How to control your border
A tale in three acts
I recently argued in The Atlantic that immigration was not inevitable. States are effective gatekeepers, and no matter how strong the “push” or “pull” factors for migration are, states can and do exercise their authority to keep people out. Over the last week, news headlines have given example after example of this argument. Let’s look behind the headlines. Here’s a story of border control in three acts.
Act I—Pay a poorer country to take your migrants
The United Kingdom announced a plan to fly those who cross its borders illegally to Rwanda for processing and possible resettlement. Rwanda’s economy suffered under COVID, and the UK’s offer of $157 million for what could be tens of thousands of migrants was attractive enough for them to take.
Who are these illegal migrants? Asylum seekers. Here’s the quirky thing: to claim asylum, a migrant must cross a border illegally, but if their case is processed and they are found to have a valid claim to asylum they will be legally resettled. So the word “illegal” is accurate, but most interesting in this case because it’s clearly employed strategically by politicians to generate support for their border control policies.
Act II—Hide your border control policy under a new name
Axios reported that the Biden Administration is considering delaying rescinding Title 42, the border measure in place since March 2020 that allows the US to remove people who were recently in a country where a communicable disease was present. Under the policy so far, 1.7 million migrants have been turned away at the border. Since COVID trends are much improved and many COVID-era regulations are disappearing, why keep Title 42? Removing it will likely mean a rush at the border, which the US is unprepared to handle. The US has been facing a border crisis for years and years, yet has done nothing to systematically deal with the issue (like adequately staffing so asylum cases could be processed speedily) so controlling the border through a communicable disease policy is apparently the best option?
Act III—Scare migrants away
Ukrainian children trying to enter the US via Mexico to claim asylum with adults other than their parents are being separated and sent to US government shelters for weeks to await processing. The policy, in place since 2008, is meant to prevent child trafficking—a noble aim—but the practice of enforcing it leaves children and their families with serious trauma. Although today’s family separation of Ukrainians is but a mild form of what happened under the Trump administration starting in 2018, it does remind me that “deterrence” is often an effective border control policy. Under Trump, removing children from their parents (note: different than the Ukrainian situation) was intentionally horrible and meant to discourage would-be asylum seekers from trying to enter the US in the first place.
Speaking of emigration, I recently had the pleasure of connecting with political sociologist Yao Lu, who’s doing fascinating work at the intersection of politics and demographics. Yao’s 2021 article, “Emigration and Electoral Outcomes in Mexico: Democratic Diffusion, Clientelism, and Disengagement,” with Andrés Villarreal, asks whether there’s a link between emigration and democratization. Specifically, Yao and Andrés tackle the theory that emigration could depress democratization because of a ‘political brain drain.’
So what did they find? Emigration had a positive political impact on Mexico. Low or moderate levels of international emigration actually increased voter turnout in sending communities in Mexico, but high levels decreased turnout. Perhaps those higher levels are a symptom of community breakdown in general, which would make political disengagement a natural consequence. With lower or moderate levels I would assume community ties might be stronger and people might feel more of a stake in the fate of their homelands.
The follow this week is fellow Substack writer, Prof. Paul Musgrave. I always enjoy Paul’s commentary, but this week he hit the nail on the head for many of us with his essay on burnout in higher ed, arguing that the emotional labor professors put into teaching is no longer being repaid as it was pre-COVID.
And since this was a heavy newsletter, I close with these blueberry muffins, a highlight of my week. Highly recommend for your weekend baking! Thanks for reading and be nice to one another.
