X Close

The progressive case against immigration Open borders threaten American labour

The US-Mexico border has been overwhelmed. John Moore/Getty Images

The US-Mexico border has been overwhelmed. John Moore/Getty Images


November 20, 2024   5 mins

The battlelines on immigration have hardened predictably. Left-leaning voters proudly display “refugees welcome” yard signs, while Donald Trump supporters cheer his pledge to implement “largest deportation operation in the history of our country”. Amid such partisan attitudes, it has become heretical to suggest that the Democrats need to be tougher on immigration.

But they must. In the long run, progressives have no choice but to acknowledge that huge infusions of migrants stress welfare systems and depress wages for low-skill workers, while damaging social cohesion. Only by accepting this, and making the case for border security and less tolerance for migrant rule-breaking, can the Left reconnect with its blue-collar roots.

And perhaps it isn’t such a heretical thought. Across the world, Left-leaning political parties have fared best when they have adopted restrictive policies on migration. The reigning Social Democratic Party of Denmark has won successive elections over the last decade with no fear from the populist Right, in large part because of its refusal to take in new asylum seekers and in its efforts to reduce any net migration.

For centre-left Danes, this position isn’t so much an aberration, but an extension of the fight against neoliberalism. “For me, it is becoming increasingly clear that the price of unregulated globalisation, mass immigration and the free movement of labour is paid for by the lower classes,” Mette Frederiksen, the SDP leader and Danish Prime Minister wrote in her autobiography.

The same can be said of the United States. It is no coincidence that the era of lowest immigration to this country, between the Thirties and Sixties, coincided with the greatest expansion of labour unions, the New Deal, and the Great Society. Reduced migration meant less infighting and greater focus on the broad public interest among the working and middle class. It was these decades that gave us the federal minimum wage as well as Medicare and Social Security, our most durable and most generous entitlement programmes.

Contemporary trends also strongly correlate. Democrats this century have won the White House only in years of decreasing migration. In 2008 and 2012, the years Barack Obama won two successive bids, immigration was down sharply. Four years ago, the Covid pandemic led to the closure of the US-Mexico border and the suspension of most visa programmes, measures that led to the fastest decline in migration on record. Of course, these weren’t the only factors, but the absence of a migration crisis sucked the wind out of the sails of Trump’s reelection that year.

More recently, the Democrat Representatives Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Jared Golden, who represent two of the three districts that the Democrats held onto in Trump country, bucked their party by voting for hardline immigration enforcement and never missed an opportunity to remind voters that they disagreed with their party leaders on this issue. That’s not to say they abandoned the Left. Golden is a torchbearer of labour unions and Perez has been outspoken on breaking up corporate monopolies. But they show how the Democrats can once again become a big tent party, bringing back independent voters.

Many progressives disagree, pointing to the racist quota systems behind 20th-century limitations on migration. And it’s true that the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, which slashed migration by more than 80%, had bigoted justifications in line with the more intolerant views of the day. But racist beliefs of the past should not be weaponised to dishonestly argue against race-neutral immigration laws of the present. Migration levels can be cut across the board and a merit-based system need not have any ethnic component. Border security should not take race or ethnicity into account.

It is this dangerous conflation of laissez-faire migration policy and anti-racist activism that has wreaked havoc among the Left. In the reaction to the first Trump Administration, many liberals unthinkingly embraced unlimited migration as a progressive value. Such views only widened the distance between the Left and the working class.

The Left seems to have all but forgotten who is pushing, behind the scenes, for fewer immigration barriers. The fast food giants, industrial agribusiness interests, slaughterhouses, and other business groups lobby to import new workers on a strictly economic basis. Corporate executives leaned on the Biden Administration to increase the flow of migration over the last four years to reduce what they euphemistically called “wage inflation” — business-speak for higher wages won by tight labour markets. Silicon Valley, meanwhile, has championed its own immigration lobbying bonanza in a bid to bring lower wage computer programmers to American shores.

“The Left seems to have all but forgotten who is pushing, behind the scenes, for fewer immigration barriers.”

Most mainstream Democrats, including Joe Biden, once sang a different tune and recognised the connection between business and mass migration. Back in 2006, Biden previously campaigned on building a new border fence and enacting new laws to “punish American employers who knowingly violate the law when they hire illegals”.

But the shift away from their traditionally tough stance has coincided with the changing demographics of the party base, especially its core of urban, educated professionals — who tend to benefit economically from mass migration. If you’re an educated white-collar worker, it’s unlikely you will face direct economic competition with a migrant hailing from Venezuela or Afghanistan. In most cases, you benefit from the lower wages of immigrant Uber drivers, maids, and kitchen staff in the form of cheaper goods and services. And there’s a small chance that you will be competing with migrants for limited spots at a homeless shelter or in line at the food bank.

This shift was only accelerated by Trump’s arrival. In 2017, Left-leaning politicians reflexively began opposing anything Trump supported, even if these ideas were in line with traditional Democratic policy priorities. For instance, they began dismantling routine immigration enforcement mechanisms, such as the 287(g) local law enforcement program, put into place by previous Democratic presidents, tying the hands of the Biden administration.

In those years, activists and politicians alike embraced slogans like “Abolish ICE” and competed to show deference to illegal aliens. It was in the midst of this dynamic that Kamala Harris took her most unpopular stances, such as her pledge to provide undocumented aliens in detention centres with taxpayer-funded transgender surgeries.

More to the point, the highly educated activist Left created cultural parameters that made open discussion of these issues impossible. Recall the treatment of Bernie Sanders who went viral for retorting: “Open borders? That’s a Koch brothers idea.” Invoking the arch-Republican billionaires, Sanders was expressing concern that mass migration lowers wages to the benefit of corporate interests. But many liberal media outlets decried Sanders as a racist bigot, an “ugly” xenophobic dinosaur of the highest order. An idea that once formed the bedrock of the labour movement has been transformed into an example of Leftist heresy.

But take it from the Cato Institute, the gem of the Koch foundation-backed libertarian research centres. Alex Nowrasteh, the vice president of the institute, previously commented on the benefits of mass immigration from the perspective of the pro-business elite.

“A diverse population,” Nowrasteh observed wryly on a thread debating mass migration, “reduces social solidarity, which is good for economic growth because people don’t want wealth-destroying policies to help out people who look different.”

In other words, waves of immigrants are favoured by this Koch-backed pundit not only for macro-economic reasons. He sees the cultural and political disruption it fuels as an essential benefit. The less societal cohesion, the less likely welfare state policies will advance.

I view the issue from the opposite direction from the Koch foundation world. The need for new social programmes is already fast approaching. Americans are living longer than ever, exacerbating the financial outlook of retirees and care facilities. And the rapid growth of artificial intelligence and other automation technology may soon replace tens of millions of workers. But if society is so consumed with backlash over immigration, how will the Left ever propose a workable solution to any of these challenges?

Borders pose an existential challenge for Democrats, one that forces them to reckon with the drift on class. Will American remain perpetually in conflict over new arrivals, constantly divided and competing with lower wage workers and pondering questions of shifting cultural identity, or will we end this cycle and fix the problems that plague our most struggling citizens. The future of progressive policy depends on solving it.


Lee Fang is an investigative journalist and Contributing Editor at UnHerd. Read his Substack here.

lhfang

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

29 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Victor James
Victor James
16 days ago

All of the mania for open borders on the far left is because of anti-white racism – the woke left is essentially the racist fascism of non-whites. Liberals who are not woke, must purge these racists otherwise there’s nothing you can do to curb the excesses.

Dennis Roberts
Dennis Roberts
16 days ago

Almost perfect article. My only quibble would be the focus on the specifics in the US – exactly the same has happened over here in the UK.

To me it seems that the left-leaning middle-class have developed a belief that any comment against immigration must be racist, presumably because anti-immigration sentiment in the past was often race-based. Consequently, this has become a foundation stone of their beliefs and they are unable to see any other point of view.

Remain voters who have fallen into the trap above are the best example in the UK – unable to see that the freedom of movement that the neoliberal EU insists upon is a fundamental part of the problems we face, and is not just ‘a distraction’ or a ‘dog whistle’.

As with all foolish options this will eventually fade, and they will then collectively forget that it was the ‘idiotic and racist’ leave voters that understood the situation long before they did.

Matthew Freedman
Matthew Freedman
16 days ago

The far-left only want people movement that suits them.

I’ve witnessed Twitter go mad at a single Jewish person moving to the only Jewish majority country in the world because they shouldn’t be there in their far-left minds.

As a middle class person if I move to inner east london they call me a “gentrifier” even though my grandad lived there when he was poor.

If I as an english person move to wales thats bad too as I could cause the welsh language to die out (if I ever moved to wales I would learn it though).

That said the way the UK is set up at moment, you’d have to get millions off illness benefits and into work, stop early retirement and look after our old people to ever really be able to cut immigration.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
16 days ago

Error

Paul Thompson
Paul Thompson
16 days ago

“If you’re an educated white-collar worker, it’s unlikely you will face direct economic competition with a migrant hailing from Venezuela or Afghanistan. ”
Very true. The competition for white collar professions is from China, India, Russia, and Japan. They are here under the OPT, H-1B, L-1, F-1, B-1, and other work visas. In the 32 years that the H-1B visa has been used extensively, the STEM workforce in the US, of native US workers, has been pretty much destroyed. Thousands of workers have been directly replaced. The OPT visa, never authorized by Congress, now gives 3-year work permits to 250,000 foreign students. US college grads have trouble getting jobs, while foreign students get jobs which not only pay well but are exempt from SS and Medicare taxes. We need to end the work visas.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
16 days ago
Reply to  Paul Thompson

You are right that American college students who majored in computer science can’t get jobs in Silicon Valley because of H-1B visas. These workers are paid less than a college graduate. It happened to my brother who was laid off by Hewlett-Packard so they could could replace him with cheaper Indian workers. To make matters worse, he had to train the Indian worker who was replacing him.

Aidan A
Aidan A
16 days ago
Reply to  Paul Thompson

True. Politicians and businesses on the left and the right are guilty.

Rachel Taylor
Rachel Taylor
16 days ago

It is interesting that the Left, given a choice between improving wages for workers and undermining societies through mass displacement, prefer the latter.

Caroline Galwey
Caroline Galwey
16 days ago

Still in the UK the ruling leftist blob invariably equates opposition to unlimited immigration with prejudice (‘hate’) against immigrants as people. Transparently disingenuous, but it’s still working. For how long?

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
16 days ago

The left in America never had any blue collar roots. The civil war was because the republicans wanted to end slavery and the democrats wanted to keep it.
The democrats realised that if they could get ex slaves and poor whites to vote for them, they would have a loyal fan base to challenge the republicans on their own ground.
So they just did what they always do; changed history and the public fell for it.
Mind you, that doesn’t make the republicans saints, they morphed into a particularly vicious form of capitalism that is only just being addressed.
Now a lot of the billionaires that once voted republican have now taken over the democrats, the public are finally waking up. Let’s hope they are not fooled again!

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
16 days ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

The Democratic slave owners were not the Democratic Party of today. The South was Democratic because Lincoln was a Republican. Makes sense. When the Dixiecrats were faced with The Voting Rights Act and Equality Act, they bolted to the Republican Party of today.

Dash Riprock
Dash Riprock
16 days ago

Nobody can seriously argue with this.

RA Znayder
RA Znayder
16 days ago

Thought-provoking article. At least Nowrasteh was open how about how “a diverse population reduces solidarity which is good for economic growth” in his tweet. Cheap labor and abolishing welfare states have of course always been central to the neoliberal program. Also note that more people does not just mean more workers, it also means more consumers. In practice the uniparty often sugarcoated the neoliberal consensus with progressive and liberal cultural values. A synergy between right wing economics and left wing cultural values where it fits. That is not to say progressives are necessarily disingenuous but cold economic incentives are just usually present in the background.
Now, another question is whether this neoliberal “growth” strategy even works. The author mentions how the postwar period saw a lot more growth but of course we also had a baby boom. On the other hand, we do see that the productivity per worker has increased tremendously because of innovation. And there might be a lot more to come with AI. Still, the economy has also essentially been on the government lifeline since 2008 because a big part of the financialized economy appeared to be a Ponzi and perhaps still is. None of those problems really point at a lack of productivity but a system that makes little sense.

Paul Thompson
Paul Thompson
16 days ago
Reply to  RA Znayder

Alex Nowsratah, at the Cato Institute, is a notorious pro-immigration researcher. The Cato Institute is in favor of unlimited immigration to reduce wages. They are not neo-liberal, but completely libertarian.

RA Znayder
RA Znayder
16 days ago
Reply to  Paul Thompson

That’s what I understood, but there is of course quite some overlap in this case.
I’m curious though, are they also advocating for paying back the estimated 50 trillion wealth transfer big capital received from the neoliberal nanny state using fiscal- and monetary stimulus? I’d say that if one advocates for libertarian policies they first need to make sure the game isn’t rigged.

Jane Cobbald
Jane Cobbald
16 days ago

Interesting article, thank you. I wonder, are we living through a shift in the zeitgeist? Attitudes and beliefs that were hard to question without sounding heretical only a few months ago are becoming open to scrutiny.

Terry M
Terry M
16 days ago
Reply to  Jane Cobbald

Most people blame, or thank, X

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
16 days ago

In the UK focus was on illegals and processing delays etc…
However large scale migration has absolutely destroyed social cohesion in the UK and Ireland for that matter.
Lefties don’t understand that young unionised Poles came here in 00’s and tweenies not be left wing flag bearers and support their comrades, rather to earn more money for themselves and improve their language skills. Proper neoliberalism.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
16 days ago

Very sensible article. Immigration control is an inherently leftwing policy. Why can’t the modern left see this?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
16 days ago

In the long run, progressives have no choice but to acknowledge that huge infusions of migrants stress welfare systems and depress wages for low-skill workers, while damaging social cohesion.
For this to happen, two things would have to happen, neither of which will: 1) the American left has to find the self-awareness it either lost or threw away and realize that its supporters are among those harmed by the policies whose consequences never affect the political class, and 2) stop seeing every single issue under the sun as a zero-sum game of “whatever the right thinks, we must think the opposite.”
Among life’s Iron Laws is that you cannot have open borders AND a welfare state, at least not for long. Municipal budgets are already being strained by the idiotic desire to accommodate millions who should not be here. The zeal behind the continued push smacks of Cloward-Piven philosophy and the goal of breaking the system from within.
Also, I wouldn’t use the New Deal and Great Society initiatives as positive things. The former created Social Security which 1) is completely off the financial rails due to DC’s mismanagement and 2) outsourced responsibility for one’s retirement years to the federal govt, creating a new type of dependency. The latter is largely responsible for the destruction of the black family and the concurrent spike in single-parent births, and the effects of both are evident in often dysfunctional urban settings.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
16 days ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

We pay for Social Security and Medicare our entire working lives. They are not a form of dependency to the federal government.

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
16 days ago

Maybe the common concern about immigration isn’t over jobs and wages, isn’t an ideological issue at all, but just a desire not to be ‘replaced’ in the supermarket, on the highways, at the annual block party, etc. A few Spanish speakers at your job is one thing, but if suddenly all the new hires are speaking Spanish that’s not good. Thus a gradual accumulation of new Americans, with time for them to acclimate, is sort of okay, but mass immigration is not.
As so often, the liberal vs. conservative view of the issue is off the mark. It’s much more personal than that.
Sometimes the personal is NOT political.

Andrew Boughton
Andrew Boughton
16 days ago

Brilliant. New political clarity emerging from the fog of the befuddled Baby Boomer leftism and reactionary responses to it.

Andrew Holmes
Andrew Holmes
16 days ago

Attributing so much to a single factor doesn’t make sense. A contribution, yes. THE cause, no.

Aidan A
Aidan A
16 days ago

Politicians and business leaders from both parties have championed immigration to suppress labor costs in the US for decades. And nothing will change. Business owners in construction, agriculture that likely vote Republican are happy to have cheap labor from Mexico and South America. Tech companies, all large companies for that matter, are happy to lobby government for tens of thousands of new yearly visas for Indian tech workers. Anything to keep the US worker wages low. Don’t get me started on outsourcing and offshoring manufacturing and services. There may be a small change for the next couple of years, but this trend will continue. Politicians in America now require millions of dollars for local races, tens or more millions for senate races, and over a billion for the presidential races. A lot of this money comes from businesses wanting something in return. Like cheaper labor.

Luke Lea
Luke Lea
16 days ago

What does the word “left” even mean anymore? Or “right” too for that matter?

Apo State
Apo State
14 days ago

“In 2017, Left-leaning politicians reflexively began opposing anything Trump supported, even if these ideas were in line with traditional Democratic policy priorities.”
Exactly right, and it’s absolutely gobsmacking to think that anyone would relish voting for politicians who put their own egos (virtue signaling) above the good of the people. That attitude has put Democrats in an untenable position; one that may prove difficult to dig themselves out of.

Gio
Gio
13 days ago

Good analysis with a reasonable plan. It would fail because too many Dems are against anything that even smells like securing the border. (It’s cruel and racist, dontcha know).

Terry M
Terry M
16 days ago

 the era of lowest immigration to this country, between the Thirties and Sixties, coincided with the greatest expansion of labour unions, the New Deal, and the Great Society. 
It was these decades that gave us the federal minimum wage as well as Medicare and Social Security, our most durable and most generous entitlement programmes.
That is an argument FOR open borders. Those policies have been budget-busting disasters and created the nanny state.
I think an appropriate volume of legal immigration is best, with vetting of individuals based on their ability to contribute to our country.