Deportation on the Debate Stage
“In Springfield, they're eating the dogs—the people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating the pets of the people that live there, and this is what's happening in our country, and it's a shame."
-Donald J. Trump in the 2024 election’s first presidential debate
Trump’s comments last Tuesday about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio were broadcast to 67 million Americans—and have since been the subject of widespread debunking as harmful misinformation. Nonetheless, J.D. Vance’s continued defense of the claim, as well as a far-right adoption of the debunking as an indicator of the media’s skewed priorities, has allowed the quote’s central idea to endure. As of last week, Arizona’s GOP has erected a dozen “Eat Less Kittens” billboards, pictured below, as “a humorous, but sobering reminder of the stakes involved in the fight for secure borders and safe communities.”
Against Lawful Immigration
As one of a handful of small American cities that has overwhelmingly embraced immigration, particularly of Haitian migrants, Springfield has been a focal point of national political controversy. As is commonly cited by supporters of immigration, the city can attribute much of its economic revival to its new labor force. In fact, the same can be said across-the-board: recent findings have shown that each immigrant creates 1.2 jobs for local workers, the majority of whom end up being native-born. Immigrants are disproportionately likely to file patents, be science and technology graduates, and hold senior positions at top venture-capital firms. In addition, their presence often creates opportunities for native-born peers to specialize.
So, why the backlash against immigration? For one, even lawful immigrants like the Haitian population in Springfield are less likely to pay taxes, but more likely to send their children to public schools. Bearing witness to this heavy immigrant reliance on public coffers, as well as myriad other social ills associated with migrants, many residents of cities like Springfield view the population as an undue burden on the native-born.
Against Undocumented Immigration
While Trump pledged to reduce or reverse lawful immigration in the debate, Harris’ priorities have largely pertained to unlawful immigration. As Vice President, she was tasked early on with reducing immigration from the “Northern Triangle” countries—Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador—while increasing border security. These tasks responded to an American public that feared economic displacement and crime, though a National Institute of Justice analysis in Texas has found that the rate of offense for undocumented immigrants is less than half of that of native-born citizens. Despite this, immigration-related charges are the leading cause of incarceration in the United States, linking immigration inextricably to the functioning of the carceral state.
Largely perceived to have failed to curb border-crossings, Harris has since adopted a more conservative stance on the limits to immigration. She currently supports a mixed-bag Senate bill that will reduce asylum-seekers but expand visa and green card availability.
Against Neither?
Though immigration has been a contentious issue on 2024’s debate stage, some research has shown that it is no longer a strong priority for most Americans. From 2001 to 2018, opposition to legal immigration has dropped 29 points, from 53% to 24%. This includes a modest, but notable, decline in Republican sentiment against immigration. Though this study represents pre-pandemic numbers, might it be taken as an indication of the waning backlash against an issue that has dominated the U.S. political canon for decades?
In the coming debates, what should be the level of attention paid to the issue of immigration, as opposed to other topics on the forefront of the national agenda? How might either party proceed in response to immigration backlash, assuming that they address it at all?
Editor’s Note:
While this article discusses immigration as it is topical to comments from the recent presidential debate, one facet it entirely fails to cover is the implications of U.S. immigration for the immigrants themselves. This piece by no means aims to discount that critical, and in many cases life-altering, side of the issue. Acknowledgement and understanding of this stark reality is encouraged by the author, both within the meeting discussion and beyond.
Коментари