27 Jan Our Scarecrow in Chief
President Trump is acting like a city mayor trying to eliminate feral cats, or rats. Or a homeowner employing desperate measures to keep geese off the lawn or cockroaches off the walls. Or a farmer attempting to stop coyotes from eating the chickens.
In effect, our newly-elected-again leader is our national scarecrow. He is positioning himself to frighten away illegal immigrants.
This is a partial list of scare tactics Mr. Trump has employed in his short time in office: (1) declared a “national emergency” at the U.S.-Mexico border; (2) began raids by federal immigration officers; (3) banned diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts within the federal government; (4) signed a bill to require detention of immigrants who commit crimes; (5) rescinded rules establishing immigrant-safe areas, such as churches, schools, and hospitals; (6) ordered the building of additional border wall sections; (7) threatened to prosecute officials of cities that protect illegal immigrants; (8) reinstated the “remain in Mexico” policy; (9) fast-tracked deportations; (10) ordered the deployment of active-duty soldiers to the border; and (11) attempted to deny citizenship to children of both illegal immigrants and visa holders.
By publicizing these efforts with foreboding fanfare, President Trump is sending loud messages to all immigrants: “You ain’t welcome here” and even “The U.S.A. will hurt you if you come (or stay).”
The question today is whether the end of preventing illegal immigration justifies the means employed by the Trump Administration.
Principles
This blog evaluates federal policy and actions using seven leadership principles and seven governmental principles. As I wrote in Immigration: Applying Principles (July 6, 2021), Tough Issue #2; Immigration/Border Control (February 7, 2023), and Build the Wall? (December 11, 2023), immigration issues are much better resolved by principled analysis than by political polarization, pandering, and posturing.
Of the governmental principles advanced by Principle Based Politics, the three that apply best to today’s immigration issues are law and justice, freedom and free enterprise, and protecting the vulnerable.
Freedom-loving people like Americans naturally should be inclined to welcome others who share that core belief. Relatedly, our free enterprise system should instinctively embrace anyone who wants to come here legally to work, or to start a business, as immigration expands both the labor market and customer base for American businesses. Protecting the vulnerable – particularly refugees and children – also clearly supports generous immigration policies.
But the United States historically has been a nation of laws – and justice – with our laws needing to be obeyed as a counterweight against (and often ardent support of) both freedom and free enterprise. Moreover, even the vulnerable need to abide by our laws.
The leadership principle of dignity also is highly relevant to immigration. Political leaders must remember that all humans are created in the image of God. (All are “created equal,” as our Declaration of Independence reminds us, as well.) Human dignity of all immigrants must be honored at all times.
A More Humane Way is Better
So, how does President Trump’s all-out effort to prevent and punish illegal immigration measure up with my principles? First, I think Mr. Trump needs to be reminded that he is talking about human beings, not rabid rodents, careless cats, insidious insects, or noisy, noxious birds.
Humans can understand what is and is not allowed under the law. In my view, all governmental emphasis needs to be on future illegal immigration. The message that should be sent is that, from this day forward, we will not allow anyone to come here illegally, but we welcome those who arrive legally. America should clarify that our borders are not “wide open,” but we do have wide doors through which you can enter if you follow our laws in doing so.
This is an obvious distinction that makes common sense. Stores welcome customers, but not shoplifters. Land owners welcome hunters, but not poachers. Single people may welcome dating, but not rape. America welcomes migration, but not unlawful entry. These are not difficult concepts.
I also do not believe we need all of the scare tactics aimed at people who already are living in America. I realize that President Trump is signaling to would-be illegal immigrants that we will make their lives miserable here. Although his deterrence bark probably is worse than his deporting bite as to those who entered years ago, the Trump histrionics are unnecessary. In short, his means of deterring illegal immigration become unduly mean when they threaten to make examples of the millions of past immigrants.
Since peaking in 2023, border crossings have plummeted. In the second half of 2024, border crossings already were lower than during the first Trump presidency. Last year, Mexico helped stymie what had been a substantial flow of people coming from Central and South America (and other places). In addition, everyone knows that President Trump was elected to control illegal immigration, and he intends to do it. He need not spread terror anymore.
Instead, the Trump Administration should promulgate simple, clear, effective, and efficient rules on how to move to America, legally. Simultaneously, the federal government should speed up the asylum process, which currently has a years-long backup of cases. We also should ease and enlarge legal immigration visa programs (e.g., H-1 and H-2, as well as green cards), which help the American people and companies who want to sponsor family members and workers to come here.
Lastly, after promptly resolving the pending asylum cases, the United States should grandfather in any immigrant living here who has not been convicted of (or currently in the judicial process related to an accusation of) a felony since coming to our country. (Perhaps President Trump should ponder his own “glass house” on that one, too.)
Written by Quentin R. Wittrock, founder of Principle Based Politics.
Look for his posts, as this blog will explore and promote the idea of principle in politics, both as to individual elected leaders and our federal government as an institution.
Principle Based Politics does not endorse or support any particular political candidate or party.
Veronica Schmidt Harvey
Posted at 13:09h, 28 JanuaryAnd folks are forgetting there will be a cost to this:
The number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. workforce has fluctuated over time, peaking at 5.4% in 2007.
Unauthorized immigrants work in many industries, including construction, restaurants, agriculture, landscaping, and food processing and manufacturing.
They often work in hazardous conditions and are ineligible for employment-related social services.
Immigrants play a crucial role in the U.S. workforce, filling jobs that U.S.-born workers don’t cover.
Quentin
Posted at 13:14h, 28 JanuaryAgreed. I have written about the economic consequences in prior posts. President Trump must understand this, too, which is one reason I think he is mostly bluffing about deportation in order to stem the in-flow.
Rich Shirk
Posted at 13:16h, 28 JanuaryQuentin, you are committing the sin of proposing rational, thoughtful solutions to an issue that has become irrational and thoughtless. This could create trouble for you.
Quentin
Posted at 13:22h, 28 JanuaryIt always does, but it is my job to make people think, even if they don’t agree!
Gary Hammer
Posted at 14:37h, 28 JanuaryQuentin, good blog! I agree with you 100%. It’s sort of our fault in the first place that we have so many undocumented immigrants here, because we didn’t control our borders.
It makes sense to deport criminals, but let’s look at those remaining. Are they working here now? Many are. Do they desire to become citizens and be a benefit to our country? Most do. Are they married to a citizen now? Many are. Have they started families here? Many have. Let’s find a path to citizenship for them, so the fear can be put aside.
Dave Glesne
Posted at 15:01h, 28 JanuaryQuentin, many good thoughts. Well said!
Gary Russell
Posted at 17:15h, 28 JanuaryQuentin – you are spot on. We seem to have endless debates about whether “illegal” immigrants are good/bad and almost zero discussion on fostering/improving/accelerating legal routes. This would address both the national security issues as well as the workforce aspects. Technology advances could be applied to vastly speed this up from the Ellis Island days. How about installing a “Czar” to work this?
Bill Killion
Posted at 23:32h, 28 JanuaryTrump ran on a commitment do exactly what is doing. He won the election. End of story.
Darren Knight
Posted at 00:54h, 29 JanuaryThis blog is starting appear like the editorial page of the Star Trubune. I thought Mr. Q was a republican? Folks, illegal immigration is illegal. I actually believe in amnesty–or whatever you want to call it–I don’t get lost with word games. But, even on CNN and MSNBC, leftist propaganda outlets, they admit that 10M illegal immigrants crossed over under Biden–10 MILLION. My lord, what is so difficult about the concept of a controlled border. Of course we need and want immigrants–legal immigrants. Those of us who want a controlled border and criminals apprehended and shipped out–are not anti-immigration. It is not compassionate to have an uncontrolled border, with drugs and humans trafficked across by cartels. You lost lefty-liberals are not “nice” or “compassionate”. Your supposed kindness is actually unwise and unkind–and inhumane. Orange Man is right about the border–period. As to the immigrants that are here–including illegal aliens–I agree that they should have a pathway to citizenship–so I may differ with Trump on that point. But the last 4 years have been so reckless–that a correction is necessary. Lastly, the cheap shot about felons and glass houses is absurd. Republican-democrat–doesn’t matter–nobody should have been convicted of anything based in that corrupt, ridiculous case brought in NY against Trump. Nothing to do with Trump–the prosecutors and the Judge should never see a court room again after that corrupt case–Bragg and the Judge should be disbarred–but lawyers are too protective of themselves to do that. We need to fix a lot of things in this great country–including the deep state and our slanted justice system. The people should always come first–not government power.
Quentin
Posted at 01:34h, 29 JanuaryI always appreciate your comments (note: I made his face orangish in the scarecrow illustration, just for you), and we all had been eagerly awaiting one this week. Thank you. But, perhaps you should read my post again, counselor. I came down strongly against illegal immigration and in favor of closing the border to future such illegal entry. You seem to approve of amnesty (a word I did not use). We also seem to agree that the people who crossed over seeking asylum should have their cases heard immediately and live with the outcomes. And we both favor a pathway to citizenship. Therefore, I don’t understand your harsh rhetoric, except as to my implied reference to Trump’s own felony conviction.
Darren Knight
Posted at 02:16h, 29 JanuarySorry–maybe an overreaction. I am tired of the approach of being “nice” or “kind”–when it is not really so. Leftism/liberalism is not nice–despite that giant misconception. You listed a bunch of actions taken as “scare tactics”–maybe I should lighten up. But–again–a course correction is needed–and that may involve some actions that are perceived as tough–when the actions are necessary. You are a better/smarter/more successful lawyer than me–I do get wound up sometimes–and type these blogs quickly. Regardless, a controlled border will be better for everyone–and it is actually a humane approach. Trump world does involve some theater–yet if it is for the good–that’s ok. And–I have no problem with amesty–or a pathway.
Paul Silseth
Posted at 02:35h, 29 JanuaryI agree with Darren’s post and also if Kamala had won things would be so much better for everyone. Me thinks that is where Quinten is really at. As far as the workforce goes, we shouldn’t have gotten rid of slavery, there was concern for who would pick the cotton.
Trumps felony conviction? Have you ever thought that a court could possibly make a mistake or be wrong?
Or are lawyers and judges just a bit better and more right than us commoners?