Executive Summary
This white paper examines open and closed borders and their implications in the age of the COVID-19 pandemic. It traces how countries, including the U.S., closed borders in a public health role to curb viral spread, contrary to the World Health Organization’s guidance. For some, being border holes, a defense of public health is necessary; others assert that borders do not cause the increase in viral disease occurrences. The idea of “moving borders” is also implemented in practice, with screening conducted at the beginning, at the source, rather than at the end.
The white paper insists that migrants should be given the same rights as citizens in U.S. COVID-19 strategies. This can be achieved through several crucial means; for example, people should have access to healthcare without discrimination, and appropriate linguistic/cultural information should be provided. Unique elements of the Biden Administration’s implementation plan for the next 24 months are explained, including identifying hospitals for migrant patients, monitoring the spread of the virus within migrant communities, and improving preparedness during a pandemic through labor mobility training. The main objective is an all-encompassing public health model that considers migrants’ viewpoints.
Background
COVID-19 and Border Closures
Before the pandemic, the previous U.S. administration imposed tight immigration rules following the “zero-tolerance policy” that aimed to reduce the number and level of immigration through the line of hardness. While COVID-19 was announced early in 2020, the administration acted swiftly by banning travel from countries that had reported cases of the infection and were suspected to have been incubating the disease.
Additionally, invoking the little-used powers granted in Section 42 of the 1944 Public Health Service Act was done to limit the spread of the virus, as public health concerns were raised. This helped immigration officers immediately remove any migrants crossing the border without hesitation, effectively preventing all asylum claims. The administration referred to foreigners who might pose a threat to others, saying that COVID-19 might pose a threat to them. For this reason, they closed the borders to the main masses of asylum seekers and undocumented migrants.
Protecting Citizens vs. Migrants
Many countries, including the United States, prioritized protecting their citizens, including bringing transient absentees back to the homeland. Governments reasserted the idea that the state is responsible for its citizens (Owen, 2020). For this reason, they closed borders, even in defiance of a World Health Organization (WHO) advisory (Owen, 2020). The situation left many people neglected and abandoned. For instance, many countries did not consider refugees who were seeking asylum.
Definition of the Problem
A borderless border regime enables people to cross borders, including entering and leaving a country as they please, without barriers or the need to present legal documentation such as visas and passports. Absolute liberalism differs from humanitarian liberalism in that it may pursue different goals and values, such as human rights, citizenship, and opportunities. The trans-Frontera border is provided to foreigners from adjacent countries and meets the legally agreed-upon requirements (Longley, 2022). For instance, the U.S. President can allow foreigners to stay if their fear is political or racial and is proven to be quenchable in their native countries.
Throughout its existence, COVID-19 has disturbed almost every nation across the globe and has already been confirmed with the documentation and treatment of millions of potentially infected patients. Today, governments are tackling these profound facts of life by making decisions that prioritize health, the economy, and society. It has been said to be the most ruinous economic crisis based on the statistics of events that happened after World War 2 (Hossain et al., 2020), which means it has utterly shaken the usual routine on the globe because of its shortage of supply chains, decline of demand, and international travel and tourism. In the U.S., the pandemic brought the immigration system to a standstill. It introduced a delay in visa processing, closure of asylum seekers’ passages via land border, and thousands were relocated to packed immigrant camps with higher susceptibility to transmission change.
Discussion
Arguments for Open vs. Closed Borders
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused the issue of open vs. closed borders. Several community members believe that, when using the frame, the enforcement of territorial quarantine is a matter of public health security in the eyes of the public health sector (Owen, 2020). They mention that a territory that wants to maintain open borders need not be far-fetched in the event of a quarantine. The states that decide to restrict travel and migration do so only as a part of public health policy. Such a step is justified in the internal context because its citizens would otherwise inevitably be under threat.
The claim recognizes that there is a point of border closure and that it can be reached simply by shutting down those borders. However, the closure of borders will violate the rights of asylum seekers and those who are facing persecution. Some claim that it is not borders that open, but borders that increase the chances of the coronavirus spreading everywhere. The world has highly regulated borders, as the modes of transmission that accelerate the spread are international trade and the movement of people.
The “Shifting Border” Phenomenon
By the mechanism of ‘moving boundary’, the countries have been addressing the so-called ‘border-creeping’ issue. The transfer of power from distant authorities to agents and personnel at the frontiers makes this new strategy even more dangerous; they can operate without legal oversight. This pattern rendered the boundary complex, diverse, changeable, and dynamic, thereby posing substantial moral issues (Jones, 2019). Adults and children who work within these communities have low-paying jobs that, even though they earn a sufficient income to feed their families, they still experience inequity and marginalization.
However, when evaluating the open-border option, it is worth noting that it offers several advantages. It lowers the government’s costs, allowing us to allocate more funds to other expenses. The United States is estimated to dedicate approximately $19 billion to border security each year (Jones, 2019). Thereby, the government has millions of undocumented migrants to hold. Furthermore, immigration surplus, which increases the country’s population, has a direct positive effect on the country’s GDP by boosting production capacity through immigrants in the workforce.
In the U.S., immigrants contribute around $50 billion to the GDP each year, according to a recent report. The diversity that culture brings contributes to and promotes the birth of new skills, ideas, and practices. On the other hand, the disadvantages include the permission of criminals and terrorists to commute across borders, for the percentage of about 26% of the prisoners who do not have legal status(Longley, 2022). However, it may also be seen as a downturn in the economy, as revenues exceed tax collections.
Recommendations
Proper Helpful Resources and Planners Equity
The ongoing granting of human rights for immigrants in the U.S. is of great importance; as such, all immigrants, undocumented or not, should have access to essential services. This will include further cooperation with state/local governments, non-governmental organizations, and community associations to improve migrant-friendly service delivery systems. It should mean working with local communities to reduce access difficulties and ensure inclusive, equal services for migrants. Migrants shall be provided with preliminary information, educational resources, and training on how to prevent contracting COVID-19. To achieve this, targeted campaigns will be implemented to make the necessary health information available to the most relevant migrant community groups.
Non-Discriminatory Healthcare Access
Similarly, as a country, like everyone else in the world, we should have an obligation to ensure that everyone, including migrants, has the right to enjoy the highest standards of medical care. Hence, for the prevention and control of COVID-19, no discrimination in terms of gender, color, religion, caste, or economic well-being will be exercised. Migrants should not be made objects of racial sanctions, declared, deported, detained, or stigmatized because they have health issues (Guadagno, 2020). Additionally, the implementation of anti-discriminatory strategies towards the already existing structural discrimination against undocumented immigrants has to be the primary initial priority, giving the migrants a hard time accessing healthcare services. The Department of Homeland Security also encourages healthcare systems to provide services to migrants, including those with gender, disability, linguistic, cultural, and age diversity.
Development of More Advanced Education and Increased Skill-Building Programs
Within 12 to 24 months, the Biden administration will develop programs that guarantee all children can keep learning, including those who came to this country as migrants and had their education interrupted. Doing so will help address the already unfavorable conditions faced by the disadvantaged and vulnerable (Jones, 2019). Moving to physically distanced/remote schooling can be very tough due to language barriers and no tech /network access for migrant students. Therefore, the administration will partner closely with school districts to design in-the-room learning options, assistant programs, transcription services, and device /network access.
Many migrant parents are losing jobs due to the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the organization will also coordinate with local employers, community colleges, workforce development boards, and training providers to ensure they can upgrade their skills to meet the needs of jobs that many workers need. The “Reskilling and upskilling program” will put migrants into the post-pandemic labor market, which has strong economic potential. Possible training locations include healthcare, I.T., skilled trades, and transportation/logistics, with employers focusing on the local area.
Conclusion
Herein, the White Paper shows how the coronavirus pandemic and several forms of social disadvantage faced by migrants can be combined. In particular, the pandemic-related border shutdowns prevented thousands of people who wanted to petition their cases within the country from entering, worsening the situation for those seeking protection. The reviewed open border issue finds that the economic advantages of the United States are a crucial factor influencing the favoring of this approach to cross borders in the U.S. Therefore, in a bid to lessen the harsh immigration policies that had a significant impact on migrants and asylum seekers, the Biden administration will turn a page, rewinding most of the measures. Development of activities, such as migration awareness and sensitivity to diversity, is essential to safely hosting many incomers.
References
Guadagno, L. (2020). Migrants and the COVID-19 pandemic: An initial analysis.
Hossain, M. P., Junus, A., Zhu, X., Jia, P., Wen, T.-H., Pfeiffer, D., & Yuan, H.-Y. (2020). The effects of border control and quarantine measures on the spread of COVID-19. Epidemics, 32.
Owen, D. (2020). Open borders and the COVID-19 pandemic. Democratic Theory, 7(2), 152–159.
Jones, R. (2019). Open borders: In defense of free movement. University Of Georgia Press.
Longley, R. (2022). Open borders: Definition, pros and cons. ThoughtCo.