Immigration: the false polemic ?

Immigration has been one of the more dividing issue of the presidential campaign, with complete opposite view on that subject between the two candidates. Logically this absence of consensus should reappears at the lower level of both parties structure. Yet the debate at the Benson center between A Nowrasteh and P Volgin proves that it is far from being the case.

Indeed, both experts have shown little differences in their arguments, and strangely enough there is a broad consensus between their position and the reading “Why Border enforcement backfired ?” Both speakers agree that border enforcement has been useless and has only rise the number of deaths as long as the profits of smugglers and gangsters; both think that immigration benefits to the American economy; both advocate for an immigration reform rather than massive deportation; both refuse to close the borders to immigrants or refugees. The only points on disagreement are about details, one defending control of immigrants past a little more than the other.

The only important point of disagreement is about the the feasibility of the immigration reform, P. Volgin is more optimistic than A Nowrasteh: according to the first one, Clinton could use her political credit to push forward for the reform, the problem is that it’s not her who has been elected ! It seems that Nowrasteh was right for being pessimistic, himself did not really believe in a reform with Clinton, so with the political domination of the GOP it is very unlikely that such reforms will occur in the next four years. Sadly, even if Trump is not going to built a wall, it appears that the disastrous and costly border enforcement policy is going to continue at least for the next four years.