By Donald Gilpin

Andre Barnes

Immigration policy was a decisive issue in the recent election, as it has been a widely debated issue around the world and is certain to be a controversial topic in Washington and throughout the country when the Trump administration takes office in the new year.

Andre Barnes, the HBCU (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) engagement director for Numbers USA, spoke to a group of about 25 at Princeton University’s School for Public and International Affairs (SPIA) earlier this month, discussing how mass immigration impacts Black Americans. NumbersUSA describes itself as “a nonpartisan public policy organization,” though its restrictive position on immigration is strongly favored by conservatives.

Barnes stressed his focus on “the humanitarian dilemma in immigration policy.” He noted, “Helping one category of person deserving compassion can undermine another category also deserving compassion,” claiming that “domestic humanitarian concerns” can clash with “international humanitarian concerns.”

“We are trying to work across partisan lines to create policies that make sense,” he added.

In his presentation to the SPIA gathering, Barnes went on to cite examples from history where prominent American leaders warned that large scale immigration was undermining the efforts of Black Americans to meet their basic needs: Frederick Douglass in the 19th century, Booker T. Washington and A. Philip Randolph in the early 20th century, Eugene McCarthy in the 1960s, and others.

He quoted New York Times columnist David Leonhardt, who emphasized the huge benefits of immigration, but also noted that immigration can hurt workers who already live in the country. “Social services have been strained,” wrote Leonhardt as quoted in Barnes’ talk, “and many citizens feel uncomfortable with the rapid societal changes that immigration has caused.”

In a subsequent phone conversation Barnes stated that he and NumbersUSA were not aiming to pit one group against another, but rather pose an ethical question for the consideration of his audience.

“We wanted to look at history and current numbers and answer questions about how we could ethically discuss how massive increases to our population through immigration can have an effect on local communities,” he said.

The past few years, Barnes said, have seen the highest amount of immigration in the history of the U.S., causing challenges throughout the country. “Instead of this just being a problem at the border, in states like California, Arizona, and Texas, this issue has expanded into the interior places like Chicago, New York, and Boston, and now you have more Americans who are experiencing the challenges of mass immigration,” he said.

He went on, “A lot of these states are having their budgets pushed way past their limits. In New York they say the migrant crisis will cost $12 billion. They’ll have to cut services. In Chicago they spent over $100 million on the migrant crisis, and now they’re talking about increasing taxes. In Boston they’ve spent similar amounts on immigration. And there have been challenges associated with that.”

Noting the impact of rapid growth throughout the country, Barnes called for cutting back on immigration unless communities can plan effectively for ways to accommodate that growth. “If we’re not going to offset the issues with growth, then we’re going to have to scale back the number of people we’re going to let in until we can deal with the growth,” he said.

Barnes expressed mixed feelings about prospects for an improved situation under the incoming Trump administration. He stated that the election showed that many Americans were not happy with the current policies, and he said he felt “some optimism” about new policies in the coming months. He was hopeful that Democrats and Republicans could work together to “get policies that are going to help Americans.”

In commenting on the Trump administration he added, “I do think they will secure the border. I have some optimism, but if hateful rhetoric is spread advocating mass deportations, then people are going to go into their corners again, and it’s going to be hard to get people to the negotiating table.”