I started noticing the change in Americans’ views on immigration in the early 2000s. Most people I talked to were not very upset about even illegal immigration. I saw the change in my students, who were primarily officers in the U.S. military. In any given class, the plurality of the students, usually the majority, were in the U.S. Navy.
I picked it up in side comments about whatever issue we were discussing. I didn’t have a segment of my class on immigration per se, but I did have some readings on U.S. labor markets, so it was only natural that the issue of immigration would come up in that context.
I have always believed that one should not hector students for their beliefs, that doing so violates a sacred trust. So I didn’t. But one day, towards the end of a quarter in which the students and I had got along particularly well, I felt comfortable in making a controversial statement that was not hectoring but was simply pointing out a reality.
I stated, “This is the most anti-immigrant class I’ve had in my almost 20 years of teaching here.”
One of the students jumped on it and said, “Anti-illegal immigrants, sir.”
“Touché,” I replied. “I want to point out, though, that when people say that those who want to come to this country should do so legally, they are essentially saying, even if they don’t know it, that those people can’t come to this country.”
My impression was that a lot of the students didn’t know that. Many seemed to think that there was a straightforward process for people to immigrate. There isn’t. It’s not straightforward and even when some particular routes are somewhat straightforward, most people don’t qualify.
I thought of all that when reading an excellent post by David Bier of the Cato Institute. It’s titled “What Trump Has Done and Imminently Plans to Do on Immigration,” Cato at Liberty, February 3, 2025. Take a look. David, along with Alex Nowrasteh, follows immigration closely and keeps up on the rules.
I thought of it further when reading that the Trump administration is trying even to strip away the green card of a permanent resident. Not just illegal immigration, but also legal immigration, is currently at risk.
READER COMMENTS
Mactoul
Mar 10 2025 at 7:51pm
There must be conditions attached to the green card a well and I assume that the administration is relying on the fact that the person in question has violated those conditions. People have become too blase and too used to the laws being ignored, that it surprises them to see the laws being followed for once.
In general, I take a dim view of non-citizens who engage in politics, Qatar takes similarly dim view (and Qatar is the most immigrant-friendly nation per Prof Caplan. ) They summarily deport any foreigners suspected of being too much politically inclined.
Jon Murphy
Mar 10 2025 at 8:05pm
Your assumption would be incorrect. A green card can be revoked, but only under very specific conditions, none of which apply to him.
This is a problem with a love affair with authoritarianism. It convinces people to be blase about blantant violations of the law by simply assuming the authoritarian is acting appropriately.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Mar 10 2025 at 10:50pm
But Green Card status should not depend on remaining politically neutral. Political violence is something else. Committing a felony is a different matter.
David Henderson
Mar 11 2025 at 12:18am
You’re right that green cards can be revoked for breaking certain laws. I was well aware of that as a green card holder.
BUT, you have to be charged with a crime and found guilty. That didn’t happen.
If he destroyed property or assaulted someone and is found guilty, I’m happy for him to lose his green card. We aren’t there yet.
Jose Pablo
Mar 11 2025 at 3:28pm
I’m happy for him to lose his green card.
It is not about what makes you (or Mactoul) happy. It is what the law says it is.
And the law says that your crime has to be classified as an aggravated felony, has to involve “moral turpitude” or be terrorist or national security-related.
Destroying property or assaulting someone is not always considered an “aggravated felony”. It depends on the specifics of the case.
I am really sorry that US laws are not specifically designed to make you happy but that is, by no means, Khalil’s fault.
Furthermore, it is up to a judge to decide on the specific nature of Khalil’s alleged crimes and to decide whether or not they should result in the revocation of his green card. It is not something that the President of the US can decide by himself. It is worrying that he is ignorant of the limitations of their powers (which do exist).
In the meantime, the fact that Khalil has been moved more than 1,000 miles away from their pregnant American wife, reminds me of the Navalny case in Russia.
Maybe we can assume that Trump’s admiration for Putin is starting to develop into imitation.
David Henderson
Mar 11 2025 at 6:51pm
You write:
Exactly.
You write:
I didn’t know that. Are you sure?
You write:
That makes 2 of us.
You write:
Exactly. A point I already made, but it doesn’t hurt to repeat it.
Jose Pablo
Mar 11 2025 at 8:46pm
Are you sure?
yes … at least in most cases.
Under the Patriot Act the government could still revoke a green card without judicial oversight in national security cases (and students are well known to be a national security threat!).
However, this power is highly contested, and affected individuals usually have a path to challenge the decision in court.
In fact, that seems to be the path that the events are following.
A federal judge blocked any immediate effort by the Trump administration to deport Khalil, late Monday afternoon. Judge Jesse Furman ordered a hearing on Khalil’s case to be held Wednesday morning in New York City.
Jon Murphy
Mar 10 2025 at 8:03pm
There’s a simulator out there that modles the US immigration process. Basically, it asks you a bunch of questions and it will tell you if you qualify. I decided to play it and use myself. My country of origin was Poland (despite my last name, I am mostly Polish).
So, I have a PhD, many years of experience in both academia and the private sector, a crystal clean background, and I was told I did not qualify.
Mactoul
Mar 10 2025 at 9:11pm
Your case shows the need for reforms to stress skill-based immigration as practiced in Canada, Australia etc.
Also, as Prof Caplan proposed, the work permit system of Gulf Sheikdoms is perfectly acceptable open borders.
Jon Murphy
Mar 10 2025 at 9:32pm
Indeed. Let us open it to all skills. Open the borders.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Mar 10 2025 at 10:52pm
Yes, but without the repression of political views.
steve
Mar 11 2025 at 11:30am
Seriously Jon, you can pretend to be Polish but your name suggests you are Irish and we know that “No Irish Need Apply”!
Steve
Jon Murphy
Mar 11 2025 at 9:18pm
Literally laughing out loud
BC
Mar 11 2025 at 4:04am
Re: the Bier article, for all of Trump’s talk about opposing illegal immigration, he sure seems to be doing a lot to convert legal immigrants into illegal ones…
Mike Burnson
Mar 11 2025 at 10:56pm
Bier’s commentary is preposterous. Asserting that Trump’s actions are illegal and/or unconstitutional is nonsense on its face: all the EOs are written by highly skilled lawyers and explicitly cite applicable law; SCOTUS rulings are even cited. Bier puts into quotation marks a line about “extreme vetting” that appears nowhere in the EO. He falsely portrays pauses in refugee status as “Targeting Lawful Residents”.
Trump is reining in the extreme abuses of the Biden misadministration that, for all intents and purposes, brazenly refused to enforce immigration law and blatantly lied about a “secure border”. As a result of Biden’s gross malfeasance, there are several million persons in the USA who were never vetted in accordance with long-standing law. Even the term “refugee” does not apply to the vast majority of so-called “refugees”: there are explicit definitions in both US law and the dictionary of one’s choice for that word. Virtually none of the 12 million illegals – more than 3% of our population! – meets any such definition. They are not refugees by any definition that was known prior to Jany 21, 2021.
h. james faber
Mar 12 2025 at 1:27am
I can understand why stealing and killing are illegal. Those are actions that hurt people.
Why is immigration sometimes illegal, though?
Isn’t immigration basically just moving from one place to another?
The U.S. Census Bureau tracks American mobility between states and calls this domestic relocation ‘migration’. So the term doesn’t seem to mean anything complicated. It’s just moving. And people do it all the time.
But, then, how is immigrating ever a bad thing? Why is relocating sometimes so bad, in fact, that it should be criminalized?