By Hao Luyi

As a traditional country of immigrants, the US has a backdrop of partisan politics that is deeply embedded in decision-making in the field of immigration. The Democratic and the Republican parties have made a big fuss about the issue of immigration in the political arena, drawing sharp divisions that have further cast a shadow of political polarization over immigration policy. 

In the past four years, the Democratic administration has sent a signal of cutting the political legacy of its predecessor, motivated by the need for partisan gamesmanship to pander to voters. Its immigration policy has been influenced by partisan interests, often serving as a political stunt. Over the past three years, the shifting course of migration policies has created a substantial gap between goals and results, worsening the situation at the southern border. The so-called "carrot" policy of "welcoming" migrants explains the surge at the border since 2021, while the government has resorted to wielding the "big stick" to carry out larger-scale and more vigorous deportations than those of the previous government. According to US Customs and Border Protection data, federal agents encountered roughly 2.5 million migrants at the southern border in 2023, further exacerbating border chaos. 

Meanwhile, current policies encourage migrants to enter the US through legal asylum routes; however, the legal system for evaluating asylum applications from arriving immigrants is fragmented. Due to a lack of funding and staffing to process cases, as of December 2023, there was a backlog of 3.3 million asylum applications, and migrants may have to wait years for asylum approval. Border cities are struggling with the large influx of migrants who have been processed and released pending their immigration proceedings, facing overwhelming pressure to accommodate them. In response, Texas has already bused over 90,000 migrants to "sanctuary cities" run by Democrats with little notice since April 2022, inflaming the long-standing political contradictions between states and the federal government. 

Indeed, it is evident that politicians often prioritize partisan and voter interests over those of immigrants, showing indifference to immigrant rights and well-being. The increasingly severe border and migration crisis continues to highlight the US administration's inability to handle immigration matters. In the 2024 US election year, immigration issues became the spotlight in the presidential election campaign. To win over voters, President Joe Biden and then Republican candidate Donald Trump made dueling visits to different areas along the US-Mexico border on February 29, blaming each other and deflecting responsibility for migration and border issues. Meanwhile, the demands and legitimate interests of migrants are completely ignored, making them victims to partisan politics.

Any effective and comprehensive reforms in the area of immigration have been delayed for many years due to partisan divisions and political resistance. Since the end of the 20th century, successive governments have failed to make strong legislative reforms on immigration issues, with most measures being enacted through presidential executive orders. Because these orders rely on the president's authority, they lack long-term stability across different administrations. As a result, the US immigration system is changing rapidly amid political strife and contention, gradually becoming fragmented. Currently, Republicans advocate for mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, restrictions on entry for refugees and asylum seekers, expansion of the border wall, and the termination of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) protections. In contrast, the Democratic Party aims to create more opportunities for legal immigrants to enter the country, enhance border security, and protect DACA recipients. Comprehensive immigration reform is necessary to address both border concerns and broader economic needs, yet the polarization of public opinion makes such reform difficult to achieve.

On February 4, a bipartisan group of US senators introduced the Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024. If passed, the bill would represent a significant change in border policy for the first time in decades, rebuilding the asylum process and the ways border officials deal with migrants requesting humanitarian protection. Ironically, however, it took more than four months for the current Democratic administration to negotiate a major compromise with Republicans to impose strict border restrictions aimed at aiding Ukraine and Israel, rather than changing border policy itself. Republican Senator James Lankford, speaking on CNN, accused his Republican colleagues of opposing the bill on political rather than policy grounds, stating "because it's a presidential election year." Finally, the package passed without any border provisions, exacerbating the contradictions between the two parties in immigration issues. 

The gulf that separates Republicans and Democrats has turned immigration policy into the focus of a high-stakes political battle characterized by "opposing and divisive stance." Both parties have been criticized for using immigrants to gain political capital rather than caring about the dangerous conditions they impose on them. In fact, "Republicans benefit from chaos at the border, and Democrats benefit from both a solution and the Republican House refusing to act," said Peter Loge, a media and public affairs professor at George Washington University. "Unfortunately, the people and communities who live the causes and consequences of migration get lost in the game."

From a domestic perspective, the rejection and prejudice against immigrants have been closely related to racial discrimination throughout different historical periods, embedded in the deep systemic structures of racial discrimination in the US. Anti-immigrant sentiment and racial discrimination are inextricably linked to ideological and policy biases. In 1889, the US Supreme Court associated the term "aggression" with immigrants in the infamous "Chinese Exclusion Case," ruling that unassimilated immigrants were "foreign aggressors" who threatened national security. This ruling provided judicial endorsement for the unconstitutional restraints of the US immigration system, as well as its blatant xenophobia and racial discrimination. Today, the Republican Governor of Texas has once again used the term "invasion" against immigrants under the pretext of "national security." Texas installed rolls of razor-wire fencing along the Rio Grande River to deter migrants from crossing into US, and deployed military forces at the border. Those measures fully expose the cruel and inhuman treatment of immigrants and highlight the deep-rooted xenophobia present in this country.

From a regional perspective, the US' brutal intervention in Latin America and its unilateral sanctions have caused many countries to face social problems such as poverty, unemployment, and an increase in violent crime. These issues are the main reasons people leave their homes and flee to the US. However, instead of seeking solutions to the root causes, the US government has adopted arbitrary and draconian law enforcement measures, further exacerbating the situation in the region and dragging the migration problem into a permanent quagmire. 

In 2018, the United Nations adopted The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which emphasizes that it is important to promote and ensure safe, orderly and regular migration based on international human rights law, for the benefit of all. However, in the US, immigrants who cross the border are subjected to mass arrests and deportations. Immigrants and minors who remain in US territory face forced labor, slavery and exploitation without security or dignity. The hypocritical nature of American-style human rights is on display in the field of immigration.

The author is a researcher with the Institute of International Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn