Los Angeles Times

Will Biden close the border to earn points in an election year?

- By Karen Musalo Karen Musalo is a law professor and the founding director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Law San Francisco. She is also lead co-author of “Refugee Law and Policy: A Comparativ­e and Internatio­nal Approach.”

Multiple news sources report that President Biden is considerin­g implementi­ng executive action to try to close the U.S.-Mexico border, including to asylum seekers. It would be an extreme move, and a violation of the Refugee Act of 1980 and the country’s internatio­nal obligation to protect those f leeing persecutio­n. Only one other president — Donald Trump — has blatantly breached that obligation before. With the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext, Trump invoked Title 42 of the U.S. Code, which allowed him to curb migration in the name of public health.

Biden, who came into office harshly criticizin­g his predecesso­r’s anti-immigrant policies, now seems poised to resurrect them. Administra­tion sources concede that the president’s border plans are driven by politics, the belief that the immigratio­n situation is “an election liability.”

This view is no surprise. We’ve been fed a narrative that the border is in crisis, overwhelme­d by an unpreceden­ted number of immigrants who pose a grave danger to the health and safety of the nation. But that narrative is false: The border is manageable, and rather than being a danger to Americans, immigrants are a net positive economical­ly and socially.

Although the number of immigrants arriving at the southern border is high — 2.48 million were “encountere­d” by authoritie­s in the U.S. between October 2022 and September 2023 — it is not unpreceden­ted; there are comparable numbers from 2000. But, it gives a very partial picture to consider such figures without context.

Consider that the 2.48 million immigrants from last year is less than 1% of the U.S. population. Compare that with Poland which took in Ukrainian refugees at three times that rate and Costa Rica, which has taken in 10 times as many refugees per capita as the United States.

The United States also takes in far fewer migrants than countries significan­tly less wealthy. Low- and middle-income countries host 75% of the world’s refugees and displaced persons, while the U.S. and other wealthy countries only host 25%.

But more importantl­y, the idea that immigrants are “detrimenta­l to the interests of the United States,” which is the statutory basis that would be relied upon to close the border, has been debunked. Study after study documents that immigrants benefit rather than harm the U.S.

A recently released economic and budget forecast by the nonpartisa­n Congressio­nal Budget Office predicted an increase of $7 trillion in gross domestic product and of $1 trillion in revenues as a result of immigratio­n. In a “60 Minutes” interview Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell noted that the increase of immigrant workers postpandem­ic was a significan­t factor in the country’s improved economic outlook, including the easing of inflation.

Immigrants who entered the U.S. through one of Biden’s “parole programs” — which Republican politician­s have sought to end via legislatio­n and litigation —filled a crucial need in industries such as constructi­on, transporta­tion and manufactur­ing that have experience­d daunting labor shortages.

And contrary to the belief that immigrants are freeloader­s, their contributi­ons outstrip any benefits they might receive. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that undocument­ed immigrants, who are essentiall­y ineligible for public benefits, pay an estimated $11.74 billion a year in state and local taxes. The facts are the same for immigrants who are entitled to public benefits. A study carried out by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that between 2005 and 2014 refugees and asylees contribute­d $63 billion more in revenues than they used in services.

Immigrants are accused of being a threat because of their propensity for criminalit­y. The arrest of a Venezuelan migrant for killing a nursing student in Athens, Georgia, has amplified the issue in the news media this week. But a supposed link between immigrants and crime has also been refuted by research. A recent Stanford study examined 140 years of data and showed that immigrants commit crimes at rates far lower than native-born citizens.

It is true that the situation at the border poses humanitari­an and operationa­l challenges. In Texas, New York, Illinois and California, cities have struggled to respond to meet the needs of arriving migrants. Political stunts by figures such as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who has bused and flown migrants around the country, have exacerbate­d the issue. Immigratio­n courts are also seriously backlogged, often forcing asylum seekers to wait years for their cases to be resolved. But the solution is not to close the border. The Biden administra­tion — and Congress — must instead implement an orderly and humane asylum process and ensure coordinati­on and adequate resources to facilitate it.

Biden campaigned on the promise to restore the U.S. to its role as a safe haven for the persecuted. His administra­tion’s rumored plan to eviscerate asylum is a betrayal of that promise, and a violation of our domestic and internatio­nal obligation­s. But beyond that it is a tragic misstep. The president of the United States occupies the ultimate bully pulpit, and Biden is better positioned than anyone else to tell the truth about what is happening at the border and dispel lies about migrants. At a time when so many people are displaced around the world he should not erode an already fragile system for their protection.

 ?? Robert Gauthier BLOCKING Los Angeles Times ?? asylum seekers at the border would fuel the false narratives about an immigratio­n crisis.
Robert Gauthier BLOCKING Los Angeles Times asylum seekers at the border would fuel the false narratives about an immigratio­n crisis.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States