America had open borders until 1924. Racism and corporate greed changed that
The US immigration system is a scam that dehumanizes people for profit. Communities across the country have had enough.
The protests in Los Angeles have invited a long overdue conversation about the true nature of the US immigration system. While the immediate catalysts for the protests were ramped up Ice raids attempting to meet Donald Trump's arbitrary deportation quotas, the protests spring from a deeper history.
In reality, the protests reflect decades-long frustrations with an abusive immigration system designed to dehumanize immigrants, weaken workers and keep wealth flowing upward. Ice's recent tactics were only the last straw.
Excellent articles have shed light on why Los Angeles in particular, with generations of immigrant communities and a history of immigrant rights movements, has emerged as an epicenter of resistance. Whether immigrants themselves, or families, neighbors, coworkers, or friends of immigrants, people in these communities have long experienced the trauma of a system that renders people 'illegal' just for doing basic things like getting a job. Similar statements could be made for other major sites of protest such as New Jersey, New York, Chicago, Denver and Houston.
While much of the news coverage has turned toward the US president's mobilization of the military and what that means for his growing authoritarian tendencies, this is only half the story. To fully understand what is at stake in the protests, we can't lose sight of the thing that drove people to protest in the first place: a violently unfair immigration system that is an affront to us all.
It is worth noting that this immigration system is not an original component of US governance. Whereas the first government under the US constitution formed in 1789, there were no federal immigration laws until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and even this law was limited in the sense that it banned a specific class of immigrants. The US did not have closed borders until the Immigration Act of 1924, which established national origins quotas across the board.
The primary justifications for these early immigration laws were xenophobia, eugenics, and overt racism. By the 1990s, however, multinational corporations understood that closed borders – especially combined with free trade agreements freeing multinational companies to shop around for 'cheap' workers, while at the same time constraining the options of workers to move around and look for better jobs – were a powerful weapon in their arsenal to squeeze ever more profit out of global supply chains. While cleverly hidden behind discourses of 'security' and 'sovereignty,' our immigration system is actually a scam rigged to guarantee an upward flow of wealth at the cost of human rights.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) illustrates this dynamic. Signed in 1992, Nafta created a free trade zone among Mexico, Canada and the US, specifically making it easier for goods, capital and corporations to move freely while conspicuously ignoring the movement of workers. Far from an oversight, as the scholar Bill Ong Hing has written, this was the whole point of the agreement.
While no US labor unions or other human rights representatives had a seat at the table, the US advisory committee for trade and negotiations – composed almost entirely of representatives of multinational corporations – led the negotiations, ensuring that the agreement followed corporate interests. The drafters wanted easier access to cheaper Mexican labor, but they understood that if Mexicans had the same rights as companies to cross borders in search of better opportunities, then the 'invisible hand' of supply and demand might make this labor less cheap. Accordingly, immigration restrictions helped to rig the game. In line with these interests, the Clinton administration, in power when the agreement took effect in 1994, not only went along with the plan to leave immigrants out of the deal, but also doubled down on closed borders with harsh new measures to restrict immigration through the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996.
Ultimately, Nafta and the IIRIRA worked hand-in-hand to trap Mexican workers and give artificial negotiating advantages to multinational corporations. The mechanism made sure that Mexicans would have to either stay put on their side of the border and tolerate whatever working conditions were available, or live without legal status if they did 'vote with their feet' to seek better opportunities in the US. In either case, they were far more vulnerable to exploitation. Unsurprisingly, this harmed workers all around, especially Mexicans, leading to stagnant wages, harsh working conditions, and irregular migration that forced people into an exploitative informal economy, even as productivity and corporate profits soared.
Significantly, Nafta was not an isolated case, but rather an embodiment of how the US immigration system enshrines this major power imbalance between labor and capital. In fact, the same Clinton administration and private sector advisory committee that oversaw the implementation Nafta also played a key role in creating the World Trade Organization in 1995 following similar principles. Today, multinational corporations continue to move freely around the world, while people seeking a better life continue to face restrictive borders enforced by state violence.
At the same time, we as taxpayers pay increasingly absurd sums of money for the violent border security measures that keep this system in place. The American Immigration Council has calculated that since 1994, the annual budget for the US Border Patrol has risen from $400m dollars to more than $7bn in 2024 – an increase of over 700% even when factoring in inflation. They further estimate that since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, the federal government has spent more than $400bn dollars on the various agencies that carry out immigration enforcement.
Under the current Trump administration, these numbers are set to soar even further. In the same 'big, beautiful' spending bill that is already facing backlash for slashing public programs while offering enormous tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, a massive increase in spending for Trump's signature deportation plan is included. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this will add $168bn to the deficit over the next five years – already an extreme amount – though the Cato Institute has noted that the CBO calculation left out key variables. In fact, Cato finds that the number could actually be closer to $1tn.
In short, our immigration system is a massive grift. It divides communities, separates families, hurts workers, and subjects people to state violence for doing normal things like working at an Italian restaurant or going to church on Mother's Day. And we as taxpayers subsidize the companies profiting on this abusive system.
As I have previously written, the Trump administration has distinguished itself from previous governments by intentionally targeting legal immigrants. However, as protesters flood the streets with signs saying 'No One is Illegal,' the deeper significance of this protest movement becomes clear. The message is that someone's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shouldn't depend on their immigration status. And it certainly shouldn't depend on the whims of multinational corporations who have essentially coopted violent border enforcement for their own profits.
As a final thought, I think people are also tired of all the gaslighting. Despite the barrage of official rhetoric claiming that tough immigration measures are for our own good – that they make our communities safer, that they protect jobs, that we shouldn't feel bad because immigrants don't deserve to be treated as we would want to be treated ourselves – we know from both academic analysis and our lived experiences that these are all vicious lies, and the policies that spring from these lies have deadly consequences for real human beings. For me, the recent protests demonstrate that communities across the country are standing up to reject these lies.
As I think about the significance of this movement, I am reminded of a passage from Karla Cornejo Villavicencio's 2020 book The Undocumented Americans. Reflecting on the power of storytelling as a counterweight to the deluge of dehumanizing assaults immigrants face on a daily basis, she concludes: 'What if this is how, in the face of so much sacrilege and slander, we reclaim our dead?'
People are protesting because they are fed up. And they are right to be.
Daniel Mendiola is a professor of Latin American history and migration studies at Vassar College
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ex-Ajax star Quincy Promes extradited to Netherlands to serve jail sentence for drug trafficking
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Michelle Obama ‘glad' she didn't have a son: ‘He would've been a Barack Obama'
Former First Lady Michelle Obama says she's 'so glad' none of her children was a boy because that hypothetical child would've carried a heavy burden — his famous father's name. Speaking on her 'IMO' podcast alongside radio host Angie Martinez and her brother, Craig Robinson, the ex-first lady was discussing the challenges of raising boys in today's society when she exclaimed: 'I'm so glad I didn't have a boy.' When Martinez asked why she and her husband, former President Barack Obama, didn't try for a son to complement their two daughters, Sasha and Malia, Obama replied: 'Because he would've been a Barack Obama!' Martinez said a 'baby Barack' would've been 'amazing,' at which point the former First Lady said she 'would've felt for him,' referring to the hypothetical son under discussion. Robinson, the current executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, jumped in by stating that his sister and her husband 'just borrowed our boys,' referring to the children he has had from his two marriages over the years. The former first lady's relief at not having had a male child stems from the fact that her husband, whose full name is Barack Hussein Obama II, would have likely elected to name him Barack Obama III. The 44th president, who was the first Black person to serve as America's chief executive, was named for his father, Barack Hussein Obama. The elder Obama was a Kenyan economist and government official who met the future president's mother, anthropologist Stanley Ann Dunham, while they were both studying at the University of Hawaii at Manoa in the 1960s.
Daily Mail
36 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Report: Trump's four key advisers on bombing Iran
President Donald Trump has been coached through the Iran and Israel war by four crucial confidants, but they are surprisingly not all top military brass. Though Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has played a public role in the Trump administration's defense strategy, he is not among the advisors closest to the president on the Iran matter, current and former White House sources say. Neither is Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, the sources told the Washington Post. Though sources close to the intelligence director push back, saying she's been in regular contact with the president this week and at important meetings. The most influential figures in Trump's orbit as he weighs a U.S. strikes to take out Iran's nuclear technology are Vice President J.D. Vance , Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine, an outside White House advisor told the outlet. The group of four is referred to as the 'Tier one' group of decision makers, the advisor shared. These are the men making critical decisions on whether to get involved in the war. These sour advisors are now helping the president sort through contingency plans for U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities that are buried deep under mountains. Israeli military officials have called on the U.S. to use GB-57 'bunker buster' bombs on the nuclear sites - a weapon that can only be delivered by U.S.-made planes that are captained by American pilots - a move that risks escalating the conflict further. The Pentagon pushed back on the Post report, telling the Daily Mail that Hegseth has not been sidelined amid Caine's rising influence. 'This claim is completely false,' Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement. 'The Secretary is speaking with the President multiple times a day each day and has been with the President in the Situation Room this week. The DNI has been in critical meetings with the president on Iran this week, a senior intelligence official told the Daily Mail on Thursday, saying she's taking part in National Security Council meetings and impromptu White House sessions. The Gorilla vs. The Gram Trump has also been consulting with General Michael Erik Kurilla, the four-star head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) who has earned the imposing nickname 'The Gorilla.' Multiple U.S. officials have said Kurilla has been a more influential voice than the defense secretary and he routinely gets his requests for additional resources approved, making CENTCOM one of the most fortified commands. Meanwhile, at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), several longtime staffers expressed concern over Gabbard's priorities. Sources inside the ODNI accuse Trump's spy chief of focusing on her appearance rather than her intelligence work, CNN reports. These staffers pointed to her polished Instagram making her appear more like a fitness influencer than a Cabinet member.
