A recent payroll audit at American Apparel Inc. led to the firing of 1,800 workers. The workers are suspected of working in the U.S. illegally. John Morton, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, considers a success as well as a warning to all companies, including those in the garment industry, who use undocumented workers.
The weird thing about it, though, is American Apparel doesn’t abuse its workers or attempt to take advantage of undocumented labor. The company’s factory workers are paid significantly above minimum wage, not to mention receive other benefits. Furthermore, the factory develops a trained, local work force that provides other benefits to the community.

Is this really the goal of American immigration policies? Morton certainly enforced the law — there’s no doubt of that — but he hardly followed the intent of the law. Immigration law exists to prevent worker abuse, the dissemination of restricted substances across national borders and help stabilize communities. Firing well over 1,000 skilled workers does not help anyone and in fact could be considered a detriment to many.

Obviously, American Apparel is an exception. Many companies in the industry, including Gap Inc., violate immigration policies as well as what most people consider ethical standards. These violations, however, occur more frequently overseas. Immigration policies have no effect whatsoever on the use of sweatshops in Southeast Asia or anywhere else for that matter.

Limiting the amount of people who can enter and work in the U.S. legally is little more than a thinly veiled, xenophobic protectionist policy. By closing borders, governments are limiting the free exchange of manpower and ideas. Using a more porous system, workers would go where needed and places in place to implement innovative ideas could get the human capital required to fuel upcoming projects.

Of course, porous borders do pose some problems. First of all, there is a security risk: Alleged terrorist cells might take advantage of a freer system to bring men and weapons into the U.S. Sadly, however, open stretches of desert are probably responsible for thwarting more potential attacks than the TSA and border patrol combined.

There is also the problem with the importation of restricted substances such as cocaine and heroin through the border of Mexico. Sadly, however, the crackdown on immigration and drugs has hardly affected the cartels that have essentially seized control of Juarez and other border towns. Restricting the cartels’ access to lucrative U.S. markets will lead to increased prices, causing cartels to simply up the ante. If U.S. citizens want access to illicit drugs and illegal weapons, there are plenty of people capable of supplying end users no matter the restrictions.

The fact of the matter is that closed borders prevent little and cause significant problems. Companies cannot get the labor they need, many people are forced to live in regions that do not serve their needs and the border restrictions put in place to control immigration higher governmental overheads and the deaths of thousands. Traditional border policy can no longer be considered efficacious; it is time to think of a new methodology.

—Thomas Shattuck is a junior in the School of Engineering. He can be reached at thomas.w.shattuck@vanderbilt.edu.