Economism or Humanitarianism? Sanders v. Biden
Guest blogger: Maira Delgado Laurens, Masters in Migration Studies Program, University of San Franciso:
For those of us who deeply care about the Human Rights violations enabled by the current immigration system, the nomination of a Democratic presidential candidate capable of defeating Trump is of extreme importance. This candidate has to be able to propose immigration policies that meet global humanitarian and economic needs. As the pessimist I am, I do not think that real changes will happen immediately after the new president takes office. However, I’m hopeful that new policies and practices can amplify a more pro-immigrant rhetoric and positively transform Americans’ attitudes towards immigrants.
As stated in a Policy Brief by the Migration Policy Institute published in 2017, “Trump made immigration the centerpiece of his campaign;” therefore, any Democratic candidate expecting to defeat him should vigorously address and embrace immigration policy. Additionally, the Pew Research Center (PRC) found that “for U.S. voters overall, immigration policy issues have risen in importance recently” and therefore what candidates do to address those issues will be a determining factor in the 2020 presidential election. However, the topic of immigration has been absent from most of the Democratic party presidential debates. The PRC also found that “for November’s general election, a record 32 million Latinos are projected to be eligible to vote” and that “overall, Latino registered voters hold negative views of President Donald Trump.” But how can Democratic presidential candidates attract Latina(o) voters if they remain silent on issues that disproportionately affect Latina(o) communities?
Adequate policies must directly address the inequity, racism, and classism embedded in the current U.S. immigration system. That means that notions related to immigrant criminalization, family separation, and human rights and due process violations must be eliminated from the law. In addition to formulating adequate policies, candidates have to address possible challenges resulting from immigration policy changes because as stated by the policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick: “Whoever the next President is will have to decide what it means to be a country that opens its arms to those seeking protection, and whether we continue to look at families arriving at the border as a threat, as something that needs to be stopped at all costs, or as an opportunity for America to live up to the ideals that we often put out into the world.”
With this in mind, I couldn’t help but wonder what immigration policies the final two Democratic candidates propose. Since the Democratic presidential debates have failed to address immigration, I turned to Joe’s and Bernie’s presidential campaign websites to gain a better understanding of their immigration policy agenda. From the moment I started reading, it was clear that their policies are a reflection of different priorities.
Overall, Sander embraces a more humanitarian approach to immigration. His goal is to evaluate and recreate the immigration system. He directly addresses social issues that result from the implementation of current immigration policies. He explicitly mentions, among others, the need to eliminate la hielera, the metering system at the border, historic U.S. intervention in South and Central America supporting authoritarian regimes, private detention centers and environmental migration. There is no vagueness on what he wants to accomplish. His stance is clear; if the U.S. government opens its doors and welcomes immigrants, they should be ensured the same good living standards as any American citizen. As I read, I wonder if Sanders hasn’t thought about the role of Capitalism and corporate America on immigration or if he is only trying to appeal to immigrant voters by making empty promises. Humanitarianism alone would be fantastic in a perfect world where a global economy is not prevalent. But global capitalism, and those participating in it, hold too much power to allow a humanitarian immigration system to take place.
On the other hand, Biden is more economy driven, less ideologically radical and more diplomatic. He clearly embraces an economic approach to immigration. His concerns are more directed at how the legal immigration system affects the U.S. economy and the country’s stance in the world. He talks -among many other issues, about the need to invest on border technology, implement effective border screening, eliminate policies that hurt the U.S. economy like the Muslim ban, reinstate enforcement priorities, provide economic support to Northern Triangle countries, review (not reinstate) TPS, and ensure that immigration institutions, like ICE and CBP, provide human treatment to immigrants and are held accountable when they don’t. Biden is, without doubt, trying to appeal to both immigrants and corporate America. He has clearly thought about the role of global capitalism and corporate America in immigration matters.
Both candidates failed to provide a specific action plan to accomplish the immigration systems they envision. However, both candidates proposed a regional approach to address the “root causes of migration.” This in theory is an extraordinary measure, but it is impractical in reality as a regional approach will require redefining sovereignty and letting go of political power, neither of which the U.S. is willing to do. Nevertheless, I find it important to highlight each of their visions of America’s role in that regional approach.
For Biden the U.S. is the leader state of the region and thus, its obligation is to provide economic assistance so that “they,” not “us,” address the root causes of migration. This clearly reflects his economic approach to migration because it highlights push factors as the main problem generating migration. He states that what “has created a regional refugee challenge” is “The inability of the Northern Triangle countries to stem the violence and terror in the region.” This is extremely important because his choice of words result in blaming Central American countries for current migration problems while relieving the U.S. from responsibility. For those of us who know the history of this country’s involvement in the political and economic affairs of Central American countries like Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, those statements are like a slap in the face. Perhaps, what is needed is less top-down intervention from the U.S. and more symmetrical collaboration among the states.
On the other hand, Sanders’ stance is on point as he recognizes that “the history of U.S. intervention in the South and Central American region” has been “often in support of authoritarian regimes” which has deeply impacted those countries’ socio-economic stability. In his proposal, the role of the U.S. is more symmetrical; it is to collaborate to “end global inequality” and “promote freedom and dignity for all.”
It is difficult to say which of the two immigration policy proposals is the most adequate. What is clear to me is that both approaches lack specific actionable steps and procedures to implement these immigration policies. I know that for many, the main goal of the 2020 elections is to remove Trump from power. But would removing Trump from the presidency actually change the systemic abuse of power, racism, and classism embedded in the immigration system? No.
What I realized then, is that as a naturalized citizen I have two obligations; first, to vote for a candidate who at least “appears” to be willing and able to create change; and second, to demand change, through continuous civic engagement and social activism.
bh