Trump’s wall ignores the economic logic of undocumented immigrant labor

Donald Trump speaks at a December 2015 campaign stop at Mid-America Center in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Photo Credit: Matt A.J./Flickr

Donald Trump speaks at a December 2015 campaign stop at Mid-America Center in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Photo Credit: Matt A.J./Flickr

Lise Nelson, Pennsylvania State University

 

In the final weeks of his campaign, Donald Trump has reiterated his call to build a wall between Mexico and the United States. A Pew Research survey shows his supporters are united by, perhaps more than any other issue, anti-immigrant sentiment.

To him, like many of his supporters, this wave of invading “criminals” supported and abetted by the Mexican government is a dire threat to the nation.

Lise Nelson

Lise Nelson

Put aside for a moment the racist dimensions of this rhetoric. The wall argument assumes the cause of undocumented migration originates in Mexico, in the Mexican government or in the criminal intent of migrants. A border wall makes intuitive sense if you assume the cause of undocumented migration is external to the United States.

This is a belief that ignores not only the ease of breaching such a wall, but more fundamentally the economics of low-wage, undocumented labor migration that generated these flows in the first place.

Over the last two decades, U.S. recruitment of workers without documentation has drawn millions over the border even as we have invested billions in policing, barricades and surveillance on that same border.

My research, like that of others, sheds light on the day-to-day incentives employers have for recruiting undocumented workers. The cumulative effect of these recruitment practices, which occur in nearly every geographic region of the country, is to invite large-scale migration across the U.S.-Mexico border. It is a draw that is highly resistant to our efforts to stop it. From this perspective, the origins of the current situation, in which 6.4 percent of our workforce lacks documentation, lie north of the border as much as south of it.

A preference for the undocumented

My colleagues and I have conducted research in U.S. communities where undocumented Latino immigrants live and work, including interviews with their employers. We focused on small businesses in rural Colorado and Georgia. We investigated how and why entrepreneurs in construction, landscaping and low-wage service industries began actively seeking to hire undocumented Latino immigrants starting in the mid-1990s even though immigrant workers were largely absent from these places prior to that time.

What started for many as a short-term solution to fill a labor gap turned into a preference for hiring undocumented workers. Recruitment efforts thus intensified, causing a significant growth in the Latino immigrant population in both places. In a rural Georgia county, the Latino population increased 1,760 percent between 1990 and 2010, due to the increase in these recruitment efforts by businesses involved in construction, landscaping, cleaning and food provision.

Why did businesses that rely on low-wage workers develop a preference for immigrants and particularly undocumented ones?

In interviews, employers describe the undocumented Latino immigrants they hire as among the most reliable, honest and hardworking employees they have ever had. As one Georgia employer described it:

“I think about, if I had to get rid of the nine Hispanics that I’ve got tomorrow and replace them with locals, to get the same amount of output, I would have to hire fifteen instead of nine and I’d probably have to pay them $1 an hour more each, and that figures up quick. And there’s sometimes that you just can’t find people to do the work.”

Most employers we interviewed began by the late 1990s to organize their businesses around the productivity and discipline offered by an undocumented immigrant workforce.

This view not only contradicts Trump’s assumptions about undocumented low-wage immigrants’ “criminal” character, it sheds light on their role in a range of economic sectors across the country. Over the past two decades, low-wage industries across the U.S. have increasingly recruited and relied on immigrant workers, many of whom lack documentation.

The economic benefits created by the presence of low-wage, undocumented immigrant workers are experienced not only by the American businesses that hire them, but also by consumers. Where our research was conducted, consumers enjoyed lower-cost housing and a range of cheaper restaurant, landscaping and cleaning services due to their presence. These kinds of economic benefits explain why Donald Trump hired undocumented Polish workers to help build Trump Tower.

The ‘ideal’ worker

People who enter the United States without documents are usually motivated by profound economic need, a need that animates them to embark on a dangerous and uncertain journey. Poverty places them in a position of vulnerability that often proves to be an asset to their U.S. employers. Eager for employment, they often accept difficult, irregular and low-paying jobs they can do without being fluent in English.

The threat of deportation adds an additional layer of insecurity and vulnerability. Undocumented residents live in fear. That applies even to those who are raising citizen children, who are gainfully employed over many years, who have no criminal record and who pay sales, property and income taxes. They live with a constant threat of deportation and a deep sense of being viewed with suspicion by some in the communities where they live. It is a suspicion often tied to racial animosity. Latino residents are frequently profiled as “illegal” – regardless of their actual legal status or nationality, a trend that affects not only labor markets but whole communities.

The combination of poverty and fear of deportation inspires most undocumented immigrants to tie themselves closely to their employers. They work hard and avoid public spaces. In the words of sociologists Jill Harrison (University of Colorado-Boulder) and Jennifer Lloyd (University of Wisconsin-Madison), undocumented workers become “compliant workaholics” in order to survive. Employers in low-wage industries have found this disciplined, loyal and flexible workforce very attractive.

The economic power of this process is resistant to border control and physical barriers installed over the last two decades – precursors to the fantasy of an impenetrable wall. It is telling that the steady growth of the undocumented workforce between the mid-1990s through the mid-2000s happened despite a nearly constant growth of spending on border patrol, new barriers and surveillance. Only in the wake of the 2008 economic crash, which dramatically slowed recruitment processes, did the unauthorized Mexican workforce in the United State start to decline.

Trump, of course, pairs his call for a huge wall with a promise to enforce mass deportation. This is equally unrealistic in economic terms. Economists have estimated that if Trump were successful in removing all undocumented workers, our GDP would fall by 5.7 percent. This is in addition to the cost of such a deportation effort, which is estimated at requiring US$400 billion in new federal spending. Finally, there is the human cost of this plan given that in 2012 4.5 million U.S. citizen children have one or more undocumented parents.

While there is a clear economic logic to the presence of millions of undocumented workers in the United States, a logic that I believe we misunderstand at our peril, the current system does not provide justice nor a decent life for low-wage immigrant or nonimmigrant workers.

I believe comprehensive immigration reform would make it possible for undocumented workers to legalize, a place from which they could demand better wages and working conditions. Their improved situation would actually help level the playing field – eliminating the unfair advantage of illegal status in the labor market – for nonimmigrant workers. Legalization and a path to citizenship not only provide a ethical path out of our current situation, they make economic sense as well.

The Conversation

Lise Nelson is an associate professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and an associate professor of geography at Pennsylvania State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Ask an Ethicist: How important is empathy in the U.S. presidential election?

Image: © Antoniooo / Shutterstock

Image: © Antoniooo / Shutterstock

In partnership with the Rock Ethics Institute, Penn State Today’s feature column, “Ask an Ethicist,” aims to shed light on ethical questions from our readers. Each article in this column will feature a different ethical question answered by a Penn State ethicist. We invite you to ask a question by filling out and submitting this form. An archive of the columns can be found on the Rock Ethics Institute website.

By Daryl Cameron, Assistant Professor of Psychology

 

Question: Do U.S. presidents need empathy in order to govern effectively?

Daryl Cameron is an ethics core faculty member in the Department of Psychology and the Rock Ethics Institute. Daryl’s research focuses on the psychological processes involved in empathy and moral decision-making. Much of his work examines motivational factors that shape empathic emotions and behaviors toward others, particularly in response to large-scale crises (e.g., natural disasters, genocides) and in intergroup situations. (Image: Penn State)

Daryl Cameron is an ethics core faculty member in the Department of Psychology and the Rock Ethics Institute. Daryl’s research focuses on the psychological processes involved in empathy and moral decision-making. Much of his work examines motivational factors that shape empathic emotions and behaviors toward others, particularly in response to large-scale crises (e.g., natural disasters, genocides) and in intergroup situations. (Image: Penn State)

An ethicist responds: As Election Day nears, voters are debating the qualities that make for an effective leader. One contested quality is empathy: the ability to understand and resonate with the experiences of others. Does it matter if a president can relate to you and care about what you are going through? On the one hand, empathy may enable democratic governance by increasing awareness of different points of view. On the other hand, empathy might cause partiality and favoritism to particular points of view, clouding objectivity and fair judgment.

The issue is timely. In an August Quinnipiac University national poll, Republicans and Democrats rated the ability to “care about average Americans” as one of the top traits for a presidential candidate to have. Respondents rated Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton as higher on caring than Republican nominee Donald Trump, but this was split along partisan lines, with respondents rating their own party’s candidate as more caring. In a more recent poll after the first presidential debate, likely Pennsylvania voters rated Clinton higher than Trump on whether they “will look out for people like you”, but again split along party lines. People want leaders with empathy, and believe that their preferred leader excels at it. Indeed, some research finds that people view empathy as a “moral signal”: When they perceive someone’s behavior is moved by empathy, they judge that person as having higher moral character.

Although it is debated how much empathy perceptions impact election outcomes, it is clearly a trait that people want their leaders to have. Vice President Joe Biden claimed that Trump lacks the empathy and compassion to be a sound leader, and many others criticized Trump for his failure to sympathize with the Khan family, who lost their son fighting for American forces in Iraq. More recently, Trump’s remarks about the physical appearance of model Alicia Machado, and about assaulting women, have been judged as indicating a lack of empathy. On the other hand, Clinton has been criticized for failing to resonate with voters, and for using empathy superficially; for instance, when her campaign posted that she was just like an abuela (Spanish for grandmother), many said this failed to appreciate the unique experiences of Latina women. Clinton was suggested to lack empathy for rural Americans when she called some Trump supporters “a basket of deplorables,” even as she was explicitly encouraging listeners from both parties to be more empathic across group divides. Presidents throughout history are expected to excel at empathy — to “feel your pain,” as Bill Clinton famously put it.

Although empathy is seen as desirable, does it promote sound decision-making? This question is hotly debated, especially when it comes to leadership. Many politicians extol the virtues of empathy — Barack Obama has framed the “empathy deficit” as a national problem and encouraged students to expand their empathy, and Hillary Clinton has suggested that empathizing with others can make us more powerful peacemakers internationally. Echoing these calls, models of ethical leadership suggest that understanding the experiences of others can help leaders to transform and elevate the values and moral climate of their communities.

Yet, empathy may also seem to cloud objective judgment. President Obama has claimed that good judges need empathy to be effective, and although Sonia Sotomayor said her personal experiences would give her a unique connection to the lives of others, she also reiterated her impartiality during the nomination process. Recent critiques suggest that empathy may actually promote parochial biases and injustice, by attuning us to the plight of those who are similar to us, at the expense of everyone else.

But does empathy always produce partiality? Not necessarily.

Yes, much work shows that empathy is reduced for people who are dissimilar to us, even when these differences are trivial and minimal. However, this intergroup empathy gap may be malleable and reflect our own choices to curb our empathy, not an inevitable limitation on empathy itself. Many studies reveal that changing how people think and relate to empathy can remove make empathy less partial. Intergroup empathy gaps go away when people believe that empathy is emotionally rewardingrather than exhausting; that empathy can be incrementally improved as a skill; and that empathy is valued by their peers. So too when people have positive interactions with dissimilar others. Empathy may only play favorites when we want it to.

Overall, then, there is not a simple relationship between empathy and leadership. People want empathic leaders, because this can signal moral character, and such leaders may be better able to understand and serve their communities. Although empathy can lead to partiality, this may reflect our own choices of where to extend empathy and not some built-in “glitch” in empathy itself. Instead, we should ask: who chooses to feel empathy, and why? Empathy can be a decisive moral force. In understanding why people choose to expand or contract empathy, we can learn about the moral values of those who aspire to lead at the highest level.

Daryl Cameron is an ethics core faculty member in the Department of Psychology and the Rock Ethics Institute. Daryl’s research focuses on the psychological processes involved in empathy and moral decision-making. Much of his work examines motivational factors that shape empathic emotions and behaviors toward others, particularly in response to large-scale crises (e.g., natural disasters, genocides) and in intergroup situations. 

Have a question? Submit it here.

Note: The “Ask an Ethicist” column is a forum to promote ethical awareness and inquiry across the Penn State community. These articles represent the interests and judgments of each author as an individual scholar and are neither official positions of the Rock Ethics Institute nor Penn State University. They are designed to offer a possible approach to a subject and are not intended as definitive statements on what is or is not ethical in any given situation. Read the full disclaimer.

Experts available to media for presidential debate analysis

AmericaAs Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump take to the stage again Wednesday evening in the final presidential candidate debate, Penn State experts will be watching along with the rest of the general public, and they’ll be availably immediately afterward to give their analysis to media.

Penn State experts are available to comment on the debate by texpertise topic:

 

IMMIGRATION
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, a clinical professor of law and director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights, will be watching the debate and is working to fact check the candidates’ statements regarding immigration law and policy.
Contact: ssw11@psu.edu

 

SUPREME COURT
Michael Nelson, assistant professor of political science, specializes in American politics, state politics, and judicial politics. His research examines the effects of judicial elections on the development of the law as well as the determinants and effects of public support for state and federal courts in the United States.
Contact: mjn15@psu.edu

 

FITNESS TO BE PRESIDENT
— Nichola Gutgold, professor of communication arts and sciences, is an expert on women in politics. She can speak about past female political candidates and barriers women face today. She is the author of “Madam President: Five Women Who Paved the Way.”
Contact: ngutgold@psu.edu

— Christopher Beem, manager of the Penn State McCourtney Institute for Democracy, can speak generally about American politics, the state of democracy and the political debate. He is the author of “Democratic Humility” and four other books.
Contact: cxb518@psu.edu

 

FOREIGN HOT SPOTS
— Dennis Jett, professor of international affairs, can speak to the topic of securing America. He is a former American ambassador who joined the School of International Affairs after a career in the U.S. Foreign Service that spanned 28 years and three continents. His experience and expertise focus on international relations, foreign aid administration, and American foreign policy.
Contact: dcj10@psu.edu

 

CYBER SECURITY
— Anne McKenna, visiting assistant professor of law, is available to talk about key cyber, social media, electronic privacy and email issues in the Presidential Election. She is a nationally recognized trial attorney and author in cyber, privacy, electronic surveillance and cellular law. She can discuss the use of social media in the election by both parties, the influence of hacking in this election and the broader implications of online privacy and security.
Contact: atm19@psu.edu

Sascha Meinrath is the Palmer Chair in Telecommunications at Penn State and director of X-Lab, an innovative think tank focusing on the intersection of vanguard technologies and public policy. Professor Meinrath is a renowned technology policy expert and is internationally recognized for his work over the past two decades as a community internet pioneer, social entrepreneur and angel investor.
Contact: sdm5500@psu.edu

 

GENERAL POLITICS AND DEBATE EXPERTS:
— Robert Speel, associate professor of political science, can speak generally about the debate and historical moments in past presidential debates. He recently wrote an article for The Conversation about the five key debate moments that altered the course of a presidential race. His research interests include elections and voting behavior, state and urban politics, Congress and the Presidency, and public policy.
Contact: rws15@psu.edu

Mark Major is a senior lecturer in the department and the author of “The Unilateral Presidency and the News Media: The Politics of Framing Executive Power.” He specializes in the American presidency and political communication. He recently wrote an article for The Conversation about President Obama’s use of unilateral powers compared to other presidents.
Contact: mgm26@psu.edu

 

For more information or direct phone numbers for the experts, please contact News and Media Relations at 814-865-7517 or hrobbins@psu.edu.

Skip to toolbar