A Debate Beyond the Border: Immigration and Moral Responsibility
Jamillet Arellano, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy
Note: This article was written by a student of Dr. Meghan Cohen, in the class, Global Human Rights Advocacy. The Highlander is proud to serve as a platform for guest contributions and encourages collaboration between our community and our publication.
Once again, immigration has become one of the most striking issues in the United States. This includes headlines focusing on the frequent ICE encounters, political speeches that emphasize topics like safety and security, along with public debates about real people with families, talents, histories, and struggles being talked about only as numbers and not humans. The current administration continues to propose stricter enforcement and policies that will target undocumented immigrants, arguing that immigration threatens economic stability, cultural stability, and national security. Beneath all the political noise lies a much more heartfelt question: Is immigration truly a national crisis, or is it a test of the nation’s commitment to human rights and economic reality?
People who are against immigration often argue that immigrants take away jobs from U.S citizens, raise crime rates, and abuse public resources. The Cato Institute argues these claims, showing how immigrants not only boost the economy, but also pay taxes, and are statistically less likely than native-born Americans to use welfare and or commit crimes. The article concludes that although there are many common misconceptions regarding immigrants, Congress acts to enforce stricter policies, and enforcements are almost always not supported by research, facts, or statistics. This leads to misrepresentation of the broader economic and social impact of immigrants.
A recently published article examined Henry Pratt's influence on immigration policies and his involvement in shaping U.S immigration policies in the early 1900’s. His policies and ideas were rooted in scientific racism and eugenics. It was found that public support for deportation policies often correlates with declining levels of empathy toward immigrants, suggesting that fear and emotional framing heavily influence these debates.
Historically, these concerns are not new. In the 19th century, during the Industrial Revolution, immigration set off similar backlash. Primary sources coming from the Library of Congress demonstrated how the Irish, Italian, and the eastern European immigrants were often blamed for threatening American Labor and cultural traditions. Henry Pratt later helped shape constraining immigration policies, which were as mentioned, rooted in racism and eugenics, as they argued that certain groups were unfit for citizenship because they were not biologically inferior. Exclusionary laws came about because of this ideology, revealing how fear can harden into policy.
Charles Hirschman, a demographer, explains in a study how immigrants have persistently contributed to the growth in the workforce, entrepreneurship, and long-term economic expansion. Immigrants are far from draining the economy, as they have balanced the statistics in declining births, filled critical labor shortages, and supported industries ranging from agriculture to healthcare. Immigrants help sustain the economy.
Opponents often highlight how border enforcement is a matter of national security. Immigration is not solely a security issue, and when framing it as such, it ignores human rights obligations under international law. Drawing from Amnesty International, refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants all have distinct legal protections as they are not all the same, and combining them undermines security measures for vulnerable populations.
The World Bank’s 2023 World Development Report was criticized by legal scholar I.M. Kysel, who argues how migration policies are frequently placing economic productivity above human rights. Yet again, they are viewing migrants as statistics instead of individuals with rights, all while reducing their experiences to economic terms.
When there is rapid growth in a city's population, cities can experience extreme pressure to provide housing, infrastructure, and public services. If there is no support coming from the government, it becomes extremely difficult to meet these demands. Although these challenges are real, there should be a better way to address such issues, which is through better planning, expanding work authorizations, and increasing funding for such projects, instead of allocating funds to support mass deportations and broad immigration restrictions.
The debate on immigration ultimately always comes down to the nation's values. Research shows that when people take the time to listen to migrants' personal stories of hardship, displacement, and perseverance, they are more likely to oppose such inhumane policies. Universities like Regis, rooted in Jesuit values and traditions like social justice and human dignity, can help promote thoughtfulness and compassion regarding immigration while recognizing that immigration is not only a policy, but a moral conversation regarding belonging.
The United States can face immigration as a choice. It can treat immigration as a crisis and drive the issue with fear, or it can approach it with facts, fairness, and historical understanding. Immigrants are not animals and they are not criminals. They are workers, students, neighbors, and innovators who contribute to their communities every day. Data shows that today's immigrants not only strengthen the economy, but also strengthen our communities by sharing their culture and love with the country. Immigration is not a crisis or threat, indifference is.