2 days Ago By Firstpost
Now that the United States presidential elections are done and dusted, a huge problem that the incoming Donald Trump 2.0 administration faces is that of illegal immigrants. After all, this was one of the major campaign issues which propelled Trump back to power.
The scale of the problem is colossal. An estimated 10-15 illegal immigrants have crossed over into the US during the four years of the Biden-Harris term. Some say that the number can be as high as 20 million.
What will happen to them when Trump assumes office in January 2025? In the heated run-up to the elections, the president-elect threatened to send them back. But is mass deportation really practical? The obvious answer is, “No.” But the not so obvious answer is that deportation is not impossible, even if it will not be easy.
Why? Because none other than former president, Barack Obama, of the Democratic party, himself carried it out. Few know that Obama was nicknamed “deporter-in-chief,” an obvious twist of “commander-in-chief,” which is one of the titles of a US president. Some 3.
5 million illegal immigrants were reported deported by him. When Biden came to power, however, close to 1.5 million illegals, scheduled to be deported never had any action taken against them.
In fact, many more millions streamed into the country through the almost open border with Mexico. Hundreds of thousands also came in from Canada. Of these huge numbers, the third largest is made up of Indians, primarily from Punjab and Gujarat.
Therefore, what happens to them also concerns us. Some economists and social theorists have maintained that the US needs cheap labour. Therefore, immigration, both legal and illegal, has been standard operating procedure for not just decades but for hundreds of years of colonisation of North America.
True. Slavery was the most notorious form of such so-called legal but incredibly inhumane immigration. At the other end, Indian professionals, especially doctors and engineers, have been the beneficiaries of the influx of skilled manpower in the last half-a-century.
The population of this group had gone up tenfold from half-a-million to over 4.5 million. They are also the richest minority in America.
While the US has been built on the sweat and talent of immigrants from all over the world, most of these came in through “proper channels,” as it were. They struggled and toiled for at least one, sometimes even two or three generations, before the American dream became available, even if not to them, then at least to their children and grandchildren. The illegals, it is argued, do not go through this process.
They are state supported and cause a tremendous drain on the exchequer and civic infrastructure. When legal workers, such as those on H1B visas, have to wait for decades to get their green cards, it seems very unfair that illegal immigrants are granted citizenship as well as access to the state’s resources without long delays. The naturalisation of illegals also makes a mockery of the otherwise stringent US visa and immigration policies where even to get an ordinary B1/B2 business or tourist visa, the wait time can be several months for Indians.
But will the authorities simply round up the illegals and push them back across the Mexican border? Who will take care of them there? Especially, if they have come from distant countries in South America and elsewhere, using Mexico only as a transit point? The contra argument is that because Mexico let them through, it is Mexico which has to send them back, as in the past. But, then, once they are on US soil, isn’t the responsibility of the latter country to take care of them? The political football over illegals is bound to have tremendous human costs too. It seems to militate against claims of natural justice.
If all human beings are created equal, why should illegals be treated as children of a lesser god? Again, the counter-argument is that many who have crossed over to the US illegally are themselves criminals escaping or moving operations from other, more hostile countries. Some are known drug smugglers and members of cartels and gangs. Of the rest, most are single men, some of whom are known to create social problems in their reluctant host communities.
Finally, illegal immigrants constitute a significant demographic threat, especially to Republicans. Granting them voting rights will make the Democratic party virtually impossible to defeat in several districts and states. This would not only skew the balance but also, it is alleged, violate the rights of legal voters and citizens by opening the door to election rigging if not outright fraud.
Voter identification, it is argued, has to become a prerequisite in states where it is not mandatory. Prevention, as they say, is better than cure. Trump 2.
0 will have much tighter border and immigration policies. Of this we can be sure. Even if the vast majority of illegals may not face involuntary deportation, the spigot of illegals crossing the border will be plugged and turned off.
Another measure could be qualified legalisation without citizenship. This will allow those screened and vetted as appropriate or qualified to work, pay taxes, and contribute to the economy. On the other hand, the really undesirable or criminal elements will face a far more stringent and severe penalty.
It will certainly be cheaper to deport than imprison them at taxpayers’ expense. In any case, a carefully calibrated and well thought out strategy will work better than a knee-jerk reaction or hasty measures. The writer is an author and columnist.
Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views..
