A review of the article, The Left Case against Open Borders, by Angela Nagel - American Affairs Journal https:americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against
Tens of thousands of Hondurans, El Salvadorans and Guatemalans are fleeing hunger and death. Usually they do not flee in caravans but alone or with their immediate families. Caravans are formed for protection from crimes, assault, rape and extortion. As the Exodus Caravan from Honduras has reached our borders, there is a heightened sense of fear in the nation promoted by Donald Trump and his administration.
To begin with, the caravan of poor people at our border should not be stopped. Instead, those eligible for refugee status should be admitted required by the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1946) and current U.S. law.
When writers propose an immigration policy and a critique of a movement, it is important to get the story right. People’s lives depend upon it.
In the article, “The Left Case against Open Borders”, writer Angela Nagel gets most of the economic conditions correct, but like Trump, she argues without evidence that the problem is that unions, the Left and immigrants’ rights activists support “open borders”.
Atossa Araxis Abrahamian, In the Nation online on November 28, describes the peculiar lineage of Nagel’s writing and review some of the literature she sites.
In the following I deal with the false accusations about the role of unions in the immigration policy debates.
Let’s try a thought experiment. Imagine that no one advocated open borders. How would that change the lived conditions of these refugees? Not at all.
The Angela Nagel essay has many positive features including the descriptions of how global neoliberal capitalism, including NAFTA, causes many of the major problems of migration.
However, Nagel is wrong in asserting that the left and labor favor open borders. This is accepting the false narrative of Trump and the anti- immigrant forces as an accurate description of their opponents’ views. They are not.
There has been a long and well developed movement for immigration reform, along with connected policy proposals – few of which argue for open borders. Progressive policies and practices have emerged from within U.S. communities and the labor movement. The writer seems to not be aware of this history. Instead she describes critics of the current attacks on immigrants as “Useful Idiots.”
She notes the Reagan Administration policy known by Republicans as amnesty without noting that the Simpson- Mazolli Act was the consequence of a multi- year struggle for immigration reform by both corporate forces and community groups.