures that state governments lack the authority to address in another way.
Florida is another southern state that is affected by the unlawful entry of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. Many migrants who enter the United States at the U.S.-Mexico border have Florida in mind as their destination due to its “large, established Cuban and Venezuelan communities” (Hackman 2022b). According to Gov. DeSantis, “about 40% of people crossing the border [into Texas] said they intended to go to Florida” (Campo-Flores and Calfas 2022). For that reason, Florida lawmakers designated $12 million in the current budget as part of the state’s migrant relocation program (Hackman and Lukpat 2022). Perhaps the most controversial example of a southern Republican-led state that transported migrants to a northern state involves Florida’s “relocation of nearly 50 migrants to Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts [in September 2022]” (Calfas 2022). Much of the controversy pertains to the fact that state funds were used to transport migrants from Texas to Florida before they were transported to their destination in Massachusetts (Caldwell and Kamp 2022). In any case, Florida joins Arizona and Texas as a state that is willing to devote part of its public budget to the relocation of migrants that illegally enter the United States.
Again, this effort to cope with a problem facing the southern states is leading to intense political conflicts that we do not need. A sheriff in Texas has launched a criminal investigation into the matter, alleging that individuals lured the migrants to accept travel based on promises of opportunities for employment and housing (Calfas 2022). At the same time, the Texas Attorney General has sharply criticized the sheriff’s assessment (Calfas 2022). In addition, a “Boston-based legal organization . . . [has] filed a federal civil lawsuit seeking class-action status on behalf of some of the migrants and . . . an advocacy group for Latino immigrants” in a federal district court in Massachusetts (Calfas 2022). As if these actions were not enough negative publicity stemming from one flight of migrants, a “Florida legislator has filed a lawsuit against Gov. Ron DeSantis and other state officials, challenging the legality of the state’s use of public funds to fly nearly 50 migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard” (Caldwell and Kamp 2022). The costly domestic political and legal conflicts that our failed national border policy has spawned, and similar future conflicts, will only be addressed when our nation’s leaders decide to take the steps necessary to secure the border and establish a clear path for migrants who want to lawfully enter the United States.
For sure, northern Democratic leaders are feeling the heat. The mayors of Washington, DC, and New York City, for example, are being forced to confront the problem much like the border states have been confronting the problem, albeit on a much smaller scale. Consequently, “[t]he mayors of Washington and New York City are asking the Biden administration for financial assistance to help with the influx” (Hackman and Abdel-Baqui 2022). Just last month, officials in New York City stated, “that the city’s emergency-shelter system is ‘nearing its breaking point’ after the arrival of 11,000 asylum seekers since May, about 8,000 of whom are currently living in New York’s shelter system” (Hackman and Lukpat 2022). Similarly, in Illinois, Gov. J.B. Pritzker declared an emergency and called up 75 members of the Illinois National Guard to marshal resources to cope with an influx of asylum seekers bused to Chicago and other cities by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott” (Barrett 2022). In Massachusetts, Gov. Baker indicated that the fifty asylum seekers arriving from Florida were relocated to Joint Base Cape Cod, which would be used as a temporary shelter, and that 125 National Guard members had been deployed to assist (Campo-Flores and Calfas 2022). Many complaints from state officials and immigrant advocates in the destination cities emphasize that officials in Texas and Arizona “have done little to coordinate with those who can assist migrants in their destination cities” (Caldwell et al. 2022). Of course, the southern border states that must cope with much larger numbers of unexpected migrants also lack the benefit of coordinated inflows, which is part of the message these states are trying to send their northern neighbors.
Many Democrats, including the Biden administration and leaders of the Democratic Party, have called the tactic a political stunt (Calfas 2022), while many Republicans counter that the move is a way to pressure Democratic lawmakers to recognize the seriousness of the problem in their states and to demand action. Given that the burden of a failed federal immigration policy is falling disproportionately on the southern border states, however, this strategy appears to be a highly effective way of redistributing a small fraction of that burden from the most affected states to the states that have been relatively protected from the consequences. One should also bear in mind that the southern border states are incurring significant expense to transport the migrants to the northern states and so one should not overstate the direct benefit to the southern border states of this shifting of the burden to Democrat-run states.
Conclusion
The current crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border is due primarily to the fact that authority to address the issue does not belong to those who must bear most of the cost. This discrepancy has driven the southern states to cope as best they can. As Hackman and Abdel-Baqui (2022) report, “The Texas governor has taken multiple measures to put immigration enforcement—a federal responsibility—into the state’s hands, amid a record number of illegal border crossings over the past two years.” In other words, the state of Texas is using whatever legal means it has at its disposable to transfer authority to itself so that it can cope with the high cost that illegal immigration is imposing on the state. So long as the federal government fails to secure the border, Americans can expect to see the southern border states continuing to find creative ways to transfer authority to themselves and to shift the cost to Democrat-run states.
The northern cities are now incurring significant costs as migrants arrive on buses from the southern border states, but those costs are still small in comparison with what the border states confront daily. As Hackman and Abdel-Baqui (2022) report, “The totals are a fraction of the more than 6,000 migrants arrested crossing the border illegally each day, a volume that has stayed constant for at least the past year” (Hackman and Abdel-Baqui 2022). Gov. Abbott has made clear that Texas “will continue bussing migrants until Biden secures the border” (Barrett 2022). Like the border crisis, the developing conflict between the southern border states and the northern states with sanctuary cities will not solve itself. The situation will only worsen with time unless federal action is taken.
The northern cities and states where migrants are being bused are treating the arrivals of migrants as emergencies. In Washington, DC, and in Illinois, for example, “Democratic officials . . . have declared states of emergency” (Caldwell et al. 2022). Emergency responses to conditions stemming from government policies are completely inappropriate, however, unless accompanied by an equally urgent corrective policy response. Emergency responses cannot be sustained for long periods. They are expensive and only address immediate needs. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has already awarded a $2.2 million grant to two organizations based in Washington, DC, to address the humanitarian needs of migrants arriving on buses (Hackman and Abdel-Baqui 2022). Emergency responses, however, are only appropriate for addressing the consequences or symptoms of problems, not for addressing their source. Furthermore, every dollar spent on emergency measures is a dollar that could be spent on securing the border and thus providing a lasting solution to the problem.
The crisis at the southern border is evolving in ways that are becoming a threat to national unity. States are entering direct conflicts with one another over the issue. As “a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute” put it, “This is a totally new chapter, with states going after states” (quoted in Caldwell et al. 2022). Regarding the busing of migrants to northern cities, New York City Mayor Eric Adams recently commented, “This is a humanitarian crisis created by human hands” (quoted in Caldwell et al. 2022). We can agree with Mayor Adams that the situation constitutes a humanitarian crisis and that it was created by human hands. The Governors of Arizona, Texas, and Florida, however, did not create the crisis, they merely redistributed its consequences. The human hands that created the crisis are those with the authority to address the problem–that is, national leaders who thus far have refused to secure the border.
The key to resolving the border crisis is to secure the border so that policymakers can concentrate on developing lawful ways for migrants to enter the United States. The current strategy of arresting individuals as they illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border has not succeeded in stemming the flow of illegal immigration. On the contrary, the strategy is leading to a deepening of the crisis as current lawmakers overturn policies and make illegal entry into the United States even easier. Only a barrier at the U.S.-Mexico border will discourage migrants from undertaking the difficult and dangerous journey north, which has been contributing to the growth of the smuggling business and the expansion of the illegal drug trade. Furthermore, only a barrier will allow immigration authorities to concentrate on the legal points of entry and give Americans confidence in the lawfulness of our immigration processes.
The present border crisis is preventing the development of lawful immigration pathways. As the president of the Migration Policy Institute, Andrew Selee, recently stated, “Guatemalans have few legal pathways to emigrate to the U.S. . . . In fiscal year 2020, the U.S. provided about 4,000 seasonal work visas to Guatemalans (Cordoba and Harrup 2021). Mr. Selee also commented, “We urgently need to find ways of creating legal pathways for people to migrate instead of driving them further into the hands of smugglers and raising the risk of the journey” (Cordoba and Harrup 2021). The development of legal pathways is only part of the solution, however, because of equal importance is the need to eliminate illegal entry as an option for migrants.
Unfortunately, the current debate confuses two separate issues. Opponents of the border wall proposal view the proposal as equivalent to opposition to immigration at the southern border. The border wall proposal only signals opposition to illegal immigration at the southern border. Personally, I favor an increase in legal immigration at the southern border. Like most Americans who descended from immigrants, I believe that immigrants bring talents, skills, and cultural diversity that enrich rather than impoverish our nation. Sadly, neither migrants from Latin America nor Americans will benefit from these cultural exchanges so long as the presumption of illegality continues to attach to so many immigrants.
The reason a well-constructed barrier is a better solution is that it is more reliable as a means of controlling population movements. It will also create in prospective migrants a firm belief that they will not be able to enter the U.S. illegally. If prospective migrants firmly believe it, then they will not attempt the difficult and dangerous journey in the first place, especially those living in countries very far from the U.S.-Mexico border. What should the legal option look like? An application, a waitlist, and a penalty for attempting an illegal crossing (e.g., bumped to the bottom of the list or denied an opportunity altogether). The knowledge that an application may be remotely filed with a place in a queue that is secure, and an estimate of the wait time, would also discourage migrants from pursuing the long and difficult journey north. This process would also allow immigration officials in the United States the opportunity to collect information about applicants’ skills and education, which may be used to make recommendations to potential employers in the United States who might be interested in hiring migrant workers. A barrier or a wall sounds uninviting to many Americans, but the idea is to create a fair and orderly process of entry into the United States by way of the southern border with Mexico.
As the situation stands today, those migrants who gain entry are those who survive the long and difficult journey. These individuals manage to cross the border despite the many unpredictable obstacles that could lead to failure, injury, or even death. There is nothing “fair” about the current border policy, and no one is harmed more by it than migrants themselves. One approach is to throw open the border so that border crossings are less dangerous but doing so would open the door to a mass migration that would destabilize the southern states. Freedom-loving people always prefer open borders, but when authoritarian regimes engage in political repression and implement policies that harm their economies, the American people should not be expected to suffer the consequences of the antidemocratic political agendas of foreign governments.
An American can strongly support an increase in legal immigration at the southern border while also supporting the construction of a barrier to prevent illegal immigration. Indeed, to promote legal immigration, we must stop tolerating illegal immigration. Our immigration discourse will not progress until we are able to discuss the topic of immigration within a framework based on the rule of law, and the status quo is nowhere near realizing this objective.
Sources
Alvarez, Priscilla. “Biden administration formally ends ‘remain in Mexico’ policy after suspending it earlier this year.” CNN. Updated June 1, 2021. Web.
Associated Press. “Eight Migrants Die Trying to Cross Rio Grande, Border Patrol Says.” The Wall Street Journal. September 2, 2022. Web.
Barrett, Joe. “Illinois Governor Declares Emergency Over Migrants Bused From Texas.” The Wall Street Journal. September 14, 2022. Web.
Caldwell, Alicia A., and Talal Ansari. “At Least 46 Found Dead in San Antonio in Suspected Migrant Smuggling Operation.” The Wall Street Journal. Updated June 28, 2022. Web.
Caldwell, Alicia A., and Jon Kamp. “Florida Lawmaker Sues to Stop DeSantis From Using State Funds to Fly Migrants From Texas.” The Wall Street Journal. Updated September 22, 2022. Web.
Caldwell, Alicia A., Jimmy Vielkind, and Joe Barrett. “As Migrant Buses Take Thousands, Some Embrace the Ride North.” The Wall Street Journal. September 23, 2022. Web.
Calfas, Jennifer. “Texas Sheriff Investigates Migrant Relocation to Martha’s Vineyard.” The Wall Street Journal. Updated September 20, 2022. Web.
Campo-Flores, Arian, and Jennifer Calfas. “Migrants Flown by Florida to Martha’s Vineyard Move to Cape Cod Shelter.” The Wall Street Journal. Updated September 16, 2022. Web.
Campo-Flores, Arian, and Alex Leary. “DeSantis Re-Election Campaign Focuses on Voters in Florida Republican Base.” The Wall Street Journal. September 25, 2022. Web.
Cordoba, Jose de, and Anthony Harrup. “Truck in Fatal Mexican Crash Was Packed With Over 160 Migrants.” The Wall Street Journal. Updated December 10, 2021. Web.
Cordoba, Jose de, Juan Montes, and Juan Carlos Rivera. “Smuggling Migrants to the U.S. Is Big Business.” The Wall Street Journal. July 1, 2022. Web.
Findell, Elizabeth. “In a Texas Border Town, Armed Groups Arrive to Look for Migrants.” The Wall Street Journal. December 16, 2021. Web.
Findell, Elizabeth, and Alicia A. Caldwell. “Texas Jails Fill With Migrants as Border Arrests Overwhelm Courts.” The Wall Street Journal. November 8, 2021. Web.
Hackman, Michelle. “Why Republicans Governors Are Sending Migrants to Blue States: What to Know.” The Wall Street Journal. September 21, 2022a. Web.
Hackman, Michelle. “Migrants From Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua Drive Border Arrests.” The Wall Street Journal. September 19, 2022b. Web.
Hackman, Michelle. “Biden Administration to Revive Remain-in-Mexico Immigration Policy.” The Wall Street Journal. Updated October 15, 2021. Web.
Hackman, Michelle, and Omar Abdel-Baqui. “Buses Bringing Migrants to D.C. From Texas, Arizona Tax Nonprofits, Local Governments.” The Wall Street Journal. July 22, 2022. Web.
Hackman, Michelle, and Alyssa Lukpat. “Transfers of Migrants Have Democratic Leaders Scrambling for Solutions.” The Wall Street Journal. Updated September 16, 2022. Web.
Hansen, Claire. “How Much of Trump’s Border Wall Was Built?” U.S. News. February 7, 2022. Web.
Lukpat, Alyssa. “Two Men Indicted Over Deaths of 53 Migrants Smuggled in a Tractor Trailer in Texas.” The Wall Street Journal. Updated July 21, 2022. Web.
Montes, Juan. “Mexican Officials Detain 652 Migrants in Trucks Near U.S. Border.” The Wall Street Journal. October 9, 2021. Web.
Naylor, Brian, and Tamara Keith. “Kamala Harris Tells Guatemalans Not To Migrate To The United States.” npr. Updated June 7, 2021. Web.
OpenStax. U.S. History. OpenStax. Rice University. 2015. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0). Web.
Perez, Santiago, and Michelle Hackman. “Record Numbers of Migrants Arrested at Southern Border, With Two Million Annual Total in Sight.” The Wall Street Journal. Updated August 15, 2022.
Shaw, Adam. “What is the ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy?” Fox News. March 12, 2020. Web.
Shoichet, Catherine E. “What is Title 42? How it changed things at the border, and why it’s sparking debate.” CNN. Updated May 20, 2022. Web.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Mariel boatlift: international relations.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. Updated August 7, 2022. Web.
Photo: Albright, Anthony. “U.S.-Mexico Border.” Jacumba Hot Springs, California. January 11, 2007. Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0). flickr.com. ????????????
License for Photo: Creative Commons — Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International — CC BY-SA 4.0