Policymaking often comes down to tradeoffs, and immigration is no different. Consider the following questions:
-
If we have a slightly more welcoming asylum policy, how many more people will attempt to cross the border who would not otherwise qualify for protection?
-
If we make it too difficult for American farmers to hire foreign labor, how much of our food supply are we willing to import instead?
I could ask each reader of this newsletter many questions like this, and I suspect that I’d get a wide and fascinating range of responses on the finer points of immigration policy. Differences of opinion on these details is good and healthy, but ultimately policymakers have to make tough calls to balance the competing interests for the good of all of us.
We are seeing these tradeoffs play out in real time on immigration enforcement, as the current administration is pursuing a maximum enforcement policy. Many types of immigrants are targeted beyond those with a criminal record. Some do not have legal status but have worked in the U.S. for decades. Others have temporary legal status, like parole or a pending asylum request. Student visa holders have been arrested and detained; so have legal permanent residents who thought they were eligible for U.S. citizenship.
The tradeoffs to this maximum enforcement strategy are numerous, but the public safety cost may be the most troubling. Thousands of federal agents whose work focuses on truly heinous criminals have been reassigned to immigration enforcement. Prosecutions for federal drug crimes are down significantly while agents work to detain more immigrants. Public safety threats should be pursued vigorously regardless of nationality.
Given this data, we should all ask ourselves what we think the appropriate tradeoff between immigration enforcement and domestic criminal enforcement is.