Denying rights to immigrants ultimately undermines the civil rights of Americans

As Donald Trump fights to become America’s next “Deporter-in-Chief,” he wants to keep all eyes on the border, particularly on migrants. A day after telling the National Association of Black Journalists that migrants “will take your jobs,” he appeared at the Georgia State University Convocation Center and said that “illegal aliens” are “coming in from prisons, jails, mental institutions, insane asylums.”

While these claims are not true, they are an attempt to justify tougher measures in the name of border security. What many Americans fail to realize is that such draconian measures do not only affect migrants. They threaten all American citizens.

As a former Department of Homeland Security attorney general in three presidential administrations, I understand the dangers of smearing noncitizens. While U.S. citizens are exempt from immigration laws, when the government detains, deports, or subjects immigrants to harsh treatment in the name of “border security,” we make it far easier for the government to use these tactics against all of us.

Politicians and policymakers have a long history of using the legal distinction between noncitizens and Americans to influence voters. But in practice, the dividing line is not so clear.

In the 1880 presidential election, candidate James A. Garfield called Chinese immigration an “invasion.” He played on Western states’ fears that Chinese migrants would steal their jobs –– the border security issue of the time. Two years later, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, banning Chinese immigration altogether.

The law was supposed to apply only to non-citizens from China. But that was not the case.

Many Chinese Americans were denied entry to the U.S. even though they had the proper certificates to return. Those affected sought protection from the Supreme Court. But the court allowed the government to reverse its decisions, tipping the scales in favor of border security and exposing Chinese migrants and Chinese-American citizens to arbitrary immigration enforcement.

After World War II, the same border security ritual continued, albeit with a different tone—“Operation Wetback.” This time, Americans feared that Mexican workers would “steal” jobs and drain resources. President Dwight Eisenhower responded with a mass deportation campaign, rounding up people who looked like Mexican migrants and deporting them to remote areas of Mexico. Families were separated and Mexican Americans were wrongfully deported.

Perhaps immigration officials did not care so much about mistakes because their decisions could not be reviewed in court, or perhaps they too fell victim to the myth of border security. Whatever the reason, these actions were applauded, and Eisenhower used this “success” to secure his re-election.

In the early 2000s, the War on Terror brought new concerns about noncitizens. Guantanamo Bay was established to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists and enemy combatants. The government held many without charge. It was easy for most Americans to watch on television as noncitizens were captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere and then transported to Guantanamo, where they had no constitutional rights.

But when José Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested at Chicago O’Hare International Airport, President George W. Bush declared him an “enemy combatant,” detaining him for extended periods without formal charges. This time, the Supreme Court ruled, reminding the government that no matter what they called them, they still had to afford American citizens all the protections of the Constitution.

There is a better way forward. Americans deserve a country with secure borders and a functioning immigration policy. But current border policies do not address the real problem.

Instead, more resources should be focused on the 24.7 million shipping containers that enter the country each year, which offer a far more efficient way to move fentanyl and other contraband into the U.S. than via migrants. But only 2 to 5 percent of containers are thoroughly inspected. Data from the Drug Enforcement Association confirms this, showing that Mexican cartels and other criminal organizations are the primary source of drug trafficking. But finding drugs in a container doesn’t drive voters to the polls the same way finding drugs on migrants does.

Americans need to learn from our history. The lack of basic rights for immigrants makes it all too easy for a president to push a “border security” agenda. This is a slippery slope, because the real security threat is not America’s physical borders, but the use of demonizing labels to justify the erosion of basic rights.

These categorical distinctions exist in name only, making it easier for Americans to mistakenly believe that these policies will never apply to them.

Veronica Cardenas is a former prosecutor with the Department of Homeland Security. She is the founder of Humanigration, a digital platform for immigrants and their legal advocates.