The moral turpitude (itself a term of art deployed against migrants, but more appropriate for the entire system), by itself, should be a damning case against the idea of restricting immigration. The human suffering it generates should condemn it alone. But beyond that, the economic case is damning, and the lost wealth represents human suffering in its own right.
Economists such as Michael Clemens have persuasively demonstrated that immigration restrictionism is one of the largest drags on the global economy in existence. Even a five percent increase in worker mobility would have the same economic impact as a global regime of universal free trade; removing all immigration barriers could double the size of the global economy. But how? Simply put—workers are more productive in wealthy economies. This flows back into tax revenue, into labor supply, into aggregate demand. The reality is that immigration creates more demand—more jobs to fill that demand—than it supplants.
But ultimately, the case against the immigration regime is moral. On a fundamental level, the freedom to work and live in a place of one’s choice is a human right. It is an intrinsic violation of liberal democratic principles to use state violence to infringe this right. This is even more salient when one considers the element of desert. What did you do to deserve the immense quality of life from being born in a wealthy developed country as opposed to a poor developing country? Why does being born in San Diego versus Tijuana, or Brownsville versus Matamoros, mean that you have a right to a certain quality of life that your Mexican counterpart does not? What gives Americans the right to point a gun at them and say, “turn around, or die?” Carens (1987) stated it bluntly—citizenship in a wealthy developed country functions as effectively feudal peerage. It, like slavery, is a moral stain on the American body politic, and like slavery, it corrupts that body politic in tangible, visible ways.
Kukathas (2021) lays out the real-world impact of “the border.” The border is not just the Rio Grande, or the international waterline. It is nationwide, constant surveillance and enforcement. From employment, to education, to even marriage—marriages between citizens and non-citizens are heavily scrutinized—“the border” represents a constant, ever-present demand that any given person prove their right to be here at any given time. This administration asserting that everyone must carry immigration papers on their person at all times, or risk deportation—the “papers please” regime—is simply a logical extension of this. And indeed, it could be said that Trump is the first president to take immigration law to its logical conclusion—as we have seen in Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Minneapolis. One looks to the Anthony Burns case (1854) to see the parallel—Slave Power enforced against an escaped Black man while abolitionists lined the streets. In both cases, the law demands compliance, and the will of the people is rendered inert.
One must realize that a legal framework that requires a fascist to fully realize is itself fascist.
And it corrupts our society in many other ways. Immigration enforcement is a category of law that supersedes nearly every institutional check. Immigrants in detention get limited or no due process. Employers, landlords, and educational institutions must enforce immigration law via the I-9 and E-Verify. And now, ICE has a Stasi-like tip line to report “illegals”. It has degraded the constitutional framework, directly fueling the expansion of the imperial presidency, the destruction of asylum law, the practice of indefinite detention without trial, and the use of military assets to facilitate deportation, all without due process.
And not only did immigration restriction warp American politics around it—it was and is the entire driving force for American fascist politics. And today it is now being used to justify the breaking of American institutions.
