In the US, leftist attitudes toward immigration vary. At least, they did for much of the 20th century. Now, ‘open borders’ is an idea on the table across the US left in a way it hasn’t been previously. Much of the reason for this is reaction to the US’s increasingly draconian immigration policies since 9/11.
But there are also key issues of leftist theory and practice involved. Suzy Lee’s recent article in Catalyst provides a helpful frame for thinking about this. You can find the article here. I’ll sketch out Lee’s leftist argument for open borders before laying out some of the further issues and challenges.
Suzy Lee’s Leftist Argument for Open Borders
I think Lee’s argument has a simple enough structure. The complications are in some of the details and supporting evidence. Here’s Lee’s argument as I read it from her article:
1. Immigration flow and immigrant rights are separate issues, but they’re closely connected, politically. Achieving a legal path toward flow is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for achieving rights.
2. Achieving immigrant rights is important to many leftist projects. This includes increasing unionization rates and union power in key industries.
3. As a consequence of (1), the left must achieve a legal path for immigration flow in order to make the gains in immigrant rights needed for the projects listed in (2).
4. Advocacy for open borders is the best way to achieve immigration flow in a way that best opens the door for immigrant rights.
5. Therefore, the left should endorse and work toward open borders.
Immigration Flow and Immigrant Rights
Lee draws a distinction between immigration flow and immigrant rights. And she argues that conflating these issues produces a number of confusions. In particular, it produces the misconception that capital is in favor of immigrant rights.
However, capital is interested in flow, not rights. US businesses need a certain amount of labor, and they achieve this, in part, through using immigrant labor. And, due to the march of technological advance and automation, the amount of immigrant labor they need tends to decrease over time. US business simply isn’t as dependent on immigrant labor now as it was in the lower tech, heavier industry period of 80-100 years ago.
Capital’s need for immigration flow doesn’t extend to rights, or so Lee argues. Restricting the rights of immigrants helps businesses intensify labor and hold down wages. Furthermore, the sorts of industries where immigrant labor is still needed are industries trying the hardest to speed up equipment, lengthen the working day, and by various other means extract as much relative surplus-value as possible. It’s a lot easier to do this when your workers are afraid of deportation and your activities aren’t easily governed by labor law.
Nativist Attitudes and White Workers
So, there’s one more reason why all this talk about the interests of capital is important. Quite a few pundits and even academics pin the blame for current immigration policy on white workers. The idea here is that white workers’ nativist attitudes pressure politicians to enact anti-immigrant policies.
Let’s set aside, for a moment, the key problem for this view: namely, that the nativist base in the US is largely non-working-class. And often rather wealthy.
Lee claims something else. What she says is the the interests of white workers largely have no impact on US politics, set aside in favor of the interests of capital. As evidence, she cites the fact that US labor unions have grown increasingly pro-immigrant and pro-immigration in recent years, even as US politics becomes more nativist.
I have mixed thoughts on this reasoning. She’s right that US politics have always privileged the interests of capital over labor. That’s accurate across racial lines, though obviously not accurate to the same degree. But it might be a mistake to conflate the political views of labor unions with those of their members. For that reason, we should be cautious about drawing any conclusion about levels of nativism among white workers merely from listening to their unions.
Immigrant Rights and Leftist Goals
According to Lee, the political left currently emphasizes rights over flow. Why? Flow has been controversial for a long time. Unions have worried quite a bit that a strong flow of immigrants will cost their members’ jobs. By contrast, raising the bar for immigrant rights helps protect everyone’s rights. Lee counters, though, that it’s not that simple. It’s tough for anyone to have rights when they’re not even safe in the country. Legal status might be the precondition for any talk of rights.
Here’s her second point. Immigrant labor, at least in the US, is concentrated in areas that are especially difficult to automate or outsource. We’re talking here about industries like agriculture, construction, personal services, et al. So, these jobs will continue to be around in most plausible futures. And unionizing those industries would give workers great leverage in the struggle with capital.
The trouble is that those industries have relatively low unionization rates, and, hence, the working-class leaves a lot of power on the table. Restrictions on immigration flow produce a system where immigrant workers fear ICE raids, deportation, et al. To remove that threat is thus to produce conditions where unionization of key industries increases.
A third point, which Lee doesn’t mention, is that immigrants have long been a key part of leftist movements everywhere, certainly including the US. And not only are immigrants important to leftist movements, but so are the children of immigrants. Latinx organizers are currently doing some of the best organizing in the US, and many historical US socialist leaders, e.g., Eugene V. Debs, were immigrants or the children of immigrants.
Is a Push for Open Borders the Best Policy Move?
I think Lee convincingly shows that it’s in capital’s interest to discourage immigrant rights and that capital has only a limited interest in immigration flow. She’s also shown that immigration flow is in some sense necessary to securing immigrant rights.
But there’s a remaining question of whether open borders is the best way to secure the kind of immigration flow needed for securing immigrant rights. Alternatively, should we open up immigration, but only to some extent that falls short of open borders?
That’s a tough question to answer. The best Democratic candidate on immigration issues is Julián Castro. And his plan falls short of open borders. What Castro’s advocating is widespread decriminalization of the immigration system. He also wants to secure immigration flow in the form of removing obstacles to circular migration.
I’ll leave this question mostly open. Any thoughts from readers? In terms of the politics of this, open borders has a certain rhetorical and moral clarity that a more complicated plan like Castro’s might lack. However, Castro’s plan is probably less likely to run into resistance from politicians and capital.
