The Dominance of American Neoliberalism within U.S. Immigration Policy

Date
2018
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Producer
Director
Performer
Choreographer
Costume Designer
Music
Videographer
Lighting Designer
Set Designer
Crew Member
Funder
Rehearsal Director
Concert Coordinator
Moderator
Panelist
Alternative Title
Department
Haverford College. Department of Political Science
Type
Thesis
Original Format
Running Time
File Format
Place of Publication
Date Span
Copyright Date
Award
Language
eng
Note
Table of Contents
Terms of Use
Rights Holder
Access Restrictions
Bi-College users only
Tripod URL
Identifier
Abstract
This thesis deals with anti-immigrant sentiments and its deteriorating nature between the 1970s––which marks the time when politicians began to conflate immigration with national security––and the present moment. It examines, on the one hand, the growing disconnect between Congress’ disparaging depiction of immigrants and the peaceful lives most undocumented migrants lead in the United States. That immigrants commit less crime and are one-half to one-fifth as likely as their American counterparts to be incarcerated raises serious concerns over Congress’ continual insistence of imposing stricter punishments against these “harmful” non-citizens. On the other hand, this thesis examines anti-immigrant sentiments along the grain of neoliberal policies and the immigration industrial complex. It explores how private companies have made tremendous profit off capturing, detaining, and deporting undocumented migrants, and relates it to federal government’s strong allegiance to neoliberal principles like individual choice, markets, private property, and efficiency. Ultimately, this thesis aims to answer two research questions. First, what truly explains the current rise of anti-immigrant sentiments? Second, and more important, what differences lie between this present form of nativism and those found in earlier periods throughout American history? The importance of asking the latter question resides in the special circumstances created by the 9/11 attacks. Prior to 2001, strains of xenophobia usually materialized in times of financial crises or cultural and racial tensions. Yet, this present angst against the other comes at a time when the United States suffered its worst terrorist attacks to date. The only other period immigrants posed such an imminent threat to national security occurred during World War II when President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order to incarcerate people of Japanese ancestry out of fear that they were possible Axis agents. Thus, is it possible that the conditions caused by 9/11 mirror that of World War II? Or is it the case that this current frenzy over immigration is stemming from an entirely different, novel source? I argue that anti-immigrant sentiments have dramatically changed with the advent of neoliberalism and the rise of the immigration industrial complex during the 1970s. The industrial complex, in which neoliberal policies serve as its foundation, not only exacerbates but institutionalizes anti-immigrant sentiments such that it has inflamed the animosity between Americans and the undocumented to new and unforeseen heights. Additionally, it has allowed the federal government to scale its anti-terrorism efforts in ways it could not have done before without the support of private actors, thereby rendering immigrants not as proxy soldiers of enemy states but as internal threats to public safety, national security, and American traditions. While anti-immigrant policies are not unique to American history, the rise of public-private partnerships––contractual arrangements that permit more private sector involvement in infrastructure projects and government services (Cokorinos 2009) ––have allowed the federal government to widen the impacts of its anti-immigrant efforts, thereby jeopardizing even larger swathes of migrant communities. The implications of American neoliberalism and the immigration industrial complex on immigration reform ultimately spell danger for the undocumented migrants in the United States. This is true for a number of reasons. First, the introduction of private actors into the public domain has shifted which concerns are heard and acted upon by private and public officials. Considering that corporations need a steady stream of revenue to remain functional, private actors are more likely to yield to their shareholders’ concerns than to a constituency. As a matter of fact, shareholders care about the criminalization of immigration insofar as it remains a lucrative investment. Hence, when private prison corporations are not acting in ways that maximizes profits, shareholders can exert tremendous pressure to change the behavior of these companies, which underscores how much influence investors have over a company in comparison to the American public. The end result is that private prison corporations will do their best to generate a steady stream of profit off of undocumented migrants. Second, the emergence of an immigration industrial complex makes it very easy for public and private officials to popularize the false misconception that immigrants are criminals and possible terrorist suspects. In doing so, public officials downplay the importance of necessary immigration reform, since their main priority involves improving security and reducing the risks posed by undocumented migrants. We especially see this preference towards bolstering national security under the Trump Administration, which recently allowed for the expansion of private prisons within the U.S. immigration system. Finally, the prominence of American neoliberalism ultimately undermines the trust between the American government and the Latino population. The passage of any bill which increases the rate of detention and deportation only worsens the lived experiences of Latino communities, since they are likely to be undocumented or know someone who is. As such, these very communities may retaliate against the political party at fault by using their electoral power to vote these public officials out of office. As the Latino population continues to grow in the United States, so will their electoral power which they leverage against conservative lawmakers.
Description
Citation