From Reagan's 1986 amnesty to Trump's wall

"The ones controlling (illegal) immigration are nationalists!"

"Demanding the implementation of worker verification policies is no different from the racist practices of 1943, locking up Japanese Americans in internment camps and counting African American votes as three-fifths of a person!"

"Paranoia! Xenophobia!"

Labels and clashes dominate discussions on immigration issues in American politics. This trend didn't emerge recently but has been commonplace since President Truman's era, persisting through the years.

The struggle around illegal immigration reached a peak in American politics in 1986. That year, the number of people deported from the U.S. borders reached a staggering 1.8 million. Simultaneously, both parties agreed on a bipartisan deal and passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), signed by President Reagan.

Shortly after, people heard Reagan's impassioned speech about America welcoming immigrants from around the world.

The current Democratic Senate leader, Chuck Schumer from Manhattan, rose prominently during the enactment of that bill and was one of its main advocates.

However, looking back at the 1986 IRCA, it stands as one of the biggest legislative failures in American history. It not only led to widespread document fraud but also sowed the seeds for the current political turmoil, embarrassing the elite establishment in American politics instead of solving the issue of illegal immigration.

The success or failure of a bill depends on its content and the administrative department's cooperation. The IRCA belonged to the former category. At its passage, it was destined for failure, as it failed to resolve illegal immigration issues as intended but rather exacerbated the problem.

Many immigration experts believe solving the issue requires three elements: penalizing employers hiring illegal immigrants, granting amnesty to those already in the country, and strengthening border control. All three are crucial.

The failure of the IRCA lies in its lack of sufficient funding for strict border management and the absence of penalties for employers. Offering amnesty without following up with measures to prevent future occurrences inadvertently turned the legislation into an encouragement for illegal immigration.

What followed was the largest-scale document fraud in American history. Amnesty only required presenting documents proving someone had worked on an American farm for more than 90 days in a particular year to obtain legal status.

This even spurred a cottage industry. Focused on agricultural workers, numerous illegal immigrants paid $1,000 to farm owners to fabricate such documents, with no employer sanctions or enhanced site enforcement in place.

Though over $1,000 was no small sum for an average person back then, the allure of obtaining legal status made it an irresistible deal. This led to a rampant spread of the practice within the illegal immigrant community, not just among family and friends locally but even to villages far away in Mexico.

As a result, nearly 3 million illegal immigrants were granted amnesty in '86, directly fueling the subsequent peak of illegal immigration throughout the '90s. Despite the U.S. accepting an average of 900,000 legal immigrants annually in the '90s, the number of illegal immigrants reached a staggering 500,000 per year. Consequently, within a decade, the U.S. had an additional 5 million illegal immigrants.

Among the 2.7 million granted amnesty, the largest number resided in California, with the greater Los Angeles area alone absorbing 800,000 at once. In 2020, the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. was estimated to have surpassed 11 million, with roughly one-third living in California.

A former Hispanic journalist from the Los Angeles Times admitted on a show that nearly every Hispanic family he knew might have had illegal immigrants among their members.

The significant increase in illegal and legal Hispanic immigrants is particularly prominent in California, directly altering its demographics. However, this influx has also led to complaints from some local residents. Despite California still attracting talent from various industries, over 6.8 million people have moved out of the state in recent years.

The rapid and immense change in demographics naturally translates into political repercussions and votes. California surpassed New York in 1964 to become the most populous state in the U.S. It was once predominantly suburban, middle-class, white voters who formed its primary support base. The impact of the '86 amnesty from an electoral perspective led California to transition into a stable Democratic stronghold for several decades.

By 2014, Hispanics in California finally outnumbered whites, becoming the state's largest ethnic group.

Most illegal and legal Hispanic immigrants lack education beyond high school. Many have children who, like themselves, struggle to speak English. These children of illegal immigrants from those years are the target population for today's DACA legislation. In a time when California's state budget was strained in the '90s, the California State legislature was embroiled in a heated debate over the $1.5 billion needed for educating illegal immigrant children.

Yet, the impact of illegal immigration isn't limited to California. Similar stories unfolded in different regions.

Neighboring Arizona, a traditionally red state, is projected to turn blue. Among its population under 16, Hispanics comprise 46%. The state's largest city, Phoenix, has witnessed a demographic shift akin to a border city in just over a decade.

Across the U.S., from the '90s to the early 21st century, the Hispanic immigrant population surged from 23 million to 36.5 million, growing four times faster than other immigrant communities. The increase in both illegal and legal Hispanic immigrants led to a trend where upon arrival, they would bring over friends and family, sometimes even relocating entire villages.

Out of Mexico's 2,000-plus counties, 96% had residents who immigrated illegally. A 2012 Pew Research Center poll among Mexicans revealed that over a third wanted to migrate to the U.S., with 13% willing to try illegal means.

However, the sources of illegal Hispanic immigrants in the U.S. have largely shifted away from Mexico in recent years, gravitating towards Central America.

On one side of the border, the U.S. witnesses an influx of low-skilled labor, while on the Mexican side, there's an exodus of over 11% of its population, severely affecting some border cities' agriculture. What's more challenging is that after illegal immigrants enter the U.S., they send the money they earn back through underground channels, impacting Mexico's security and tax revenue.

Jerry Kammer is an experienced journalist and a Pulitzer Prize winner.

Although Kammer was born into a relatively affluent upper-middle-class family, his experience of working and studying during his youth allowed him to interact with a large number of working-class people. As a think tank expert and a contributor to various mainstream newspapers, his disposition differs from the typical scholarly impression, possessing the ability lacking in many elites of this era to observe society through the lens of the working class.

Kammer is fluent in Spanish and has spent years living in and reporting from border cities. He has randomly encountered a large number of undocumented immigrants, most of whom have education levels equivalent to sixth grade or even as low as third grade in Mexico, naturally unable to speak English.

In early 2020, Kammer published an article in The New York Times titled "I Am a Liberal Who Supports Immigration Control," which stirred up a storm of controversy. The comprehensive ideas behind this article are further elaborated in his latest book titled "Losing Control: How the Left and Right Alliance Prevented Immigration Reform and Led to Trump's Election."

One of the biggest impacts of the issue of undocumented immigration stems from an economic perspective, as they compete for jobs with low-income, low-skilled native workers. In the early 1990s, the surge in undocumented immigration in the U.S. led to a negative wage growth rate of -8.7% in the entire agricultural industry, compared to an overall wage growth rate of 11% in other industries.

Additionally, undocumented immigrants are unable to compete with voting-empowered Americans in terms of bargaining power and advocating for policies that protect themselves. For instance, the four most dangerous industries in the U.S. - mining, forestry, fishing, and agriculture - while the mining industry is dominated by native-born workers, about 46% of workers in the latter three industries are immigrants, with half of them being undocumented.

Over the past few decades, injury rates in the mining industry dominated by native-born workers have decreased by two-thirds. Conversely, industries that employ a high number of immigrants, particularly undocumented ones, have maintained a near lack of improvement in injury rates over several decades.

This situation offers opportunities for employers and capitalists to save costs, thereby prompting interest groups to actively promote the issue of undocumented immigration.

Support for undocumented immigration exists on both the left and right, forming an alliance. Left-wing support mainly comes from expansionists advocating for liberating the world's poor, believing that the U.S. should have open borders, welcoming all immigrants. Their most compelling theoretical basis is the fourteen-line poem "The New Colossus," composed by Emma Lazarus, engraved on the Statue of Liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

This poem doesn't glorify wealth but rather strongly emphasizes the pursuit of freedom. It embodies a broad love and universality, growing towards the light. It profoundly embodies the idea of urging the U.S. to open its doors and embrace immigrants. However, it was created in 1883 when the U.S. population was only 50 million, and industrialization was not as advanced. At that time, per capita productivity was mainly tied to the population, and the country's GDP mainly depended on the number of people.

Now, in the 21st century, a nation's competitiveness primarily comes from technological prowess. Similar developed countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK have long adopted immigration systems that focus on skilled immigrants. In contrast, legal immigration in the U.S. still relies on the family-based immigration system established 60 years ago, where only about 16% of the total immigration comprises skilled workers, including spouses.

This quota was established based on the situation of the 1960s. Coupled with a sudden influx of undocumented immigrants, it inevitably leads to a new immigration structure in the U.S., characterized by a lower proportion of skilled immigrants, lower per capita wealth, and inadequate average education levels.

On the right, there are libertarians, billionaire Koch brothers advocating for free trade and open borders. Their think tank, CATO, supports expanding immigration numbers. Regarding the issue of undocumented immigration, the conservative CATO and the pioneering civil rights organization ACLU miraculously stand together.

Additionally, industries such as farms, construction companies, and the hospitality sector have powerful organizations lobbying for undocumented immigrants, injecting huge funds annually. Among the owners in these industries, there are also conservatives.

Both the left and right have capital forces supporting undocumented immigration. Lobbying groups behind various types of immigration bills, including support for undocumented immigrants, number nearly a thousand, often spending over $20 billion within a few years. On the other hand, according to former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, there's no political advocacy for the working poor impacted by the issue of undocumented immigrants. These individuals are the most directly affected by it.

Attitudes towards undocumented immigrants are not simply aligned with left or right positions.

For example, Canada, often considered more left-leaning than the U.S., has a much lower proportion of undocumented immigrants, officially estimated between 20,000 to 120,000. In a population of approximately 37.59 million in Canada, this ratio amounts to a maximum of only 0.32%, less than one-tenth of the proportion in the U.S. Apart from historical reasons, differences in border management intensity, and industrial structure, there are also combined effects of geographical location, among other factors.

In 2011, Canada's second-highest court ruled that undocumented immigrants in Canada are not eligible for free healthcare. How did Canadians react to this decision?

In reality, there were no comprehensive public opinion surveys conducted in Canada regarding attitudes towards undocumented immigrants. This reflects the minimal impact of undocumented immigration in Canada, leading to the absence of an effective political force, thus remaining silent.

In contrast, during the 2019 Democratic Party primary process, there was a shocking moment for many Americans. NBC hosts asked ten candidates if they were willing to provide free healthcare to undocumented immigrant families. All candidates, including Biden, raised their hands. Concerning the issue of undocumented immigrants, the American left was further left than Canada.

As immigrants who have already settled in the U.S., we should welcome immigration. However, welcoming immigrants doesn't mean supporting unregulated expansion exclusively; it should also consider responsibility towards settled immigrants in the country. Since "Americans are all immigrants," those who arrived earlier also have their rights and should receive fair policy protection.

Undocumented immigrants lack legal status and are willing to work as cheap labor. Even with a daily income of $20 for overtime work, it's still much better than the wage levels in their home countries. However, the cost is that Americans and legal immigrants who are not willing to sell their labor at lower wages end up unemployed.

Illegal immigrants mainly compete with low-income workers at or near the minimum wage level, leading to a lowering of industry wage levels. From an employer's perspective, this might not necessarily be a bad thing as it eliminates those small business owners who insist on employing legal workers. That's why even among legal Hispanic Americans and those raised in the U.S., there's a population that doesn't support illegal immigration. In fact, the Hispanic community is quite divided on the issue, with 46% opposing and 52% supporting.

In 2014, PBS produced a documentary called "The State of Arizona," which won an Emmy, detailing the stories of illegal immigrants. However, a Hispanic small business owner interviewed during the filming revealed that although he shared many negative aspects of the illegal immigrant problem, his story didn't make it into the final cut of the documentary.

Apart from deliberately not using the story of this small business owner affected by illegal immigration, the documentary also misinterpreted someone shouting "acclimate to the country" as "go back to your country."

This also reflects a problem with mainstream media today, preferring to report news that fits their narrative, even manufacturing intentional or unintentional errors that reinforce their position, causing some Americans to lose trust and suspect underlying vested interests.

Unlike in the 1980s when the media was primarily newspaper-based, employing many individuals involved in physical tasks like printing, truck transportation, and distributing newspapers, today's media workforce is more elite and urbanized. Many reporters graduated from Ivy League or similarly prestigious universities, often coming from affluent families, lacking experience in the lives of rural or economically challenged areas of America and never having worked jobs at or near the minimum wage.

The elitism within the left-leaning media has fostered an ideological obsession with niche groups, often overlooking the needs of the general public. Yet, these individuals wield significant influence over public discourse.

Take The New York Times, for example. Over the past thirty years, it underwent two changes in publishers. The old publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, handed over the job to his son, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., in 1992. 25 years later, Jr. stepped aside for his left-leaning son born in '80, with the editorial department witnessing a rise of a genuine social justice warrior.

People still talk about a conversation that happened in the 1970s within the Sulzberger family. Senior Sulzberger visited his son at Tufts University. Junior Sulzberger, who was busy protesting against the Vietnam War and had been arrested twice, was asked by his father, a veteran, whom he'd prefer to see killed in a scenario where a North Vietnamese soldier and an American soldier in Vietnam meet. Junior's reply shocked his father, born into the veteran generation: "I'd prefer the American soldier to be killed because this is someone else's country, and American soldiers shouldn't be there."

This deeply hurt Senior Sulzberger's patriotism and vividly reflected the character and stance that would accompany Junior Sulzberger in his future actions. This mindset, open borders and nations like the leftist figure Soros, aligned unintentionally with his ideological outlook.

The change in leadership at The New York Times didn't just alter the helmsman; it also shifted away from the mild, modest style of journalism under Senior Sulzberger's management.

In 2006, Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times about immigration issues, cautioning about the negative impact of illegal immigrants on low-income, low-skilled workers. By 2007, The New York Times editorial department began a shift, no longer differentiating between illegal and legal immigrants, labeling them all as simply "immigrants." Furthermore, the concept of "illegal" was blurred, replaced by "undocumented immigrants." In reality, many illegal immigrants have used legal entry or forged documents and are not without documents.

The New York Times is increasingly becoming the voice of a part of the leftist elite centered around Manhattan, gradually moving away from the demands of the public. Exchange of common sense often turns into a competition of moral superiority.

Behind media propaganda, there's also substantial funding pushing for support. Several prominent charitable foundations, including the Carnegie Foundation, despite being non-partisan by rule, disproportionately support expansionist open-border ideologies when reviewed for their donations on immigration issues.

When the issue of illegal immigration was merely about cultural clashes, it didn't provoke significant backlash. However, after accumulating for decades, it has increasingly become an economic conflict. Cultural anxieties have transformed into economic ones, fueling the rise of populism and becoming one of the significant reasons behind Trump's election.

Although opposition to illegal immigration is primarily among affected white working-class Americans, the black community, similar to the internal contradictions within the Asian-American community regarding Affirmative Action, is also divided on the issue of illegal immigration.

Black worker organizations demand job opportunities and actively oppose illegal immigration. However, black politicians align themselves with their party, standing with the Hispanic community to support the Democratic coalition. This disconnection between grassroots movements and community politicians mirrors the discord within the Chinese middle class and civilians who prioritize education issues and the Chinese politicians and leftist elite supporting the Democratic Party's agendas.

Taking North Carolina as an example, it ranks as the eighth state in terms of the number of illegal immigrants in the US. The Hispanic population increased from 76k in the early '90s to 600k in 2008, with half of them being illegal immigrants. In Smithfield, NC, home to the world's largest pork processing plant, "Tar Heel", 32,000 pigs are processed and butchered daily. This location has now become a stronghold for Hispanic workers, replacing many African American working-class individuals.

In early 2016, Von Jones, a prominent African American host on CNN, keenly observed Trump's impact on black voters in immigration debates. He warned that many African Americans were already dissatisfied with Hispanic and Latino immigrants. Although only 8% of black voters ended up voting for Trump, with 88% voting for Hillary, the overall lack of high voter turnout among African Americans reflected the suppression of African American voting enthusiasm due to immigration issues.

The history of protecting job opportunities for African American workers dates back even further to 1895 when they competed for jobs against Southern European Catholics and Eastern European Jews. Thirty years later, black leaders successfully pushed for legislation in the US, leading to a decline in immigration numbers over the next 40 years.

After the Civil War ended Southern slavery, freed black individuals migrated northwards for several decades. Cities like Chicago, Detroit, and New York saw an increase in African American populations, with many finding jobs in meatpacking, steel, or automobile industries. Despite America establishing its "world's factory" status during World War II, the deindustrialization process starting in the '70s led to the decline of these sectors, and male laborers began facing unemployment. While the civil rights movement in the late '60s prompted the US government to introduce various compensatory policies to address racial discrimination, economic and social status improvements for African Americans hadn't stabilized comprehensively before being hit by this progressive shock.

Competing for jobs with illegal immigrants and the deindustrialization process shifting low-wage jobs overseas—these two major reasons causing ordinary Americans to lose job opportunities—have impacted the black community.

Over the past few decades in the US, while there has been an influx of low-wage immigrant labor (both undocumented and illegal), globalization has also outsourced industrial job opportunities overseas. The impact on the blue-collar middle class has been substantial, making them a significant driving force behind Trump's election, delivering a middle finger to the bipartisan establishment responsible for these policies.