Category: Uncategorized

 

Demonizing migrants with false claims is a well-established strategy in American politics and modern politicians have a ready-made playbook they can use to inflame fear and hatred with lies. One interesting feature of the United States is that some modern politicians can use the same tactics against modern migrants that were used to demonize their own migrant ancestors.  For example, politicians of Italian ancestry can now deploy the same tools of hate that were used against their ancestors before Italians were considered to be white.  In this short essay I will examine this playbook in a modern context and debunk the lies.

As America is a land of economic anxiety, an effective strategy is to lie and claim that migrants are doing economic harm to the United States. One strategy is to present migrants as “takers” who cost the United States more than they contribute. The reality is that migrants pay more in tax revenue then they receive in benefits, making them a net positive for the United States government.  

A second, and perhaps the most famous strategy, is the claim that migrants are stealing jobs. While there are justifiable concerns that migration can have some negative impact on certain jobs, the data shows that migrants do not, in general, take jobs from Americans or lower wages. As is often claimed, migrants tend to take jobs that Americans do not want, such as critical jobs in agriculture. And, as I have argued in another essay, the idea that migrants are stealing jobs is absurd: employers are choosing to hire migrants. As such, if any harm is being done, then it is the employers who are at fault and not the migrants. This is not to deny that migration can cause some harm, but this is not the sort of thing that can drive fearmongering and demonizing, so certain politicians have no interest in engaging with the real economic challenges of migration nor do they have any plans to address them.

Because pushing a false narrative that crime is increasing gets people to wrongly believe that crime is increasing, it is no surprise that another effective strategy is to lie about migrant crime as a scare tactic. Former President Trump provides some excellent examples of this when he makes the false claim that a gang has taken over Aurora, Colorado. Despite the claim being repeatedly debunked even by Republican politicians in the state, Trump has persisted in pushing the narrative because he understands that it is effective. Trump has also doubled down on another classic attack on migrants, that they are eating cats and dogs. This claim has been repeatedly debunked even by Republican politicians in Ohio. The person who created the post that ignited the storm found her missing cat in the basement and apologized to her neighbor. But the untruth remains effective, so much so that I know people who sincerely believe it is true despite the overwhelming evidence against it. Truth itself has become politicized and it is a diabolically clever move to insist that anyone who is defending a truth that contradicts a politician’s lies is acting in a partisan manner.

Because of the dangers of fentanyl, some politicians attempted to link it to illegal migrants. However, those smuggling fentanyl are overwhelmingly people crossing the border legally and many of them are American citizens. As would be suspected, migrants seeking asylum are almost never caught with fentanyl.  While people do make stupid decisions, using people trying to illegally enter the United States as drug mules makes little sense. These are the people that the border patrol are looking for. Those crossing the border legally get less scrutiny, although those smuggling drugs are sometimes caught.

In terms of the general rate of crime, migrant men are 30 percent less likely to be incarcerated than are U.S.-born individuals who are white  and 60 percent lower than all people born in the United States. This analysis includes migrants who were incarcerated for immigration-related offenses. In terms of a general explanation, migrant men tend to be employed, married, and in good health. Ironically, American born males are less likely to be employed, married and in good health.

To be fair, migration increases the number of people, and more people means that there will be more crime. But this also holds true for an increase in the birth rate: more Americans being born in the United States means that there will be more crime. If there are more people, and some people commit crime, then there will be more crime.  But reducing migration as a crime fighting measure makes as much sense as reducing the birthrate as a crime fighting measure. Both would have some effect on the number of crimes occurring, but there are obviously much better ways to address crime. But those who demonize migrants as criminals seem uninterested in meaningfully addressing crime, which makes sense. Addressing crime in a meaningful way is difficult and is likely to be contrary to their political interests: they want people to think crime is high so they can exploit it politically.

While America has an anti-vaxx movement and there are conspiracy theories that COVID is a hoax, a standard attack on migrants is to claim that they are spreading diseases in the United States. While all humans can spread disease, this attack on migrants is not grounded in truth—migrants do not present a special health threat. In fact, the opposite is true: the United States benefits from having migrants working in health care. As such, migrants are far more likely to be fighting rather than spreading disease in the United States.

To be fair and balanced, it must be noted that humans travelling is a way that diseases do spread. For example, my adopted state of Florida has cases of Dengue virus arising from travel.  For those who believe that COVID is real, COVID also spread around the world through travel. Limiting human travel would limit the spread of disease (which is why there are travel lockdowns during pandemics) but diseases obviously do not recognize political and legal distinctions between humans. As such, trying to control diseases by restricting migration is on par with restricting all travel to control diseases. During epidemics and pandemics this can make sense, but as a general strategy for addressing disease this is not the best approach. But, of course, those who demonize migrants as disease spreaders seem generally uninterested in solving health care problems.

So, we can see that the anti-migrant strategy being used in 2024 is nothing new. While the examples and targets change (Italians, for example, are no long a target) the playbook remains the same. In terms of why politicians keep using it when they know they are lying, the obvious answer is that it still works. I don’t know how many people sincerely believe the claims or how many also know they are lies but go along with them. Either way, it is still a working strategy of lies and evil.  

A stock argument against raising the minimum wage is built on the claim doing so would hurt small businesses. This argument has some merit. While companies like Amazon and McDonalds could increase employee wages while still making a massive profit for upper management and shareholders, a small business that is barely making a profit could be hard pressed to increase wages without running at a loss.

 To use an imaginary example, suppose Larry owns Larry’s Lawn Care and pays his workers $10 an hour. He charges his customers $20 an hour for the labor of his employees and the expenses for things like fuel and maintenance equal about $5 an hour. So, Larry makes a profit of $5 for every hour an employee works. He also draws a salary and includes this in the bills.

But if the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, then Larry would make no profit unless he cut expenses. If cutting expenses is an option, Larry will need to increase what he charges to make a profit from his business. This increase, some would argue, could cause a loss of business which would lead to fewer hours for employees—thus causing a loss of income or even the firing of some employees.

It could be countered that if Larry’s business is breaking even while Larry is earning a salary for his own labor, then everything is good—Larry and his workers are getting what they deserve within the context of what customers are willing to pay for the services. But if the business was experiencing a loss and could not make full payroll because the wages and the minimum cost of operating the business exceeded what customers would pay, then it could justly be claimed that the increase in wages hurt the business and employees. This is the sort of scenario commonly used in making the small business argument against minimum wage. The reasoning is that because of the alleged harms of increasing the minimum wage, it should not be increased.

But it must also be noted that operating costs (and other expenses) are also a factor that impacts profits. If fuel and equipment costs were lower, the lawn care business would have more income.  But few argue that these costs should be kept low by the government to aid small businesses. As such, the burden of keeping small businesses profitable is usually put on the employees–the lower their wages, the greater the profit. The obvious argument against the state keeping operating costs low is that keeping operating costs low would hurt other businesses and thus (possibly) hurt other employees. But this is still a choice about who is harmed and how they are harmed. Increasing what the customers pay would also shift the harms, which is also a choice.

 Interestingly, those who argue against minimum wage often accept that companies can raise prices to increase profits even when doing so could result in employees losing hours or jobs—in fact, companies are often rewarded financially for firing people. To be consistent, someone who argues that increasing minimum wage is wrong because it would hurt employees by reducing hours or costing jobs must also argue that profitable policies that result in workers losing hours or jobs would also be wrong. Otherwise, it would be clear that their argument really has nothing to do with protecting employees and everything to do with protecting profit. An honest argument of this sort would actually be refreshing: minimum wage should not be increased because owners would make less profit.

It is also often argued that an increase in minimum wage would hurt small businesses because larger companies can afford to pay these wages while still making vast profits. One easy reply is that if this is true, then small business that would be harmed could be an exception to the general increase. This would hardly be unprecedented, since there are already many regulations that are linked to the size of a business.

A second reply is that those who argue against increasing the minimum wage on this ground would also need to accept that small businesses should be protected from larger businesses in other ways. After all, if the minimum wage should not be increased because smaller businesses cannot compete with large businesses, then the state should also see to it that larger businesses do not enjoy other advantages over small businesses. If one is not willing to accept this view, then it is likely that one does not care about small businesses—one is just against increasing the minimum wage.

A third reply is the free market reply: if small businesses cannot compete in this manner, then they will go out of business just as they would if they cannot compete in other ways. While harsh, this is consistent with capitalism as practiced. But embracing this approach would, of course, mean abandoning the small business argument against increasing minimum wage.

A final response to the small business argument is to point out that the argument can be taken to be that minimum wage should not be increased because doing so would decrease the income of small business owners. This seems to assume that the owners are entitled to their profits. But employees can point out that not increasing the minimum wage (even if only to match inflation) reduces their income as inflation reduces the value of their wages. So, if reducing income is wrong, then not increasing the minimum wage to at least account for inflation would be wrong. After all the owners would still be making the same profit they were before (adjusted for inflation). As such, those who oppose increasing the minimum wage to at least account for inflation cannot consistently use the small business argument—unless they are willing to be clear that what they are concerned with is the profits of the owners rather than alleged harms that might arise to employees.