The great owners ignored the three cries of history. The land fell into fewer hands, the number of the dispossessed increased, and every effort of the great owners was directed at repression. The money was spent for arms, for gas to protect the great holdings, and spies were sent to catch the murmuring of revolt so that it might be stamped out. The changing economy was ignored, plans for the change ignored; and only means to destroy revolt were considered, while the causes of revolt went on.

― John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath

Introduction

The resurgent interest in socialism over the past decade brought with it excitement and hope that the US workers’ movement might be reconstructed, but it also created opportunities for right-wing populists, under the guise of progressivism, to launder nativism through the language of class conflict. UnHerd, an outlet edited by Compact Magazine co-founder Sohrab Ahmari, is an excellent example. Over the past year, UnHerd published several essays by Compact Magazine contributor Juan David Rojas and former Intercept journalist Lee Fang in which they argue in favor of immigration restrictions as a way to protect, and build the power of, US workers.

Rojas’s first piece, published on 3 February 2024, is titled “The Progressive Case for Trump’s Deportations” while Fang’s, published November 20, 2024, is called “The Progressive Case Against Immigration.” As April turned to May, and the early consequences of Trump’s brutal immigration policies were coming into focus, both writers doubled down. Fang’s “Why Trump Has Gone Soft On Immigration” and Rojas’s “Trump’s Deportation Bust” were published within a week of one another, and criticized the Trump Administration’s immigration policies for their ineffectiveness. To be clear, despite some lamenting of corporate power, there is nothing progressive in any of the four essays. They are not making a new argument, just pitching an old one to Berniecrats.

In his 2024 essay, Rojas summarizes his and Fang’s position: “The starting point for the debate is a simple proposition: namely, that mass deportations are entirely justified, representing a return to Obama-era deportation policy” because “mass low-wage migration depresses wages, especially on the lower rungs of the labor market.”^[1] Lee agrees, stating, “In the long run, progressives have no choice but to acknowledge that huge infusions of migrants stress welfare systems and depress wages for low-skill workers, while damaging social cohesion.”^[2] From these starting points flows the shared conclusion that progressives, or the “Left,” should take a hard look at themselves and accept that US workers view their stance on immigration as delusional and repulsive.

Fang and Rojas name check “corporate power” and “American workers” but eschew genuine class analysis and instead rely almost entirely on cultural signifiers and vibes to make their case. At the core of their argument is the belief that international working class solidarity is impossible. In their writing, US workers are often juxtaposed in direct opposition to foreign workers. The two writers treat undocumented (and documented!) immigrant workers as fundamentally different from the US working class. For example Fang, who seems to have a particularly sharp disdain for immigration, writes, “huge infusions of migrants stress welfare systems and depress wages for low-skill workers, while damaging social cohesion”^[3] and “[Left-leaning politicians] have adopted trade and immigration-friendly policies that have brought American workers directly into competition with foreigners willing to work for far less.”^[4] They believe the division of workers by nationality is natural and unbridgeable. The presence of non-citizen workers inside the United States damages “social cohesion.” Solidarity, it seems, is only possible among members of a socially cohesive nation-state.

Fang and Rojas are deeply confused about how capitalism, borders, and the state function. This misinterpretation leads them to conclude that mass deportations, border militarization, and restrictive immigration policies are positive for US workers. This conclusion is dangerous, especially in the context of the second Trump administration. Socialists cannot tolerate even the softest expression of nativism, nor the mildest support for state repression, within our movement. It is as poisonous to us today as nationalism was to the Second International.

Immigration vs. Labor?

Let’s address the authors’ assertion that, until recently, strict immigration controls were a common sense pro-labor position that successfully prevented wage-squeezes, set the stage for US labor’s victories in the mid-twentieth century, and sustained pro-labor policies into this century. Both authors quote Bernie Sanders as evidence. Rojas quotes Sanders in 2007 saying, “On one hand you have large multinationals trying to shut down plants in America, and on the other hand, you have the service industry bringing in low-wage workers from abroad. The result: wages go down.”^[5] Fang pulls a more recent quote from Sanders, “Open borders? That’s a Koch brothers idea.”^[6]

This spurious narrative features three subjects: US workers, foreign workers, and capitalists, whose relationship with one another is defined by capitalists importing foreign workers to drive down wages, break unions, and help facilitate the neoliberal restructuring (and maintenance) of the economy. This narrative informs Rojas’s understanding of neoliberalism’s development since the 1990s, and his analysis of neoliberalism isn’t completely wrong. For instance, he correctly describes NAFTA’s effect on Mexican farmers:

NAFTA facilitated the exploitation of cheap labor south of the border by outsourcing manufacturing jobs to Mexico. The agreement was also devastating for Mexican small farmers, who couldn’t compete with subsidized US agriculture. The resulting mass of indigent farmers migrated largely north into the open arms of American agribiz—the same force responsible for ruining their livelihoods.^[7]

It is true that NAFTA integrated the economies of North America to benefit capital at the expense of labor, and especially at the expense of Mexican farmers whose livelihoods were destroyed. But strange conclusions are drawn from this historical fact. For Rojas, the mass migration is “one component in a broader suite of policies, including outsourcing and union-busting, meant to squeeze wages.”^[8] Rojas suggests that US capitalists deliberately generate(d) mass migration into the United States as part of the neoliberal offensive against labor, and that it worked—union power declined and wages were cut. He is asserting that immigration is a cause of US labor’s decline. Fang endorses this framing and takes it further, crediting mid-twentieth century labor victories to immigration restrictions:

It is no coincidence that the era of lowest immigration to this country, between the Thirties and Sixties, coincided with the greatest expansion of labour unions, the New Deal, and the Great Society. Reduced migration meant less infighting and greater focus on the broad public interest among the working and middle class. It was these decades that gave us the federal minimum wage as well as Medicare and Social Security, our most durable and most generous entitlement programmes.^[9]

According to Lee Fang, the US labor movement grew and won a partial welfare system because low migration created a social and political context under which US workers stopped infighting and instead focused on achieving their goals. This is, frankly, ridiculous and probably warrants an essay-length debunking, but suffice to say low immigration between the 1930s and 1960s did not cause labor unions to grow, and neither the New Deal nor the Great Society were a result of low immigration. There are many contingencies and co-occurring reasons for the successes and failures of US labor in the mid-twentieth century, but you’d be hard-pressed to find a serious historian ranking “low immigration” as a significant causal factor. For their anti-immigration argument to work, though, a revisionist history is presented in which immigration and labor are diametrically opposed.

This view—that immigrant workers and domestic workers have opposing interests, that immigration is just a weapon brandished by US capital against the working class—permeates every facet of Rojas and Fang’s argument. Over and over again, Fang describes corporations and elites as “pushing” mass migration, as well as lobbying for or “leaning” on politicians to implement loose border controls. Like Rojas, when Fang claims, “The Left seems to have all but forgotten who is pushing, behind the scenes, for fewer immigration barriers. The fast food giants, industrial agribusiness interests, slaughterhouses, and other business groups lobby to import new workers on a strictly economic basis,”^[10] he is using partial truths to tell a lie.

Let’s get this straight: capitalists use the immigration system and immigrant labor to their advantage. They lay off US workers to hire immigrant workers. They pay immigrant workers less and force them to work under worse conditions. This is a common tactic used by capitalists operating in spatially-fixed industries: construction, agriculture, meatpacking, landscaping, domestic labor and care work—all of which cannot be outsourced or cannot be performed cheaper abroad. The structure of twenty-first century capitalism highly incentivizes these measures. Hoping to remain profitable in the modern era of capitalist globalization, businesses, especially spatially-fixed industries, cut production costs to a minimum by relying on immigrant and undocumented labor. But why is this an effective cost-saving method for capitalists? How is immigrant labor, especially undocumented immigrant labor, socially produced and reproduced? What causes immigrants to accept lower pay? These are important questions that neither Rojas nor Fang ask, much less answer.

Yes, employing immigrant labor, especially undocumented labor, undercuts wages. But it does not follow that immigration is a weapon against the working class. The real weapon, the true threat, is the border itself. It is the repressive policies of the capitalist state, in the form of a Border Regime, which constructs and polices the legal and social categories fissuring the working class, while allowing capitalists to remain profitable through labor arbitrage. Restrictive quotas, complex visa bureaucracies, criminalizing asylum, militarizing national boundaries, and carrying out mass deportations does not increase the wages or political power of the working class. In fact, these measures are essential building blocks for a capitalist police state.

For all their talk of labor, corporations, and wages, class analysis remains conspicuously absent in Rojas and Fang’s analysis. Their pro-worker, anti-corporate framing is purely aesthetic, and leads them to confuse causes and results. In their view, mass migration is used by capital to break working-class power and implement neoliberal policies. It is a cause of the US working class’s decline. In reality, mass migration is a result of neoliberal policies and US imperialism. Modern capitalism causes mass migration. The United States, as global hegemon and top imperialist power, causes mass migration. Poverty, ecological catastrophe, coups, free trade agreements, sanctions, “structural adjustments”, government repression, war, etc., are born of capital’s domination over the working class and are causes of mass migration.

Ultimately, mass migration is imperial blowback, which the state responds to with walls, fences, razor wire, armed checkpoints, mass surveillance, detention centers, deportation, and a massive bureaucracy of paperwork. The magnitude and intensity of the response is heavily influenced by contingent factors like economic conditions, intra-class disputes between capitalists, the ambitions of unscrupulous politicians, diplomatic and geopolitical considerations, the prevalence of nativist sentiment, etc. Regardless of contingencies, though, the United States’ imperialism, its consequences, and the US’ subsequent response, are carried out with two goals in mind: maintenance of US hegemony and continued capital accumulation.

Historical Materialism vs. Nativist History

The history of the past half-century, as presented by Rojas and Fang, can be summarized as follows: the halcyon New Deal days of strong unions, robust welfare programs, and low immigration came to an end with the “neoliberal turn” of the 1970s. Neoliberalism reached its apogee in the 1990s, transforming state and society, including immigration and border policy. To the delight of US corporations, immigration restrictions were loosened. This wasn’t accidental or ancillary, but a basic principle of neoliberalism. As Rojas explains, “the neoliberal order establishes the primacy of the market over state and society by promoting the free flow of goods, capital, and, crucially, people (that last element is often omitted by progressive critics of neoliberalism).” Ignoring his parenthetical claim (which many progressives and, of course, socialists have addressed), it’s an appropriate definition of neoliberalism.

Continuing Rojas’s and Fang’s narrative: through the 1990s and 2000s immigration into the US skyrocketed, and a bipartisan effort was made to stem the tide. But then, in Rojas’s words, “came the social-justice revolution of the mid-2010s, which consummated the Democratic Party’s capture by college-educated professionals. Mantras such as ‘no human being is illegal’ gathered strength in Democratic circles as activists denounced Obama as the ‘Deporter in Chief.’” This period between 2010 and 2020 is when the class composition of the Democratic Party drastically changed, resulting in their support for “open border” policies. Fang explains in more detail:

But the shift away from [the Democratic Party’s] traditionally tough stance [on immigration] has coincided with the changing demographics of the party base, especially its core of urban, educated professionals—who tend to benefit economically from mass migration. If you’re an educated white-collar worker, it’s unlikely you will face direct economic competition with a migrant hailing from Venezuela or Afghanistan. In most cases, you benefit from the lower wages of immigrant Uber drivers, maids, and kitchen staff in the form of cheaper goods and services. And there’s a small chance that you will be competing with migrants for limited spots at a homeless shelter or in line at the food bank.^[11]

Under Obama, the formerly pro-labor and pro-border Democratic Party became the party of city dwelling, college-educated, white-collar, professionals; privileged elites unaffected by immigrant competition on the job market, who, in fact, employ immigrant workers as their maids and in their kitchens. These urban elites even benefit indirectly through cheap Uber rides and food deliveries made possible by immigrant workers’ low wages. Meanwhile, the US working class is robbed of job opportunities, shelter beds, and food.

In this version of events, the 2016 election of Donald Trump pushed the elite capture of the Democratic Party into overdrive. Rojas argues, “the progressive zealots got a boost from Trump I, the cruelty of whose child-separation policies did wonders for the cause of limitless migration.”^[12] Trump overplayed his hand, pushing the Left to, in Fang’s words, “unthinkingly embrac[e] unlimited migration as a progressive value” which “only widened the distance between the Left and the working class.”^[13] Then, having dislodged the Democratic Party’s blue-collar, working-class base from power, the highly-educated elite class of left-wing activists created “cultural parameters that made open discussion of these issues [mass migration and border security] impossible” and transformed “an idea [i.e. that mass migration benefits corporations by lowering wages] that once formed the bedrock of the labour movement… into an example of Leftist heresy.”^[14]

This is a fictional history. Asserting that the Democratic Party underwent a “social justice revolution” which put the “activist left” in charge of border policy is absurd. For decades, border militarization and migrant criminalization have remained a bipartisan political project. While the first Trump administration catalyzed a shift in rhetoric from the Democratic Party, it did not change the bipartisan consensus on border policy. Neither Obama nor Biden made efforts to reduce deportations, demilitarize the border, or enforce international human rights law. In fact, the Democratic Party consistently tries to outflank Republicans on border policy by adopting right-wing policies (for instance, the Border Act of 2024). Meanwhile, the activists critiquing Obama’s deportations and positing that “no human being is illegal” were not white-collar elites, but working-class immigrants organizing to defend themselves and their communities.

Conceptualizing class struggle as a conflict between “woke” educated professionals and culturally conservative blue-collar workers is an exceedingly vulgar, shallow, and demagogic excuse for class politics. Characterizing the Left as white-collar, Democratic Party, elites, zealously implementing open borders is a far-right conspiracy theory. Even situating the Democratic Party on the “left” means accepting right-wing talking points. Rojas and Fang craft their arguments against a Left that only exists in the MAGA imagination. The truth is, the Left has no power inside the Democratic Party, and neither party represents the interests of the working class. Donald Trump, and his MAGA coalition, convert nativist sentiment into electoral victories, subject US workers to brutal austerity measures, then blame the consequences on “mass migration” and a “weak” border to whip up more nativism and legitimize the country’s transformation into an unambiguous police state.

On the other hand, US liberalism, embodied by the Democratic Party, imagines itself as the venerable protector of the political status quo. It manages migration on a tight rope, juggling human rights, political stability, austerity, repression, and profits, carefully triangulating every step to maintain the facade of a “rules base international order” while quietly restricting immigration and militarizing the border in an attempt to neutralize Trumpism.

Marxism and the Migrant-Proletarian

The fundamental questions are not ‘do capitalists want open borders?’ or ‘is immigration bad for the US working class?’ but rather ‘how do borders function in the twenty-first century?,’ ‘what is the relationship between borders and the international working class?,’ and “why and how did this come to be?’ Luckily, socialists are already looking for answers.

In his excellent essay for Socialist Register, “The Contradictions of Global Migration,” Adam Hanieh expounds a Marxist interpretation of the relationship between capitalism and migration. He points out that “the conditions underlying migration are produced by the very nature of capital accumulation and the hierarchies that sustain it, including features such as imperialist war, economic and ecological crises, and the deep-seated neoliberal restructuring of recent decades.”^[15] The daily function of capitalism, the processes and structures reproducing its existence, the subordination of life to the market, the unending search for profit, the national and international division of labor—all directly and indirectly dispossess and displace millions of people; people whose displacement and dispossession appear to capitalists as a source of profit— if they manage the dispossessed population appropriately. To that end, an enormous border-industrial-complex emerged to profit from surveilling, incarcerating, deporting, and killing people crossing borders. This creates the conditions for a broad array of capitalists to exploit hyper-precarious migrant labor generated by the interplay between neoliberal globalization and the Border Regime.

Dispossessing, displacing, then circumscribing the movement of, entire communities is best understood as a process of class formation. The class being formed is the working class, or more precisely, the proletariat. Whether a migrant is fleeing war, ecological disaster, or poverty; regardless of age, gender, or ethnicity; migrants, by the very fact of being migrants, are part of the proletariat. To be made into a migrant is to be proletarianized. To be a proletarian is to suffer under the yolk of precarity, dependency, and exploitation. The migrant-proletariat, then, is a highly mobile, hyper-precarious, hyper-exploitable subsection of the proletariat, caught between the hammer of neoliberalism and the anvil of the border. This framework is a fundamental, uncompromising difference between Marxists and the nativists writing for UnHerd. Rojas and Fang are exclusively concerned with native-born US workers, demographics, and the Democratic Party. Marxists' primary concern is the international proletariat, including migrants.

While every proletarian is threatened with or subjected to dispossession, displacement, and precarity, the migrant-proletarian suffers these conditions at a higher order of magnitude due to their original country’s place within the global division of labor, their movement across militarized borders, and their exclusion from the rights guaranteed to citizens. A visa-holder living in a foreign country must meet a number of conditions to retain that visa. To receive, and then retain, a visa is expensive, bureaucratic, time-consuming, and ultimately dependent on the whim of employers and/or the state. If an immigrant’s visa expires or is revoked, and they become “undocumented,” an additional layer of precarity is added. This is a profound difference between the citizen-proletariat and the non-citizen proletariat. Borders are inscribed onto the physical existence of the non-citizen proletarian via categories of “legal” and “illegal” (or, in other words, having appropriate ‘papers’ and lacking appropriate ‘papers’). The curtailment of their civil and political rights, along with an almost omnipresent surveillance system, follows them no matter their distance from the physical border. An undocumented migrant’s existence in a certain time and place is outlawed, nullifying their civil rights, and often their human rights as well.

For decades, anthropologist Nicholas De Genova has studied the social condition he calls deportability. In De Genova’s analysis, designations of illegality and deportability effectively force undocumented immigrants to “carry borders on their very bodies as border enforcement and the prospect of deportation come to permeate the full spectrum of racialized everyday life activities and spaces.”^[16] He argues that deportability functions “beyond the actualized fact of deportation…” to create the constant threat, or potential, for deportation. Deportability “… plays a distinctively disciplinary role” in creating the conditions under which “migrant labor-power serves as a highly desirable commodity for employers…”^[17] Undocumented migrant-workers are capitalists’ ideal form of labor power. At any moment, employers can report their undocumented workers to ICE for deportation. The possibility of being ripped from their daily lives, from their families, to be imprisoned, tortured, and deported keeps undocumented workers from organizing for better work conditions and higher wages. Imperialism, corporations, and the Border Regime all work hand in hand to create the migrant-proletariat.

The social condition of “deportability” cannot exist without restrictive immigration laws and a militarized border, and domestic wages cannot be undercut if a deportable, rightless, subclass of workers isn’t available to work more for less. A handful of free-market ideologues might advocate for a genuine, open, legal, flow of labor across borders, but they are a minority and their vision is not reality. The neoliberal reorganization of the production process (capital investments, logistics and supply chains, regulatory laws, etc.) across national boundaries becomes less profitable if labor is free to move across borders. As political geographer Reece Jones puts it, “boundaries create discontinuities that can be exploited, and corporations use the multiple labor pools to increase profits.”^[18] This exacerbates the already uneven power differential in the capitalist-proletarian relationship because the “subdivision of production across borders” allows capital to

...intensify the rate of exploitation of all segments [of the working class] by lowering the wage threshold to the lowest possible denominator… by reinforcing national boundaries, which in turn maintain the differentials between the two nations embodied in such factors as: balance of class forces, union density, extant forms of labor repression and control, and other factors that determine wage levels within any particular region or industry.^[19]

Capitalists can invest almost anywhere, but the proletariat is divided into territorially-bounded labor pools, each with their own set of labor laws and regulations. If the neoliberal program were carried out in full and borders were no obstacle for labor, then categories like legal, illegal, temporary, etc., would cease to exist, along with the condition of deportability they generate.

Despite hardcore neoliberal ideologues professing otherwise, “open borders” is not a policy benefitting the capitalist class as a class. Integrating production processes and streamlining exploitation across borders results in sections of the proletariat becoming “fused into unitary, trans- and multinational production lines, interconnected supply chains, linked transportation, logistics, and distribution networks, and increasingly into common employment for the same multinational corporations and investment firms.”^[20] This increases opportunities for, and the power of, coordinated cross-border strikes and other labor actions, and so, as socialist scholar Justin Chacón explains:

Once the exploitation of labor on both sides of the border is central to the production that enables the most profitable form of trade across borders, the capitalist state cannot allow for the free movement of labor across borders, as this would inevitably lead to cross-border integration, unionization, and wage equalization.^[21]

Capitalists cannot allow this to happen, so methods of social differentiation are deployed to complicate, interrupt, and ultimately destroy transnational labor organizing. This process of social differentiation, of illegalizing a person’s existence, of branding them with deportability, is a critical function of the border, and the powers-that-be in this country have no intention of impeding that function.

The social forces driving migration and the repression migrants are subjected to only serve the interests of the working-class’ enemies: capital and the state. This is well understood by the Marxist Left. But nativists like Rojas and Fang reserve their ire for immigrants fueling “cultural and political disruption” and sabotaging “welfare-state policies.” Instead of advocating for transnational union organizing or supporting freedom of movement as a human right, nativists decry immigrants as parasitic useful-idiots helping capitalists exploit the “American Worker” and plunder the Nation. Fang thinks “in the long run, progressives have no choice but to acknowledge that huge infusions of migrants stress welfare systems and depress wages for low-skill workers, while damaging social cohesion.” Only after accepting this premise can the GOP be defeated, because “only by accepting this, and making the case for border security and less tolerance for migrant rule-breaking, can the Left reconnect with its blue-collar roots.” He ends by asking, “will Americans remain perpetually in conflict over new arrivals, constantly divided and competing with lower wage workers and pondering questions of shifting cultural identity, or will we end this cycle and fix the problems that plague our most struggling citizens?” Nativists like Fang don’t believe the Border Regime exists, but they sure wish it did, because they believe the border protects US workers. Marxists are less naive.

Conclusion

The Border Regime manages the consequences of endlessly expanding capital accumulation, imperialist geopolitics, and the dispossession, displacement, ecological devastation, and violence they generate. Expanding and intensifying capitalist social relations across the world generates mass migration. In response, the Border Regime carries out two main tasks: preventing migrants from entering the country and ensuring that those who successfully cross the border exist in a state of maximum precarity and exploitability, i.e. deportable. Crossing the border divides and sorts workers into different legal, political, and social categories. At the bottom of this hierarchy are undocumented migrant workers, who function as a reserve army of labor drawn upon when needed and imprisoned and/or deported when not. In its totality, the border is less a wall and more a threshold, a nebulous area, or a zone of exception, wherein civil, political, and human rights are nullified and hyper-exploitability is imposed. Those passing through are sorted and branded with the designation “illegal,” “guest worker,” “asylum seeker,” or one of the many other categories designed to circumscribe a person’s rights. The border produces and reproduces the social-political-legal designations used to justify and enforce the hyper-exploitation of the migrant-proletariat and, in fact, crystallizes the migrant-proletariat into a distinct subclass of the international proletariat.

Whichever side of the border migrant-proletarians reside, they are exploited by capital. The processes of global capital accumulation breeds dispossession, unemployment, poverty, ecological catastrophe, imperialism, war, and other, innumerable, intolerable maladies which force people across borders. This movement is met with walls and razor wire surveillance, physical violence, imprisonment, deportation, and more, all funded by billions of dollars from Congress. These facets of border militarization are not just deployed, but tested and developed at the border. They are tools of repression, sharpened and honed against the migrant-proletariat. But if history is any indication, the scope will expand to include larger geographic areas and more categories of people. When the time comes, the full force of the Border Regime will be mobilized against the entire proletariat in defense of the capitalist system.

In the twenty-first century, borders serve the needs of capital at the cost of all humanity. They are erected to manage, deter, imprison, kill, and exploit the global proletariat. As such, socialists must prioritize it as a target. The proletariat is not, and will never be, protected by the Border Regime. Why should the working-class defend, and even praise, a weapon designed to destroy their power? Every declaration of support for deportations, every screed against immigration into the United States, amounts to a renunciation of working-class interests and an endorsement of capitalism. The proletariat’s road to power runs through the Border Regime. There is no middle ground. Either we destroy it, or it destroys us.

1. Juan David Rojas, “The Progressive Case for Trump’s Deportations,” UnHerd, February 3, 2025, https://unherd.com/2025/02/the-pro-worker-case-for-trumps-deportations/.

   ↩

2. Lee Fang, “The Progressive Case against Immigration,” UnHerd, November 20, 2024, https://unherd.com/2024/11/the-progressive-case-against-immigration/.

   ↩

3. Ibid.

   ↩

4. Lee Fang, “Why Trump has gone soft on immigration” UnHerd, April 30th, 2025, https://unherd.com/2025/04/why-trump-has-gone-soft-on-immigration.

   ↩

5. Rojas, “The Progressive Case for Trump’s Deportations.”

   ↩

6. Fang, “The Progressive Case against Immigration.”

   ↩

7. Rojas, “The Progressive Case for Trump’s Deportations.”

   ↩

8. Ibid.

   ↩

9. Fang, “The Progressive Case against Immigration.”

   ↩

10. Ibid.

    ↩

11. Fang, “The Progressive Case against Immigration.”

    ↩

12. Rojas, “The Progressive Case for Trump’s Deportations.”

    ↩

13. Fang, “The Progressive Case against Immigration.”

    ↩

14. Ibid.

    ↩

15. Adam Hanieh, “The Contradictions of Global Migration,” Socialist Register 55 (2019): 50–78.

    ↩

16. Nicholas De Genova, “Migration and the Mobility of Labor,” ed. Matt Vidal et al., The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, December 11, 2018, 424–40.

    ↩

17. De Genova, “Migration and the Mobility of Labor,” 437.

    ↩

18. Reece Jones, Violent Borders: Refugees and the Right to Move (Verso Books, 2017), 132.

    ↩

19. Justin Akers Chacón, The Border Crossed Us: The Case for Opening the US-Mexico Border (Haymarket Books, 2021), 137.

    ↩

20. Ibid.

    ↩

21. Ibid.

    ↩