Trump vs. Biden: Their Visions for Immigration in America

Istock Photos

Trump vs. Biden: Their Visions for Immigration in America

by Felicia Lo, December 2020

My mother had turned on the radio to listen in on the 2020 presidential debate. “Some presidential candidates,” I thought to myself. I began reflecting on the past four years and how hectic it has been for most Americans. In 2016, Trump’s campaign caught attention largely due to his grand plans for building a wall at the Mexican-American border. I remember laughing at such a ridiculous idea, but the support that it received made me question the significance of his choice. Why do people want a wall? What is wrong with the immigration system in America?

I come from a family of immigrants. All my grandparents migrated to Hong Kong from mainland China when they became unsatisfied with the Central government. My mother moved to the U.S. through a family petition; and my father moved to the U.S. as a college student and eventually became a naturalized citizen. By today’s standards, my grandparents would be considered “illegal migrants,” and in contrast both my parents are naturalized citizens that “followed the rules.” As the 2020 presidential election drew nearer, I decided to learn more about the immigration policies proposed by President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden. I have been able to categorize their policies into three topics: the admission of immigrants, national security, and immigrants in America. While their plans are quite different, I wanted to find out which of the two is better. To find the answer, I would have to compare the two policies to determine which of the two better protects the interests of the American people while upholding the ethical responsibility and code pertaining to the UDHR. Biden’s immigration policy is better for America because it fosters a sense of national belonging for both immigrants and non-immigrants and it diversifies the pool of skilled workers.

The Admission of Immigrants

To understand how these proposed immigration plans could affect our future, we must first understand how our current immigration system admits immigrants. Under our current policy, immigrants who have obtained legal status in our country are called Legal Permanent Residents (LPR). According to the American Immigration Council, a non-profit organization that advocates for immigrants in America, “Immigration law in the United States has been built upon the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, protecting refugees, and promoting diversity.” There are two categories for family-based immigration: immediate family members and the family preference system. There is no numerical restriction for the admission of immediate family members; however, there is a more complicated numerical limit for those who fall under the family preference system.

Besides family reunification, temporary and permanent visas are also given to workers who have been petitioned by their employers. Depending on their profession, preferences are made when granting these people visas. There are also policies in place to protect refugees and asylum seekers. Refugees and asylum seekers have different processes as to how they are admitted to the country. Refugees apply for admission from outside the country and then are admitted to the U.S., whereas asylum seekers apply for admission from within the country. Both groups are subject to the same criteria in determining whether they would be permitted to stay in the country. The numerical limit for accepting refugees is determined by the president and Congress, whereas there is no numerical limit for accepting asylum seekers. There are also programs to promote diversity and quotas to control the number of immigrants coming in from a specific country.

Family-based and employment/skill-based immigration

Family-based and employment/skill-based immigrant applications make up most of the admitted applicants each year. An important aspect of immigration policy is finding the balance between family reunification and seeking immigrants with valuable skills for our economy.

Our country’s family values extend to our immigration policy, which is based on the principle of family reunification. Family can offer emotional, physical and financial support to individuals. Maria E. Enchautegui is a Senior Research Associate at Urban Institute and wrote an article that explores how our immigration laws and family separation can affect the integration of immigrants. She states that the separation of immigrant families can “affect the immediate economic and emotional well-being of immigrant families and can have longer-term consequences for integration” (Enchautegui). Upholding the American value of family, we should ensure that the lack of a family member does not cause additional burdens that come with navigating a new life. Family reunification plays a role in helping new immigrants’s wellbeing and could maximize their contributions to society as immigrants by removing potential roadblocks that may appear when integrating into a new society.

Employment and skill-based immigration also plays an important role in our immigration policy because it sustains and stimulates our economy by offering unique skills and fulfilling employment demands. The Georgetown Immigration Law Journal is written by scholars and legal practitioners and explores, among other topics, how international and domestic events shape immigration law. Samuel Gray is a lawyer who was a research assistant at the Georgetown University Law Center. In an article analyzing the effects high-skilled workers have on the economy, Gray concluded that high-skilled immigrants are often most sought after because they have “the greatest potential to contribute economically and pose the lowest risk of burdening the welfare state” (Gray 490). High-skilled workers are a net gain for the economy. However, immigration policy must ensure that the admittance of foreign workers does not hinder the job security of Americans. There are employers that take advantage of the system and hire personnel for lower wages, which replaces American workers with immigrant workers. An immigration policy that maximizes the value of foreign workers must be able to allocate visas to workers that can fulfill employer needs, attract higher-skilled immigrants and ensure that native workers’ job security is not jeopardized.

Trump’s immigration policy would prioritize merit-based immigration over family-based immigration as he believes that it would protect the American economy and labor. Unlike our current immigration plan, which admits immigrants mostly through family relation, Trump’s website states that his proposed merit-based system would admit 57% of the immigrant pool for employment or skill-based requirements (whitehouse.gov). His plan would protect American labor and wages by prohibiting policies that would displace workers, having recruitment requirements and a wage floor. Trump still values family reunification and states that immediate families members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents will have priority in getting green cards. Under Trump’s policy, high wage foreign workers and immediate families members of U.S. citizens or permanent residents would have priority in obtaining green cards or work visas.

Biden’s plan will expedite family reunification and attract more skilled immigrants by increasing the number of opportunities for people of different professions to stay in the US legally. Biden values family reunification and is dissatisfied with how our current immigration policy is inefficient in reuniting families. Under Biden’s plan, found on his campaign website, immediate family member applicants can receive temporary non-immigrant visas so that they can reunite with their families while waiting for their permanent visa to be processed. His plan will also increase the number of permanent work visas to reflect the demands of employers. Biden will make it easier for special-skilled persons such as Ph.D graduates in STEM and agricultural workers to obtain green cards as an incentive for them to immigrate to America. Biden will also work with Congress to establish a “wage-based allocation process for temporary visas” and ” enforcement mechanisms” to ensure that visas do not allow for job replacement (joebiden.com).

Trump’s merit-based policy could be more effective in ensuring that the labor market were not undermined and bringing more high-skilled workers to the U.S. than Biden’s merit-based policies. A study conducted by Laura Hill, a policy director and senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, compared the merit-based immigration plans of Canada and Australia with the merit-based plan proposed in 2007 in America. It showed that the increasing number of high-skilled immigrants could lead to an increase in the level of skilled legal permanent residents since work-based visas often lead to permanent visas. And because of “subsequent mating,” the immediate families of high-skilled workers immigrating to the U.S. would likely also be highly-skilled and well educated (Hill 21). This means that the merit-based system would potentially bring about many skilled workers that could help the economy and not require welfare assistance. Biden’s merit-based policy could also draw in more highly-skilled workers the same way but because his plan remains predominantly family-based, the extent of its benefits would be smaller than that of Trump’s plan. Both their policies would use wage requirements to address the risks that wages and labor could be undermined by the distribution of work-based visas. Interestingly, the increased number of permanent work-based visas distributed by both policies could help in protecting American jobs. Sankar Mukhopadhyay is an economics professor at the University of Nevada, Reno who conducted a study that explored how employers took advantage of temporary work visas. He found that increasing the number of green cards awarded to highly-skilled immigrants can remove the incentive to hire foreign labor for lower wages (Mukhopadhyay 235). These policies would help prevent American jobs from being replaced and crowding out high-skilled workers. Trump and Biden’s merit-based policies are similar except Trump would have a greater pool of immigrants to select from. Given that, I believe that Trump’s policy would bring about more economic benefits than Biden’s.

While it is important to have an immigration policy that can bring about economic benefits, I believe that Biden’s immigration policy is better because it can both unify families efficiently and reap the economic benefits of skill-based immigration. Biden’s merit-based policy, while perhaps not as effective as Trump’s, will still be able to stimulate the economy and meet the needs of employers. Because Biden’s plan will increase the number of immigrants admitted to the country to reflect the needs of family reunification and employment, the numerical limit will not hinder the ability to fulfill the purposes of these reforms. Trump has not stated that he would increase the number of immigrants permitted each year. His plan would decrease family-based immigration from 66% to 33% (whitehouse.gov). The line for family immigration would only increase because there would be fewer people permitted each year to enter the country for family-based immigration.  However, even under our current system, the cap for immigrants each year already makes family reunification take too long. If our current system is unable to abide by the principles of family reunification, cutting the percentage of family-based immigration in half would only make it more difficult. If Trump were to increase the cap for immigration, it would increase the cap for family reunification and help relieve the backlog for family-based immigration. Unfortunately, because Trump’s policy is unable to effectively reunite families, Biden’s policy for the admission of immigrants through the family preference system and employment is better.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers

There is currently a refugee crisis occurring globally in which there is an increase not only in the number of refugees and asylum seekers but also in the deterrence of refugees from developed countries. Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen is a professor at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark who does research mostly on international refugee and migration law. In an article in which he discussed the deterrence paradigm, he stated that many developed countries have adopted policies that are “fundamentally based on the principle of deterrence rather than human rights protection” (Gammeltoft-Hansen). These policies, which make up the “deterrence paradigm,” prioritize migration control over the wellbeing of refugees seeking help.

Trump’s refugee policy is part of the deterrence paradigm in that it greatly restricts the number of refugees and asylum seekers admitted into the country through policy and pushes refugees to other countries. On the Council of Foreign Relations website, an organization that provides resources on foreign policies, it is stated that Trump has created the “Remain in Mexico” program and the “Safe Third Country Agreement,” which make asylum seekers wait in Mexico and allow U.S. authorities to return asylum seekers to their home countries respectively. He has also reduced the cap for the number of refugees in the U.S. to 18,000  as he believed it was a matter of national security. Even the criteria for asylum protection have been reduced by no longer accepting domestic violence as an asylum claim. He also ended the Temporary Protected Status (T.P.S) program, which allowed migrants from “certain crisis-stricken nations” to temporarily live in the U.S. (cfr.org). While Trump claimed that these restrictions would help expedite the process to help “real asylum seekers,” it has increased the risks of endangering the lives of asylum seekers. The process of migrating from their native countries to the American border is already dangerous. These policy restrictions won’t stop them from risking their lives to seek refuge. However, the nature of these deterrence policies directly or indirectly send them into harm’s way. Article 14th of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” Trump has created a refugee policy that directly violates the human rights of refugees. Trump’s refugee policy is actively involved in worsening the refugee crisis as it denies help for most refugees and likely increases their risks, endangering the lives of refugees.

Biden’s refugee policy will expand America’s humanitarian efforts in helping asylum seekers and refugees by increasing the number of refugees admitted to the refugee program and increasing the efficiency of the handling of asylum cases. He plans to increase the cap to 125,000 as he believes it is America’s obligation to lend a helping hand. The new policy will restore asylum eligibility for domestic abuse and expand the eligibility for those fleeing from political persecution. Our current asylum process is inefficient and has led to many backlogged cases. Biden’s plan will pour in resources and double the manpower to provide fair and timely evaluations of each asylum case (joebiden.com). Biden’s refugee policy will promote the quick evaluation of asylum cases instead of evading the responsibility without identifying whether or not these people need the help. The current refugee crisis is a global issue and therefore as a country with the resources to help these fellow people, America should also share the responsibility and burden of taking care of these displaced refugees.

Border Security

Border security, a subset of national security, is important in protecting our country from external threats at the border. Smuggling, terrorism and drugs are common threats that can be prevented at the border. Immigration policies surrounding border security should mandate that border security police the traffic of people and goods into the country, such that the safety and well-being of our country will not be jeopardized.

Trump believes that “full border security is the bedrock of any functioning immigration system”; therefore he invests heavily in law enforcement and securities resources, and implements strict policy on who enters the country (whitehouse.gov). In 2019, Trump declared a national emergency at the border to divert funds into expanding the wall along the Mexican-American border. In 2017, Trump created the so-called Muslim ban, which limited the number of visas given to those who travel to and from Muslim countries (cfr.org). The ban was created because Trump believed that the immigration of Muslims would increase the chances of terrorist attacks. Trump has poured resources into preventing illegal means of immigration at the border and taken measures to prevent groups of people he believes pose a threat to national security from entering the country. Biden’s plans on the other hand are less elaborate and mainly rely on communication and collaboration between different parties. His plans to strengthen border security is to invest in better technology, improve cross-agency collaboration to combat illegal trafficking of goods, and work with neighboring countries to protect shared borders (joebiden.com).

Trump’s enforcement at the border would decrease illegal immigration more effectively than Biden’s plan. Biden’s plan for border security is much simpler than Trump’s, but during his time as Vice President, enforcement at the border was shown to be effective in decreasing the number of unauthorized migration. Senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations,Edward Alden, wrote an article discussing the effectiveness of border security. He states, “The new evidence suggests that unauthorized migration across the southern border has plummeted, with successful illegal entries falling from roughly 1.8 million in 2000 to just 200,000 by 2015. Border enforcement has been a significant reason for the decline” (Alden). Trump’s plan would increase the strictness of border enforcement, which would further discourage people from crossing the border illegally. However, it seems the investments at the border may not be worthwhile because resources would eventually need to be diverted elsewhere. “Further border enforcement may do a bit more to discourage illegal entry, but it will overlook the biggest path for illegal migration (visa overstays)” (Alden). This means that the investments being put into strengthening the Mexian-American border are not worth it as they are no longer the biggest concern in terms of illegal imgration.

Trump’s Muslim ban may increase the number of threats posed to the country by causing increasing anti-American sentiments and causing paranoia and discrimination within the country. Aviva Chomsky is a Professor of History and the Coordinator of Latin American, Latino and Caribbean Studies at Salem State University in Massachusetts. In her book “They Take Our Jobs!” and 20 other myths about immigration,  she states that reducing global tensions and substantially reducing anti-Americanism in other countries can help prevent future attacks against U.S. targets (Chomsky 182). The Muslim ban blatantly discriminates against Muslims by framing them as potential terrorists. This ban enforces negative stereotypes and may cause paranoia within the country. Muslimphobic sentiments could cause conflicts within the country which jeopardizes the safety of Muslim Americans. This act of aggression towards the Muslim community from the President of the United States may also create anti-American sentiments outside the country. The discrimination in Trump’s border security policies may increase the chances of violence towards Americans because his hostility towards Muslims could increase tensions between the two communities.

Given that Trump’s policies would likely increase the threats targeting America, I believe Biden’s policy for border security does a better job of protecting America from external threats.

Immigrants in America

Integration is an important part of the immigration discussion because it determines how immigrants can maximize their values as new members of the country and whether or not they can live harmoniously with native citizens. I believe a good immigration policy that fosters the integration of immigrants must be able to create a welcoming social atmosphere in the host country, create a sense of national belonging for new immigrants, and provide resources for immigrants to navigate their lives in a new country.

 Integration is a collaboration between immigrants and host citizens because immigrants cannot be a part of society unless the society is willing to accept them. Christian Joppke, a political sociologist and professor at the University of Bern, wrote a journal article about the change in immigration integration policies in Western-Europe. He states that in order for both native-born citizens and immigrants to coexist, there must be a two-way integration “to which not just the migrants but also the receiving societies must change in the process of immigration” (Joppke 248). One of the major issues that prevent the integration of immigrants is the anti-immigrant sentiments of host countries. Nicole Fasel, currently a researcher at the Swiss National Science Foundation, and other members from the Institute of Social Sciences in the University of Lausannes conducted a study on the anti-immigration sentiments in Europe and discovered that ideological climates can shape host societies’ anti-immigrant attitudes (Fasel 259). Politics and exposure to immigrants have a great influence on the ideological climates of different communities. States like California that have a minority-majority community have friendlier attitudes towards immigrants. Authorities in our country, who have a great influence on public opinion, should not breed anti-immigrant sentiment as it jeopardizes the ability of immigrants to integrate into society.

Feelings of national belonging and a sense of home can also affect the likelihood of immigrants to actively contribute to our country. There are immigrants who view citizenship in America as a ticket to a higher quality of life. Daryl Gordon is the Associate Dean College of Education and Health Sciences at Adelphi University. Gordon wrote an article discussing America’s naturalization education and the understanding of citizenship. “When they are met with citizenship courses that focus on the rote memorization of facts that have little relevance to their lives, their ability to “imagine their social belonging and exercise their participation as democratic citizens” (Levinson 2005: 336) is hindered” (Gordon 14) When immigrants can only see citizenship as something they can take advantage of, then it is difficult to develop feelings of national belonging. The naturalization education curriculum also gives them little idea of how they can participate in society. Immigration integration policies should promote participation within their communities and encourage immigrants to actively participate in our democracy.

One of the principles of our immigration policy is diversity. However, a country does not gain any benefits by simply having a diverse population. George Jesus Borjas, an economist specializing in immigration from Harvard University, wrote a book called Issues in the Economics of Immigration. He stated that the gains of diversity cannot be obtained unless the diverse information could be understood and learned from one another (Borjas 119). So in order to obtain the benefits of having a diverse population, immigrants must be able to share their diverse skills, knowledge, and cultures with society. Learning the language of the country is an important part of integration as it allows immigrants to interact with native-born Americans, which helps enrich the diversity of their communities. It is also important that immigrants know how to navigate their new environment so that they have the same resources as native-borns to contribute to society.

I believe that Biden’s immigration plan helps immigrants better integrate into America as it offers resources that will help them navigate their transitions into their new communities. The revitalization of the Task Force on New Americans will help immigrants integrate into their communities and kickstart their new lives and careers. This task force will allow local governments to handle immigrant affairs. It will also provide resources that will help immigrants navigate everyday life in America such as English learning programs, tools to help navigate the healthcare and the school system in America, etc. Trump does not have a specific plan for integration because his merit-based immigration system would already ensure that they are proficient in English and have passed the civics test. However, I believe that immigrants need continuous help with navigating a new life, despite their having a factual understanding of our country’s history and structure. I also think that Trump as a president has fostered discrimination against immigrants with his lack of elegance with words and policies, which casts suspicion and stigma on different races, making America a society that is unwelcoming towards immigrants. Biden’s plan could be improved if he changed the curriculum for naturalization education to teach and encourage immigrants to participate in our democracy. This could help facilitate their feelings of national belonging as they are not only taught how to use the tools to contribute to society, but they will also know how to voice their opinions on discussions that have direct influence on their lives.

In general, Biden’s plan is better than Trump’s because his policies on immigration abide by the principles of family reunification and bringing valuable skills to America, as well as the protection of the human rights of refugees, and sets up plans to help the integration of immigrants. Biden’s immigration plan can protect the interests of Americans in three main aspects: economic growth and stability, national safety, and social stability. His policy that controls the admission of immigrants is able to bring about the economic prosperity that comes with an increase in skilled workers. At the same time, his merit-based policies will not affect his plans for family reunification on the same scale as Trump. If Trump were to increase the cap for immigrants overall, it would improve his plan by better balancing family and skill-based immigration. Unfortunately, Trump’s immigration plan would allow for the government to directly or indirectly violate people’s human rights. His refugee policy has contributed to a humanitarian crisis. The allowance of inhumane treatment and neglect of asylum seekers and refugees make his policy ineffective in actually providing humanitarian relief. There are many policies that Trump has proposed that tend to induce conflict and threats within and outside the country. His discriminatory rhetoric increases tensions with other countries and increases discrimination within our own country. Our country is a country of immigrants yet it hasn’t always had the greatest history in treating immigrants the right way. I think it is time for immigration policies to reform and embrace the diversity and inclusivity of our country.

Works Cited

Alden, Edward. “Is border enforcement effective? What we know and what it means.” Journal on Migration and Human Security, vol. 5, no. 2, 2017, p. 481+. Gale Academic OneFile, Accessed 11 Dec. 2020.

“The Biden Plan for Securing Our Values as a Nation of Immigrants.” Joe Biden for President Official Campaign Website, 5 Aug. 2020, joebiden.com/immigration/.

Chomsky, Aviva. “They Take Our Jobs!”: and 20 Other Myths about Immigration. Beacon Press, 2018.

“Donald J. Trump’s Foreign Policy Positions.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on ForeignRelations, 2020.

Enchautegui, M. (2015). Paradoxes of Family Immigration Policy: Separation, Reorganization,and Reunification of Families under Current Immigration Laws. Law & Policy, 37(1-2), 32–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12030.

Fasel, Nicole, et al. “Facing Cultural Diversity: Anti-Immigrant Attitudes in Europe.” EuropeanPsychologist, vol. 18, no. 4, 2013, pp. 253–262. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000157.

Gammeltoft-Hansen, Thomas, and Nikolas F. Tan. “The end of the deterrence paradigm? Future directions for global refugee policy.” Journal on Migration and Human Security, vol. 5, no. 1, 2017, p. 28+. Gale Academic OneFile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A491612874/AONE?u=ccsf_main&sid=AONE&xid=4d9c2bd9.

George J. Borjas. Issues in the Economics of Immigration. University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Gordon, Daryl M. “Disrupting the Master Narrative: Global Politics, Historical Memory, and the Implications for Naturalization Education.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 1, 2010, pp. 1–17., doi:10.1111/j.1548-1492.2010.01064.x.

Gray, S. (2020). RETHINKING THE LAW AND ECONOMICS OF IMMIGRATION POLICY FOR HIGH-SKILLED MIGRANTS IN THE GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 34(2), 473–.

Hill, H. (2011). How would selecting for skill change flows of immigrants to the United States?: A simulation of three merit-based point systems. Review of Economics of the Household, 9(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-010-9097-y.

“How the United States Immigration System Works.” American Immigration Council, 5 Mar. 2020, www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works.

Joppke, C. (2007). Transformation of Immigrant Integration: Civic Integration an Antidiscrimination in the Netherlands, France, and Germany. World Politics, 59(2), 243–273. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2007.0022

“President Trump’s Bold Immigration Plan for the 21st Century.” The White House, The United States Government, 21 May 2019, http://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/president-trumps-bold-immigration-plan-21st-century/.

Mukhopadhyay, Sankar, and David Oxborrow. “The Value of an Employment-Based Green Card.” Demography, vol. 49, no. 1, Feb. 2012, pp. 219–237. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s13524-011-0079-3.