On Wednesday, the Civil Discourse Initiative (“CDI”) hosted a student panel discussing the merits and the harms of national immigration policy, specifically Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), in an event entitled, “Beyond the Border: The Implications of Current US Immigration Policy.”
The panelists included first year Nafeesa Naz, who introduced herself as a first-generation immigrant and a writer for The Jefferson Independent; fourth year Christoph Schoer, who introduced himself as the son of an immigrant, the former president of CDI, and a member of the Washington Society; and finally, third year Beckett Smith, who introduced himself as the vice president of the Burke Society and a member of College Republicans and Turning Point USA at UVA. The event was moderated by Xavier Days, who is currently the Operations Director of CDI and the Debate Chair for the Washington Society.
Days opened by addressing the controversial and pressing nature of the discussion he was about to moderate, saying in part: “I am aware that many feel that issues like ICE aren’t ones that warrant disagreement…regardless of whether you think it’s rational, there is disagreement on this topic…We are looking to give insight into the opinions of your fellow students, to really understand where people are coming from when they say: I’m pro-ICE or I’m anti-ICE. And hopefully that knowledge is useful to y’all when you next engage with someone who disagrees with you.”
The panelists were first asked broadly about their views on immigration to the United States. Naz noted that immigrants have formed a central part of the American identity since the beginning and that this land has always been shared with people from a variety of backgrounds. Schoer concurred, adding that aside from appeals to the spirit and identity of America, there are a number of economic arguments in favor of immigration borne out by empirical evidence.
Smith took a decidedly different stance, declaring, “I am fiercely anti-immigration.” He rebutted the notion that the economic considerations benefit the country, instead suggesting that immigration primarily benefits the capitalist class by bringing down wages. Schoer chalked that claim up to a theory that isn’t backed by evidence, providing statistics suggesting that immigration generally has a mildly positive or negligible impact on local economies. In practice, the labor of different people in the workforce complements each other with different skills and levels of education, he said. Smith replied that overall wage fluctuations were not the appropriate metric, as the numbers are muddled by native-born workers being pushed into service-oriented jobs; wages within any given industry surely would go up if there were fewer people willing to work at the current rates.
The panelists were then asked about what the primary purpose of ICE should be. Each student agreed that ICE should continue to exist and should focus its efforts on customs at points of entry, such as airports and the borders. They further agreed that President Trump’s rhetoric of there being an “invasion” at the southern border should not play a role in the organization’s practices. The students’ agreement on the matter diverged from there, however.
Smith added that ICE’s core mission is to prevent illegal immigrants from being in this country and said he supports ICE’s current rate of detainment and deportations. Schoer responded that ICE’s current practices are leading to unnecessary detainments and deaths, concluding that the current ICE policy is unjustified in its scope and brutality. He listed several supporting pieces of evidence, including the withholding of prenatal care, children being held for months without education, and exacerbating measles outbreaks. Smith agreed that none of those abuses should be occurring, but retorted that the conditions in detention centers should not be such an issue, as detainees “should be deported much faster than that.” Schoer took exception to this, noting that the reason for extended detentions is to ensure enough time for due process and fair hearings: “Without due process, you don’t have a legal system.”
Naz turned the conversation to refugees and asylum-seekers, arguing that the United States has an obligation to take in people in difficult circumstances, especially when those circumstances are due in whole or in part to intervention and policies of the United States. Smith rejected this notion, stating, “That’s the fault of the elite who are exploiting other countries. I shouldn’t be responsible for bearing the burden of that while they are gaining from it. They are gaining cheap labor, and I am suffering double.”
White House officials have suggested that they may be looking to suspend habeas corpus for swifter detainment proceedings. Asked about this, all panelists agreed that this move would be ill-advised. Schoer and Smith both expressed hope that this was not a serious proposal, with Smith laying a criticism on the current administration for “trying to maximize a wow factor, which is not helpful.” He pointed out that Obama carried out deportations at a higher rate than Trump, and that much of the current criticism of deportations is merely in response to the rhetoric and “hype edits.”
Schoer agreed that “It was bad when Obama did it too,” but continued on to say, “Rhetoric is the least of our worries. I am much more worried about people being dead or alive.” Smith replied that the casualty rate against protestors is skewed because ICE is naturally well-armed. He countered the idea that demonstrators being shot were peaceful and asserted that there is always some assumption of risk to a protest. Naz and Schoer were both opposed to this assertion, with Naz saying, “ICE is better armed … but they also have a much greater responsibility to not harm civilians.”
Smith clarified at this point that what happened in Minnesota was not ideal, and that he did wish that investment were made into making conditions and practices more humane: “I don’t want to hurt people. I am focused on results.”
Finally, Days asked what each panelist’s ideal immigration system would look like. Schoer replied, “I say we take as many people as we can,” appealing to the contributions of immigrants to America, including the people — Albert Einstein and Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, for example — and the half of the top US companies that were founded by immigrants and their families. Naz concurred, saying that the diversity of America is a strength and that there is beauty in incorporating other cultures into our own. She continued that humanity should be the central focus of immigration policy and that a reform to the asylum process is needed: “When you are in difficult circumstances, not every choice may align with the law, but we have to understand that.” Smith took a more blunt stance, simply concluding: “My ideal immigration system would be none.”
Leave a Reply