Immigrants Can't Oppose Immigration
False Assumption: Immigrants and their descendants have no moral right to support restrictions on future immigration.
Written by FARAgent on February 10, 2026
For a long time, many people have viewed immigration policy in purely moralistic terms. If you or your ancestors immigrated to America, you and your descendants forever lose the moral right to vote against letting in anybody else who wants to come.
The Washington Post profiled George Borjas, a Cuban-born Harvard economist and immigrant who researches immigration's downsides. Borjas found that low-skilled immigrants hurt competing American workers, especially poor people and African Americans. Post readers responded with outrage at an immigrant making this case.
Borjas advised the Trump administration on policies like H-1B visa overhauls. Critics question the moralistic taboo as his empirical work gains influence. Mainstream outlets still treat his findings as disputed.
People Involved
- George Borjas arrived in the United States from Cuba in 1962 as a refugee. He built a career at Harvard as an economist, focusing on immigration.
- Borjas documented how immigration could harm native workers. He advised the Trump administration's Council of Economic Advisers on restrictions, including changes to the H-1B visa program. Critics argue this stance challenges the assumption that immigrants lack the moral right to oppose further immigration.
- Borjas acknowledged the trade-offs involved. He expressed sympathy for immigrants but pointed to economic harms as part of his analysis. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“The Cuba-born Harvard economist behind Trump’s immigration crackdown... George Borjas has provided the intellectual underpinnings of the White House’s sweeping immigration policy changes... In the 1980s and 1990s, George Borjas pioneered the field of immigration economics. In seismic papers, Borjas’s research described the drawbacks of immigration, including his oft-cited, though much-disputed, findings that the arrival of lower-skilled immigrants hurts American workers who compete for jobs, especially poor people and African Americans.”— The Zeroth Amendment
““Not only do I have great sympathy for the immigrant’s desire to build a better life, I am also living proof that immigration policy can benefit some people enormously,” he wrote in a 2017 opinion piece for the New York Times. “But I am also an economist, and am very much aware of the many trade-offs involved. Inevitably, immigration does not improve everyone’s well-being.””— The Zeroth Amendment
Organizations Involved
The Washington Post ran a profile on George Borjas in the mid-2010s. The piece disputed his findings on immigration's harms to natives. It highlighted his own immigrant background as a point of tension. Critics argue this approach reinforced the assumption by questioning the legitimacy of immigrant voices against further influxes. The profile appeared amid broader debates on policy. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“From the Washington Post’s news section: The Cuba-born Harvard economist behind Trump’s immigration crackdown... his oft-cited, though much-disputed, findings... a point of tension he has referenced in his writing.”— The Zeroth Amendment
The Foundation
The assumption took root in moralistic views on immigration policy. It held that past immigrants gave up any right to oppose future ones. This ignored empirical trade-offs, such as harms to native workers. Growing questions surround this foundation, as economists like George Borjas presented data on economic downsides. The belief seemed credible in circles emphasizing equity over evidence. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“For a long time, I’ve been pointing out that an awful lot of people think of immigration policy purely in moralistic terms: If you or your ancestors ever immigrated to America, that means you and your descendants until the end of never have no moral right whatsoever to vote to keep anybody else out who wants to move here.”— The Zeroth Amendment
How It Spread
Media outlets helped spread the idea. The Washington Post, for instance, emphasized George Borjas's immigrant status while disputing his research on harms to natives. This tactic suggested a moral disqualification for immigrants who critiqued policy. Critics argue such coverage sustained the assumption through selective framing. It appeared in profiles and editorials during heated immigration debates. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“Immigrant Harvard economist George Borjas says immigration is bad for African-Americans. Washington Post readers ask: How dare he?”— The Zeroth Amendment
Resulting Policies
The Trump administration acted on research challenging the assumption. In the late 2010s, it overhauled the H-1B visa program. Officials imposed a $100,000 fee to address abuses. This drew from George Borjas's work on program flaws. The changes countered earlier lax policies that favored unchecked immigration. Mounting evidence challenges the moral barriers to such restrictions. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“One of Borjas’s direct contributions to the Trump administration this past year was his extensive behind-the-scenes work on Trump’s overhaul of the H-1B visa system for highly skilled workers that added a $100,000 fee... Borjas had previously written about the “well-documented abuses” of that program over the years.”— The Zeroth Amendment
Harm Caused
Low-skilled immigration pressed on American workers. It hit those competing for jobs, especially the poor and African Americans. Critics argue this reveals flaws in the assumption, as economic harms persist despite moral claims. The effects showed in wage stagnation and job displacement. Growing questions surround policies that overlook these costs. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“the arrival of lower-skilled immigrants hurts American workers who compete for jobs, especially poor people and African Americans.”— The Zeroth Amendment
Downfall
George Borjas's research drew fresh attention during Trump's second term push. It influenced policy shifts and sparked debates. Critics argue this challenges the moralistic view that immigrants cannot oppose restrictions. Disputes continue, but the work highlighted empirical trade-offs. Mounting evidence questions the assumption's hold, though experts remain divided. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“More recently, his research has found new attention and urgency in President Donald Trump’s second term: Borjas, 75, worked as a top economist on the Council of Economic Advisers... The White House official said Borjas was among many Trump administration members involved in redesigning the H-1B visa program.”— The Zeroth Amendment
Sources
-
[1]
The Zeroth Amendmentopinion