The man at the party who makes you realize that you haven’t truly lived is Nicholas Kristof. The world has been Kristof’s oyster as you drive from point A to point B and live a routine nine-to-five life. The New York Times columnist, a real global citizen who craves adventure, can distinguish himself as such by showing off his stories from Asia and Africa on a fully stamped passport and embarrassing everyone.
Even worse, he uses unusual datelines as trump cards to support his neoliberalism masquerading as progressive thinking: US imperialism can be beneficial (2/1/02), sweatshops benefit workers (1/14/09), and teachers unions are harmful for children (9/12/12). You are just not able to argue with him, you provincial rube. “Well, have you visited Cambodia? Not at all? Yes, I have.
We at FAIR (11/4/21) were relieved to hear that he was leaving the Times to run for governor of Oregon, bringing his self-satisfied place-dropping and hollow moralism with him. After being disqualified from the election (OPB, 2/18/22), he went back to his desired position as if he had never left.
“Border shift in BS”
NYT: The Case for Biden’s Immigration Curb
The liberal argument for immigration restriction is presented by Nicholas Kristof (New York Times, 6/8/24). “It’s preferable that reasonable people raise the ladder in an orderly manner.”
He has recently intervened (6/8/24) to support President Joe Biden’s hasty decision to close the border and stop accepting asylum requests on a rolling basis.
In his tough reelection campaign against former President Donald Trump, Biden has faced criticism for his order, which “would bar migrants from being granted asylum when US officials deem that the southern border is overwhelmed” (AP, 6/5/24). Many immigration advocates have criticized the move as a surrender to the xenophobic right (Reason, 6/4/24; Al Jazeera, 6/6/24).
But the conservative media didn’t buy it. The Wall Street Journal editorial board (6/4/24) expressed concern that migrants “could still seek asylum at ports of entry using the CBP One mobile app, which would be excluded from the daily triggers,” but added that the action “might help reduce the flow somewhat if they are strictly enforced, and at least he’s admitting the problem.” For conservatives, it was “too little, too late,” according to The National Review (6/5/24). The editorial board of the New York Post stated on June 9 and 24 that the president’s “BS border move has already failed.”
In contrast, Kristof’s piece represents liberal media endorsement of a harsh, hypocritical policy and more proof that Biden’s main electoral strategy is to outmaneuver Trump from the right. Seeing how Kristof and the Times use their cosmopolitan journalistic impulses to support bigotry, tight borders, and outright misinformation that benefits the right is vital.
“Open the doors,” I said.
LA Times: Under a new border regulation, asylum seekers must decide whether to divide up their families or wait permanently.
Biden’s border strategy is cruelly misrepresented by Kristof, who claims that the US had “lax immigration policies” with a “loophole that allowed people to stay indefinitely” (LA Times, 2/24/23).
First off, according to Kristof, there is a “loophole that allowed people to claim asylum and stay indefinitely whether or not they warranted it,” which is why the current rule is defective. Right-wing and anti-immigrant organizations have used this as a talking point, and saying that there is a “loophole” in the system that lets criminals get away with their crimes suggests that there is a weakness in the system.
It is, in fact, lawful to enter the nation in order to apply for asylum. Furthermore, the situation for refugees is significantly less favorable than what anti-immigrant activists—and now Kristof—present it as. Families that apply for asylum are frequently split up (LA Times, 2/24/23). Furthermore, according to the International Rescue Committee (7/1/22), the federal government has “severely restricted access to asylum at the border since 2016,” despite the fact that applying for asylum is a right recognized by both US and international law. The team
A regulation known as “Remain in Mexico” or the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) compelled certain asylum claimants to await the outcome of their US immigration court cases in Mexico without much or no access to legal representation. The Biden administration’s attempts to terminate this program were obstructed by a federal court; nonetheless, the administration was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. More than 75,000 asylum applicants were affected by MPP for more than three years, and most of them were forced to wait out their US court proceedings in Mexican border cities in the north. There, they had to fight to keep their families safe while dealing with the frequently unachievable demands of gathering evidence and getting ready for an English-language trial.
Since his father came to America in 1952 as a refugee from Eastern Europe, Kristof accepted that, despite being a white guy, he is an American. However, he continued, stating that the US cannot “swing the doors open” because “we’re not going to welcome all 114 million people around the world who have been forcibly displaced”—as if that were the question the US was supposed to answer, rather than the hundreds of thousands of people who do in fact apply for asylum in the US every year. (Of course, by removing support for the wars, insurgencies, and sanctions that mostly fuel the refugee crisis globally, Washington could contribute to its reduction.)
“Open the doors,” I said.
While acknowledging that immigration benefits the US economy, Kristof stuck to the tried-and-true argument that immigrants pose a threat to American labor and that “poor Americans can find themselves hurt by immigrant competition that puts downward pressure on their wages.” An unnamed neighbor who was driven out of a good working-class job over the years is Exhibit A. Kristof stated that the neighbor was “outcompeted by immigrants with a well-earned reputation for hard work,” but he was also “hurt by many factors—the decline of unions, globalization, and the impact of technology.”
It is, in fact, lawful to enter the nation in order to apply for asylum. Furthermore, the situation for refugees is significantly less favorable than what anti-immigrant activists—and now Kristof—present it as. Families that apply for asylum are frequently split up (LA Times, 2/24/23). Furthermore, according to the International Rescue Committee (7/1/22), the federal government has “severely restricted access to asylum at the border since 2016,” despite the fact that applying for asylum is a right recognized by both US and international law. The team clarified:
Since his father came to America in 1952 as a refugee from Eastern Europe, Kristof accepted that, despite being a white guy, he is an American. However, he continued, stating that the US cannot “swing the doors open” because “we’re not going to welcome all 114 million people around the world who have been forcibly displaced”—as if that were the question the US was supposed to answer, rather than the hundreds of thousands of people who do in fact apply for asylum in the US every year. (Of course, by removing support for the wars, insurgencies, and sanctions that mostly fuel the refugee crisis globally, Washington could contribute to its reduction.)
“Outcompeted by foreigners”
While acknowledging that immigration benefits the US economy, Kristof stuck to the tried-and-true argument that immigrants pose a threat to American labor and that “poor Americans can find themselves hurt by immigrant competition that puts downward pressure on their wages.” An unnamed neighbor who was driven out of a good working-class job over the years is Exhibit A. Kristof stated that the neighbor was “outcompeted by immigrants with a well-earned reputation for hard work,” but he was also “hurt by many factors—the decline of unions, globalization, and the impact of technology.”
First off, the authority to reduce pay rests with businesses rather than employees. If lower pay for immigrants is a problem, then exploitation is the cause. Kristof would understand that he is advocating for worker equality rather than worker division if he gave this some more thought.
However, the notion that immigration lowers wages is questionable in and of itself. On April 24, the National Bureau of Economic Research stated:
- We estimate that during the period 2000–2019, immigration had a positive and significant effect on the wages of less-educated native workers, between +1.7 and +2.6%, thanks to native/immigrant complementarity and the college skill content of immigrants. However, there was no significant wage effect on natives with college degrees. For most native workers, we additionally compute a positive employment rate effect.
Similar results were obtained by Zeke Hernandez, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, who noted that immigration boosts the local economies of newly arrived populations (Marketplace, 12/12/23). Furthermore, as demonstrated by the libertarian Cato Institute on July 26, 2016, higher immigration results with reduced unemployment.
‘Inflicting even more pain’
Kristof disregarded the fact that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the unemployment rate is currently low at 4% and that the demand for labor has increased, resulting in an inflation-adjusted 4.1% increase in salaries over the past year (AP, 6/7/24). 3/13/24 Axios revealed that a
The economy’s startling resiliency can be attributed to the spike in immigration last year, which, if it continues, may allow the job market to continue expanding without contributing to inflation in the coming years.
Given that the corporate media has been continually claiming that the country is suffering a “border crisis,” it is difficult to reconcile these realities with the assumption that immigrants lower the salaries of native-born workers.
It is, in fact, lawful to enter the nation in order to apply for asylum. Furthermore, the situation for refugees is significantly less favorable than what anti-immigrant activists—and now Kristof—present it as. Families that apply for asylum are frequently split up (LA Times, 2/24/23). Furthermore, according to the International Rescue Committee (7/1/22), the federal government has “severely restricted access to asylum at the border since 2016,” despite the fact that applying for asylum is a right recognized by both US and international law. The team clarified:
A regulation known as “Remain in Mexico” or the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) compelled certain asylum claimants to await the outcome of their US immigration court cases in Mexico without much or no access to legal representation. The Biden administration’s attempts to terminate this program were obstructed by a federal court; nonetheless, the administration was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. More than 75,000 asylum applicants were affected by MPP for more than three years, and most of them were forced to wait out their US court proceedings in Mexican border cities in the north. There, they had to fight to keep their families safe while dealing with the frequently unachievable demands of gathering evidence and getting ready for an English-language trial.
Kristof stated that, as a white guy, he is an American because his Eastern European father was admitted to the country as a refugee in 1952. However, he went on to say that the US today cannot “swing the doors open” because “we are not going to welcome all 114 million people around the world who have been forcibly displaced”—as if that is the question the US faces, rather than the hundreds of thousands of people who seek asylum in the US each year. (Of course, Washington might assist alleviate the worldwide refugee issue by halting support for the wars, insurgencies, and sanctions that largely fuel it.)
‘Outcompeted by foreigners.’
Despite admitting that immigration has a favorable economic impact on the United States, Kristof reverted to the old narrative that these newcomers harm US workers, claiming that “poor Americans can find themselves damaged by immigrant competition that puts downward pressure on their salaries.” Exhibit A is an unnamed neighbor who was forced out of good working-class jobs over the decades: “He was hurt by many factors—the decline of unions, globalization, and the impact of technology,” Kristof said, but added that “he was also outcompeted by immigrants with a well-earned reputation for hard work.”Competed by immigration.
First, companies, not employees, have the ability to push down wages. If there is a problem with immigrants being underpaid, that is an example of exploitation. If Kristof thought about it for a little longer, he would realize he is arguing for worker equality rather than pitting them against one another.
However, the premise that immigration lowers wages is debatable. The National Bureau of Economic Research (4/24) reported:
From 2000 to 2019, immigration had a favorable and significant effect on the wages of less-educated native workers due to native/immigrant complementarity and immigrants’ college skill content, but no significant wage effect on natives with college education. We also anticipate that the bulk of native workers will have greater employment rates.
Zeke Hernandez, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, discovered comparable results, emphasizing that immigration boosts the economy of newcomer areas (Marketplace, 12/12/23). Furthermore, the libertarian Cato Institute (7/26/16) has shown that higher immigration leads to decreased unemployment.
“Inflicting even greater suffering.”
Kristof also omitted the fact that the current unemployment rate (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 6/7/24) is low at 4% and that, due to increasing labor demand, inflation-adjusted salaries have climbed 4.1% in the last year (AP, 6/7/24). Axios (3/13/24) reported
The boost in immigration last year helps explain the economy’s remarkable resilience and, if continued, might allow the job market to continue rising without fueling inflation in the coming years.
Given that the corporate media has been continually claiming that the country is suffering a “border crisis,” it is difficult to reconcile these realities with the assumption that immigrants lower the salaries of native-born workers.
Kristof went on to argue that “native-born Americans may not be willing to work in the fields or on a construction site for $12 per hour, but perhaps for $25 per hour.” Again, if he truly felt this way, he would campaign for general salary increases, such as raising the federal minimum wage, which has not increased since 2009, as labor advocates demand, rather than asking for closed borders. However, Kristof is not on the Times opinion page to promote labor’s interests.
Kristof then invokes a form of liberal MAGAism, claiming that when American workers are “self-medicating and dying from drugs, alcohol, and suicide, should not we be mindful of inflicting even more misery on them through immigration policy?” Immigrants—living, breathing people—are linked to non-living pollutants, reinforcing Trump’s claim that immigrants are disease-carrying vermin (Guardian, 12/16/23).
‘Lax immigration policy.’
I have also worried about the incentives we unintentionally create. In Guatemalan towns, I have seen families preparing to send their children on the deadly trek to the United States, and I am concerned that permissive immigration regulations encourage parents to endanger their own and their children’s lives on the journey.
I have not been to all of Kristof’s destinations, but I have visited a handful, including Guatemala. People leave these countries for the United States not because it is easy, but precisely because it is difficult. They come because they are forced to flee violence, war, and poverty.
When a man in Lebanon asked me to take him back with me to the United States, he was joking about the fact that the immigration procedure is impossible without support. He did not think there were many “incentives” other than the fact that America’s promise of opportunity was an upgrade over his damaged country.