FARMINGTON – International & Global Studies majors at the University of Maine Farmington recently held an event to discuss issues related to immigration, the U.S.-Mexico border and the wall project proposed by the Trump administration. The student discussion was put on by the IGS department with help from Political Science Professor Linda Beck.
Beck, who was in attendance, said the event was a “wonderful chance for students to not only present their work but also have an interactive discussion on the topic based on their presentations and the related documentary.” She said that she looks forward to offering events like this in the future.
Senior IGS majors Sara Gould and Emmaline Waldron presented research on immigration as a global issue, as well as a national concern at our southern-most border. This discussion preceded comments from top Trump officials, who emphasized a necessity in funding the proposed border wall project, as the potential for another government shutdown gleams on the horizon.
Gould opened the event with a geographic and a satellite map of Earth’s surface, noting on one map the lines and differentiating colors from country to country. “The borders we see are geographic,” she said, comparing the two pictures. Throughout history, Gould noted, “once they are established, generally, [borders] are protected.”
Her research used Italy as a case study for application to immigration in a global sense. “The question I keep coming across,” Gould said, “is whether borders can ever be completely secure.” She noted the influence posed by conflicts of interest, and the plethora of considerations that encompass immigration and border maintenance. Recurrent topics included “concerns about moral obligations towards refugees, concerns about security, and environmental stability as well”, she said.
This ties into Waldron’s research, providing insights into the intricacies of America’s southern border. Waldron began with history, noting the border’s formation between 1848 and 1853, and the eventual establishment of border patrol in 1924– “though significantly underfunded,” with less than 400 employees who supplied their own uniforms. In the 1990s Border Patrol employment increased to more than 3,000. By 2010, Waldron mentioned, more than 20,000 people worked in border patrol, billions had been spent on an incomplete fence, and immigrants kept coming.
Sophomore Isaac Michaud, UMF College Republicans President and Maine Federation of College Republicans Vice Chair, said that he enjoyed the presentation.
“The wall affects me because of the money funding it,” said Michaud. While noting he supported increased border security, he said that he “[didn’t] think a fence or a wall [was] the correct response to illegal immigration.”
Michaud doesn’t believe in Trump’s current border plan. “The wall will cost too much money”, he said, before discussing legal pathways for citizenship. “There needs to be a more effective and simple way for all people to establish life in the U.S., but a way that also protects American citizens.”
Members of the upcoming Campus Libertarians group shared similar sentiment. Gould and Waldron both affirmed such an idea while addressing conflicts of interest inherent to the issue.
“We do have an economy that depends on illegal immigrants and I don’t think that’s going away,” said Waldron.
“No human can understand every single part of this; it’s too big. It’s huge,” said Gould. “There’s no silver bullet approach.”
Our economy does not depend upon illegal immigrants. It is only the oligarchs who donate to politicians on both sides of the aisle who want immigrants so they can continue to have cheap labor, which drives down wages and opportunities for American citizens.
If immigrants voted Republican the wall would have already been built.
Illegal immigration does tremendous harm to our nation. It erodes the rule of law in many ways. Seems even kalifornia politicians are allowed to break the law without consequence. Illegals are involved in gang violence and active in the cross border drug trade. This is all documented daily in news papers across the country. Illegals and their famlies draw on limited social services that Law abiding American taxpayers support. Illegals utilize our public schools and recently demand in state tuition rates in public universities. This is an untenable position for a criminal to be demanding anything from a country they are in illegally. Yes we need a wall of sorts and laws that charge anyone knowingly hiring or abetting illegals with a federal crime. The sanctuary city fiascos that are popping up only further reinforce the need for stronger immigration laws and enhanced penalties for law breakers. For the agricultural community that needs cheap labor, I would suggest using Americans on welfare or utilizing a guest worker visa program. Much of Maines reforestation work is done by guest workers from thes programs despite maines having thousands of able bodied welfare recipients. Have a good day, it looks like the sun is out.
Very well stated Peter.
Haha, never print an indisputable comment from a Republican. Fair and balanced!? But I’ll keep trying!
Glad to see I’m not the only one Captain Planet haha
Perhaps the most dangerous thing humans do is abstract other humans into a group, and then demonize and attack the whole group. Calling immigrants “illegals” is one of those cases. First, in the 90s the US made it easy for people to come, since we had a labor shortage. The government, business, and of course Mexicans all colluded – it worked for everyone. If there are “criminals,” they include the government choosing to look the other way/support this, and the many businesses who profited greatly from the cheap labor they encouraged and supported. If this is a “crime,” then it is one with many co-conspirators, affecting lots of CEOs and businesses.
But perhaps that’s a simplistic way to think of it. Maybe rather than calling them “illegals,” we think of them as people who were enticed here and added to the economy. Many scholars think the US grew more in the 90s because of illegal immigration – they contributed taxes and to the economy, and their influx offsets the aging of American society.
But it’s poor policy to have government and business collude to break the law when unemployment is low. That was Ronald Reagan’s idea in 1981 when he proposed so-called amnesty and a “path to citizenship” for “illegals” – though Reagan was very careful to say that the illegal immigrants had contributed to US prosperity, and were driven by the American dream. Reagan wouldn’t label them all criminals. Then we need to make sure that whatever policy is in place afterwards is balanced and deals with reality.
But treating illegal immigrants as “criminals” while giving a pass to all those government and business folk who made the 90s influx possible is to hoist all the “guilt” on those who worked the hardest, earned the least, and got less reward. Those who benefited from this “crime,” if you call it that, are American businesses, who set up and supported the process. To go after one group and ignore the ones who made out like bandits – business and government – would be misguided.
Scott, paint it as you want, reword it, whatever. If someone is in this country illegally then I think it is fair to call that person an illegal.
Rather than undocumented, you would rather call someone who broke the law ” people who are enticed “.
So that would be all? As in ” the whole group? ”
It is becoming such common place now to just blame someone else for everything. Reagan, Bush, Republican’s, Corporations, or some thing, drugs, poverty, not enough tax money for the schools.
If Trump hadn’t been elected who would we be blaming.
In the film “The Big Short” when the big banks cause the collapse on Wall Street one of the characters quips: “they’ll blame immigrants and poor people.” The thing is, these people were lured here by US business with the support of US government, and the businesses made out very well because of that. So it’s not like the “illegals” are the bad guys and everyone else is blameless. It’s convenient and perhaps emotionally satisfying to blame the “foreigners,” but that misses the big picture. So yeah, blame is easier to give than to receive, and we all like to blame a particular nemesis. The reality here is that in many ways the “illegals” were victims of a scam to get them to come here. Scam may be too harsh, a plan – supported by business and government – to manipulate them.
What you describe sounds just like a police sting to capture ” johns “