Biden shouldn’t hesitate to increase immigration

by Keshav Srikant Staff Writer

As President Joe Biden campaigned to defeat former President Donald Trump, he was unequivocal in his support for immigrants and immigration. Biden called America a “nation of immigrants” and promised to reform the temporary visa system to make it easier for highly skilled immigrants to stay in the United States. Over two years into his term, this has not happened. Despite attempts in his proposed budget, Biden has not yet increased funding for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that processes green cards and visas for immigrants, leading to a mounting backlog and longer wait times. He also hasn’t prioritized legislation to raise the national green card caps that restrict skilled immigration, nor has he pressured Congress to increase the H-1B visa cap for high-tech workers or reformed the program as he promised in his campaign.

This is disappointing because immigration is crucial to American innovation and progress. Immigrant inventors are more productive than American ones, with one study by the National Bureau of Economic Research finding immigrants — just 16% of inventors — are responsible for 36% of the nation’s innovation. Close to two-thirds of U.S. startups worth over $1 billion, known as unicorns, were started by immigrants or children of immigrants, according to a National Foundation for American Policy brief. Furthermore, immigrants and their children founded 43% of companies in the 2017 Fortune 500 index, including wellknown companies like Alphabet and Tesla. Without immigrants, these companies and the jobs and value they represent wouldn’t exist. One analysis conducted by researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Census Bureau found that immigrants create far more jobs than they take. Another analysis from the Brookings Institute found that the interconnectedness of the immigrant workforce supports millions of American jobs. Additionally, immigrants have been key to scientific innovation and discovery. They have won a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes in chemistry, physics and medicine. The leading producers of the COVID-19 vaccine — Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna — were each founded by immigrants. The list goes on.

Many of the reasons often cited to oppose immigration are, at best, shaky. On no issue does every economist agree, and immigration is no exception. However, a 2014 economic review by University of California, Davis economics professor Giovanni Peri concluded that immigrants do not significantly reduce wages in the short run and may even boost them in the long run — a finding that has been corroborated by other economic studies. Meanwhile, the infamous 2017 study by Harvard economist George Borjas, which was cited by conservatives to justify their immigration policies, was deeply flawed in the way it handled its data. These new findings may be one reason why the labor movement has reversed its anti-immigration positions. Many Americans also think increasing immigration leads to increasing crime, but studies have found that immigration may actually reduce crime rates — or at least does not increase them. copy is subject to the approval of the editor in chief, executive board and business director.

While the net benefits of immigration are clear, it’s easy to see why Biden might be hesitant about making or calling for some of the immigration reforms he supported in his campaign. Immigration is a deeply polarizing issue for a country that Biden promised to unite, and he may take a political hit if he attempts to pass these reforms. However, this should not deter him. For one thing, it’s not clear what the political impact of increased immigration would be; Biden’s more progressive immigration policies like his 100-day deportation moratorium and raising the refugee cap to 125,000 didn’t correlate to a significant hit in his approval rating. Rather, his approval rating has been much more closely tied to factors like the economy, inflation and gas prices. In fact, given the strength of this correlation, the benefit Biden will get from more skilled immigrants improving the economy may outweigh the negatives of political attacks in response to the move. It is also worth noting this is an ideal time for more immigration, as it could help fix the labor shortage, especially in critical places like nursing homes, meaning Biden can cite meaningful and practical reasons for changing immigration laws.

Nothing in politics is a guarantee, but the political fallout of enacting reforms to increase immigration is uncertain enough that Biden should not hesitate if he thinks it is good policy, and as he demonstrated on the campaign trail, he clearly does. It is time for Biden to drop the malarkey and live up to his word, for immigrants and for America.

The Tufts Daily is a nonprofit, independent newspaper, published Monday through Friday during the academic year, and distributed free of charge to the Tufts community. The content of letters, advertisements, signed columns, cartoons and graphics does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Tufts Daily editorial board. EDITORIALS Editorials represent the position of The Tufts Daily Editorial Board. Individual editorialists are not necessarily responsible for, or in agreement with, the policies and editorials of The Editorial Board. Editorials are submitted for review to The Tufts Daily Executive Board before publication.

VIEWPOINTS AND COLUMNS Viewpoints and columns represent the opinions of individual Opinion editors, staff writers, contributing writers and columnists for the Daily’s Opinion section. Positions published in Viewpoints and columns are the opinions of the writers who penned them alone, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Daily itself. All material is subject to editorial discretion.

OP-EDS Op-Eds provide an open forum for campus editorial commentary and are printed Monday through Thursday. The Daily welcomes submissions from all members of the Tufts community; the opinions expressed in the Op-Ed section do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Daily itself. Opinion articles on campus, national and international issues should be 600 to 1,200 words in length and submitted to opinion@tuftsdaily.com. The editors reserve the right to edit letters for clarity, space and length. All material is subject to editorial discretion and is not guaranteed to appear in the Daily. Authors must submit their telephone numbers and day-of availability for editing questions.

Bite- size s cience: The contentious and groundbreaking endeavor of genome editing

by Khushi Jain Contributing Writer

Originally published April 5

Imagine if we could curate the ‘perfect’ human being — from changing their eye color to developing resistance against deadly illnesses. Is this a groundbreaking pursuit or an unethical idea?

When He Jiankui, a Chinese scientist, announced in 2018 that he had changed the genetic makeup of three babies to make them resistant to HIV, he was placed in prison for three years. Nevertheless, the influence of his actions on the scientific field is strong and persistent.

CRISPR genome editing was first introduced in 2012 by

Jennifer Doudna of University of California, Berkeley and Emmanuelle Charpentier of the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology in Berlin. They invented CRISPR-Cas9, a technology that can cut a DNA sequence at a specific site and either delete or insert other DNA sequences. In the future, this invention has the potential to allow scientists to alter not only a person’s physical traits but also their predisposition to diseases. For example, scientists are now looking to use genome editing to treat sickle cell anemia, caused by a gene mutation that disrupts hemoglobin production. Muscular dystrophy, cancer, diabetes and heredi - tary blindness are other examples of diseases that could be treated using genome editing, scientists hope.

Genome editing has the potential to go beyond solely treating genetic disorders. There is potential for developing technology to protect people against chemical warfare by modifying liver enzymes to make human systems better able to rid the body of toxins, Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, the organizer of an international summit on human genome editing, told the Guardian. Or perhaps, it could be used to help humans see in the infrared or ultraviolet range — a useful tool for troops fighting at night, Lovell-Badge said.

Despite the advantages of genome editing, there are also ethical drawbacks to be carefully considered before the scientific field begins promoting its widespread use.

For instance, genome editing for one person could cost nearly $1 million. Many people who suffer from various illnesses, like anemia, cannot afford expensive medicines. By implementing genome editing, are we creating even greater barriers to health care access?

The long-term implications of genome editing remain unknown, raising questions about complications that could arise like off-target DNA damage. The nuances of genome editing demonstrate the need for careful scientific study and consideration before implementing such large-scale scientific advances as potential treatments despite how appealing it may seem upfront.

Bite- size s cience: Fda approves over-the-counter Narcan, an antidote for opioid overdose

by Emilia Nathan Staff Writer

Originally published April 4

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Narcan for over-the-counter sale on March 29. Narcan, which is also known by its generic name, naloxone, is a fast-acting nasal spray medication produced by Emergent BioSolutions that reverses opioid overdoses. The decision comes two weeks after the Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee and Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee unanimously voted in favor of allowing the nasal spray to be sold over the counter.

Intranasal spray is the most common way to administer Naloxone, which has been in circulation since 1971. In 2021, more than 106,000 individuals in the U.S. died of drug-related overdoses, and 80,411 of those overdose deaths were tied to opioid use according to data from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Emergent BioSolutions anticipates that Narcan will reach stores by the end of the summer, although the company did not release how much the nasal spray is expected to cost.

Prescription Narcan costs about $150 for a kit with two doses.

Nearly all states and the District of Columbia have already taken steps to increase the availability of Narcan with effective measures like stand - ing prescriptions that allow pharmacists to distribute the life-saving antidote without initially consulting a provider. Many states also provide access to Narcan through local health departments and community centers. These efforts demonstrate the importance of easy access to Narcan, which is impeded by limited supply at many of these centers and stigma around opioid use. Allowing Narcan to be sold over the counter could open up a variety of new venues for distribution “including vending machines, convenience stores, supermarkets and bigbox stores” Jody Green, a representative at the FDA’s nonprescription drug department, told CNBC.

SPORTS

However, there are a variety of concerns regarding the distribution of the 4 milligram nasal spray. One of the panel’s chief concerns was the set of instructions for administration on the drug’s label, raising the important question of how easy the spray is to administer. Officials from Emergent BioSolutions proposed a new label with clear instructions on how to properly administer Narcan in addition to appropriate steps to take after administering the medication. Public commentary raised additional issues involving the drug’s potentially high pricing and coverage by insurance companies.

Jessica Husley, executive director of the Addiction Policy Forum, told The New York Times that providing Narcan over