The DACA program, covering children brought to the US illegally by their parents, is well known. Less remembered is the failed DAPA initiative of the Obama administration. Announced in November 2014, the program would have granted work permits to the undocumented parents of children born in the US. The current Biden amnesty would, by its very nature, cover this group.
If DAPA failed, why would a broader amnesty succeed now?
Here are seven reasons why it might, and one reason it might not.
The Passage of Time
The simple passage of time makes a claim of 'common law' residency ever more supportable. In 2014, the DAPA eligible might have been in the US only five years. Now, those very same people will have been in the US more than ten years, and many, more than fifteen. Their children will have grown up here. Even five years ago, most Americans agreed that undocumented immigrants should qualify for resident status in some form. That rationale today is even stronger. The passage of time by itself has changed the terms of the debate.
The Failure of Deportation
The legitimate alternative to legalization is deportation. President Trump was by far the most aggressive proponent of deportation in living memory. And yet, even under the Trump administration, the rate of deportation of undocumented residents without criminal records was only 8 in 10,000 per year. As a practical matter, the undocumented worker who avoid run-ins with the law already enjoys amnesty.
Further, the 2019 raids on Mississippi poultry plants demonstrated that the American public has no appetite for rounding up undocumented mothers and fathers, working in grinding, menial jobs, as their children watch them being arrested and deported. Entering the country and working illegally is an administrative crime, but not a moral one. Everyone has a right to try for a better life, and the American public has limited appetite to deport those who broke the rules in hopes of a better future for themselves and their children.
Therefore, the singular failure of the Trump administration has discredited mass deportation as a policy option, effectively leaving normalization as the only practical alternative if the undocumented are not to live in a legal twilight forever.
Relief, Guilt and Exhaustion
Many voters, even on the right, are breathing a long sigh of relief at the departure of Donald Trump. These were appalled by the treatment of migrants under Trump and may feel the time is ripe to balance the scales. Further, the Biden administration is enjoying some good will from the public. This will fade in the next few months, but for now, many feel the time has arrived for a more accommodating stance towards illegal immigrants.
Biden is not Obama
If Biden is not Trump, he is not Obama, either. Obama was demonized on the right as a true leftist and, it has been argued, on racial grounds. Joe Biden cannot be so characterized. To all appearances, Biden is a centrist to the core, a white Catholic guy who owns a Pontiac TransAm, one of the iconic sports cars of the working class. It is harder to paint Biden -- and by extension his amnesty bill -- as the product of a radical leftist.
Relatively Low Illegal Immigration Numbers
Border apprehension levels have fallen dramatically since 2000, and in particular, in the decade following the Great Recession. While 2019 saw a major surge and the prospects of large caravans remain a risk, the overall level of border apprehensions -- and by extension, illegal immigration -- has fallen dramatically in recent years. As a result, the public is perhaps not as aroused by the topic as it once was, and therefore amnesty may not be as resisted as it has been historically.
The End of the Depression
The business cycle is also favorable. Foreigners are shunned during depressions, and we have argued that the Great Recession was indeed a depression. During a prolonged downturn, immigrants are seen as competitors for scarce jobs and simply more mouths to feed. By contrast, during an economic expansion, migrants are seen as helping hands to do needed work. While we believe a financial crash is coming in the wake of the pandemic -- the economy is over-stimulated with easy money -- the economy may remain largely on track and the incremental labor of migrants will be welcomed by the public. Amnesties are easier when the public is in a good mood, and it probably will be as the pandemic ebbs.
The Coming Labor Shortage
We have stated the US will face an acute labor shortage as we head towards 2025. But it could be even worse than that. A number of Americans near retirement age will have elected to permanently leave the labor force during the enforced vacation of the pandemic era. As the pandemic eases and demand returns, these workers will be missing. Therefore, the high unemployment of the last year could in short order be replaced by a historically tight labor market as early as, say, the fourth quarter of this year, and certainly by 2022. This again will tend to create a pro-immigration sentiment conducive to leniency for undocumented immigrants.
The Risks of Over-reach
The Biden administration has proposed legislation covering the gamut of Democratic objectives. And that was just in its first two days. Of particular concern is the call for a $15 / hour minimum wage. Our immigration policy recommendations are fundamentally about ending the evil of black markets. A binding minimum wage is exactly how one creates black markets. It is bad policy intrinsically. But it is even worse for illegal immigration. Raising the effective minimum wage from $10 to $15 / hour would create a huge incentive for illegal immigration. Illegal border crossing is driven by wage differentials, about $1.50 / hour in Guatemala and $2.50 / hour in Mexico versus $10 / hour in the US. A $5 / hour increase would represent roughly $30,000 in net present value to an illegal border crosser, most of which would ultimately end up in the pockets of intermediaries helping migrants enter the US illegally. Do the math, and a binding $15 / hour wage would result in a net annual gain of $5 - $10 billion to the Mexican drug and human trafficking cartels. It could potentially disrupt border control far more than a general amnesty. (I would note that a higher minimum wage should have no material effect on a market-based visa program.)
One is left wondering about President Biden's motivations in sending a laundry list of Democratic priorities to Congress. Does the administration intend to fight both an immigration and minimum wage battle in a 50/50 Senate? Or is the President merely pushing the pile across the table in order to demonstrate his fealty to his progressive supporters? If that's the case, which policies really enjoy his support and which are merely for show? It makes all his proposals look less serious.
*****
Assuming amnesty actually is the priority, the Biden team has effectively set the left edge of the illegal immigration debate. Both the passage of time and emerging trends are on their side. The electorate is exhausted by four years of political stress and simply wants to end the whole illegal immigration topic, even as the Trump administration has effectively gutted the viability and legitimacy of an enforcement-based strategy. The conflux of conditions are in the left's favor.
How will conservatives respond? If illegal immigration proves a true administration priority, the right will face a dilemma.
If 'no amnesty' sums up policy on the right, conservatives are condemned to a static defense which will either prevail or fall. But for the many Americans who want a solution -- any solution -- for illegal immigration, condemning long-term undocumented residents to a perpetual twilight is not an answer. Resisting amnesty may represent righteous vengeance and bile-soaked principle, but it is not constructive, not conservative, and little more than institutional cruelty after so many years. At some point, the public may have had enough.
In such an event, conservatives would do better to engage with the topic and set a defensible edge on the right.
Is that even possible? I think it is, and curiously, I believe it may come down to the views of a single person.