The results of the election and its effect on national migration policy will become evident over the coming months. It might be useful, however, to understand how this presidential election issue came to the forefront. In one of the most dramatic shifts in U.S. public policy opinion, the last four years have shown a new public view of migration. In 2020, 28% of Americans told a Gallup poll that immigration should decrease.
Just four years later, the number had risen to 55%, the highest level since 2001. Many factors came together to change public opinion, not the least of which was the campaign rhetoric, which fanned the idea that we were under an immigrant invasion. However, in comparison to past migration movements of undocumented, immigration to the United States was not extraordinary. The surge was caused by upheavals in Venezuela and some Central American countries, which caused a backlash from those who did not understand or care about the underlying causes driving people to the border.
The right to asylum is codified in international and domestic law. If some person fearing persecution comes to a country that has signed the refugee accord, they must be admitted and given an opportunity to tell their story and state their case for protection. Unfortunately, because of push factors, many used this law to enter the country. Although, very few were able to prove their persecution to the satisfaction of the U.S. government. In most cases, this would not be reviewed for five years because of asylum case backlogs.
Migrants were admitted and given basic help and work authorization after several months. These benefits have been exaggerated by anti-immigrant forces. The transport of many of these new migrants by Republican governors to major Democratic cities like New York, Chicago, and Denver created a new awareness of the issues by the public, which was often based upon false information.
Upheavals in Haiti, Ukraine, and Afghanistan all occurred within a two-year period, and these migrants were granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or humanitarian parole, which is possible under immigration law. These events converged and helped change public policy on migration in a very swift manner.
The formation of public policy in democracies such as in the United States is a complex process. Over the years, however, we have seen the issue of migration is vulnerable to being formed more by public opinion than by studied public policy processes. The confusion regarding this issue was exploited by the presidential candidate who won office. The facts were there ready to be exaggerated and exploited as a campaign issue, making the situation much worse than it really is or will be in the future.
When all is said and done, we are overdue for a studied reform of our immigration system. Many sectors of our economy need new workers, skilled and unskilled, and there is a constant need for family reunification. Without reform, these issues cannot be addressed under the present system, which has not had a major overhaul since 1965.
The prospects for this type of reform are dim. Still, the campaign promises of our new president, including massive deportation of undocumented migrants, the end of the deferred action for minors brought to this country as children, and many other restrictive policies are soon to follow. The untold human suffering is yet to be seen. Perhaps the media will show it, just as in the past, when the appetite for sensationalism made the media willing to exploit the invasion theme.
If we hope to walk with migrants, we need to understand the present situation. If we wish to assist them, we need to better influence public opinion, especially the opinion of our elected leaders, to enact sensible reforms that reflect our national needs and conscience.
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, who served as the seventh bishop of the Diocese of Brooklyn, is continuing his research on undocumented migration in the United States.
