Many progressives disagree, pointing to racist quota systems that limited immigration in the 20th century. It is true that the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, which reduced immigration by more than 80%, was based on discriminatory justifications, consistent with the more intolerant opinions of the time. However, past racist beliefs should not be used dishonestly to oppose modern immigration laws that are race-neutral. It is entirely possible to reduce immigration levels generally without resorting to ethnic criteria, and a merit-based system need not include a racial component. Border security should not be based on race or ethnicity.
It is this dangerous confusion between a laissez-faire migration policy and anti-racist activism that has sowed division within the left. In response to the first Trump administration, many liberals unthinkingly embraced the idea of unlimited immigration as a progressive value. Such positions have only widened the gap between the left and the working class.
It seems that the left has almost forgotten who is pushing, in the shadows, to reduce barriers to immigration. Fast food giants, agribusiness interests, slaughterhouses and other business groups are pushing to import new workers, primarily on an economic basis. Business leaders have lobbied the Biden administration over the past four years to increase migration flows, to reduce what they euphemistically called ” wage inflation — business jargon for higher wages due to tight labor markets. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley has pushed its own immigration lobbying agenda, seeking to lure low-wage computer programmers to American shores.
“The left seems to have almost forgotten who is pushing, in the shadows, for fewer barriers to immigration.”
Most mainstream Democrats, including Joe Biden, once sang a different tune and recognized the connection between business and mass migration. In 2006, Biden previously campaigned to build a new border fence and pass new laws to “punish U.S. employers who knowingly violate the law when hiring illegal immigrants.”
But this shift from the party’s traditionally tough stance has coincided with the changing demographics of its base, particularly its core of educated urban professionals — who tend to benefit economically from mass migration. If you are an educated office worker, you are unlikely to face direct competition with a migrant from Venezuela or Afghanistan. In most cases, you benefit from the lower wages of immigrant Uber drivers, housekeepers, and kitchen staff. Additionally, you’re unlikely to be competing with migrants for limited spots at a homeless shelter or in line at a food bank.
This change was accelerated by the arrival of Trump. In 2017, left-wing politicians began reflexively opposing anything Trump supported, even when those ideas aligned with traditional Democratic Party policy priorities. For example, they began dismantling routine immigration enforcement mechanisms, such as the 287(g) local law enforcement program, established under previous Democratic presidencies, which limited actions of the Biden administration.
[Interviewer] Today, we have with us two guests to discuss the current immigration policies in the United States. We have Sarah, an immigration lawyer who specializes in asylum cases, and Andrew, a political scientist with an interest in immigration studies. Thank you both for joining us today.
[Sarah] You’re welcome.
[Andrew] Thank you for inviting me.
[Interviewer] Many progressives argue that the current immigration policies are based on racist ideologies of the 20th century. Sarah, what is your response to this argument?
[Sarah] Well, I understand where the progressives are coming from, but I don’t believe that racism is the primary driving force behind modern immigration laws. The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 was indeed based on discriminatory justifications, but today, most immigration policies are race-neutral, and a merit-based system doesn’t necessarily have to include a racial component. The focus should be on ensuring that immigration is managed in a fair and transparent way, regardless of race.
[Interviewer] Andrew, do you agree with Sarah?
[Andrew] I think there’s an element of truth to both arguments. While it’s true that modern immigration policies are not explicitly based on race, it’s also true that the left has sometimes been caught up in the narrative of unlimited immigration as a progressive value. However, there’s a big difference between supporting immigration as a moral imperative and supporting uncontrolled migration, which can have negative consequences for both immigrants and native-born workers.
[Sarah] The left seems to have forgotten who is pushing for fewer barriers to immigration. Can you discuss how business groups, especially in agribusiness and tech industries, have lobbied for increased migration rates?
[Andrew] Absolutely. These industries have been some of the biggest supporters of looser immigration policies, primarily for economic reasons. They argue that immigrants fill labor shortages and enable them to keep wages low. This divide between pro-immigration business leaders and working-class Democrats has been largely ignored by the left, which has traditionally represented the interests of workers.
[Sarah]
