Dr. Martin Luther King is inarguably one of the most well-known historical figures in American history, having accomplished a number of social justice accomplishments and furthering racial relations within the nation to a formerly unbelievable extent. However, due to the polarization of race and politics in the United States in the last several decades, the figure of King seems to be rooted in deep opposition to the policies and approach to social issues associated with the Trump Administration. However, upon analysis of both King’s personal beliefs on immigration and by understanding his colleague’s understanding of the matter, one can construct a general thesis that King would have likely held to.

Mass immigration from any countries results in undeniably negative economic effects. In the face of mass immigration, coupled with excessive diversity-requiring mandates such as Affirmative action, native-born workers are faced with the dilemma of accepting either lower pay or not working in the field at all. Labor economists have concluded that undocumented workers have lowered the wages of U.S. adults without a high-school diploma — 25 million of them — by anywhere between 0.4 to 7.4 percent. In lieu of this information, King understood that immigration resulted in the usurpation of jobs that many black citizens could – and according to many activists, should – be working instead.

One effect of illegal immigration on the black community in particular is the disproportionate impact of the amount of jobs that are filled by migrants rather than blacks. One view argues that because the government has historically failed to rectify internal turmoil in the black community, illegal immigration inevitably results in jobs being taken away from blacks, and the federal body of the United States does not care enough to do anything about it.

Cesar Chavez was an American labor leader and civil rights activists who assisted in the founding of the National Farm Workers Association (later the United Farm Workers union [UFW]) in 1962. King and Chavez were good friends, and supported on another in each other’s endeavors. Interestingly, Chavez was an anti-open borders activist as well, and the pair of activists articulately understood the importance of limiting immigration in order to serve the best interest of the not-so-fortunate American citizens. In 1973, the UFW set up a “wet line” along the United States-Mexican border to prevent immigrants from entering the United States illegally.

Both King and his successor Rev. Ralph Abernathy were openly against open immigration policies, and Anthony marched against the concept in 1969 alongside Chavez and the still-living Walter Mondale, the 42nd Vice President of the United Sates and previous Senator of Minnesota.

King’s lawyer and top adviser, Clarence B. Jonesstated, “I find it offensive and insulting when you wave Mexican and Salvadoran flags and compare yourself to civil rights demonstrators – black American citizens – who were denied their inalienable rights as Americans… entirely because of their skin color.” The concept of progressive intersectionality was barely known at this time in history, and as such, the issue of racism in the 20th century was not understood to be connected in any way to illegal immigration. Such a position is impossible to imagine among Democratic politicans or leftist thinkers today, due to the neo-Marxist, Derrida-dueled influence on social issues today.

Even after King’s death, his wife Coretta, alongside the NAACP in 1990, begged Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to refrain from proceeding with a plan to gut prohibtions on “illegal-alien hiring,” and was successful in convincing the Republican politican.

Democratic representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) suggested yesterday that MLK would have fought to impeach President Donald J. Trump, were he alive today. “Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have encouraged every responsible human being to march for justice, to march for peace, and most of all, to march for the impeachment of Donald Trump.”

In light of King’s thoughts on topics such as open immigration policies, such an idea is preposterous.

King would have understood and sympathized with the negative economic and social effects accompanied by unrestrained illegal immigration into the United States, as such phenomena inevitably results in a particularly harmful way to the black community. As we ponder about the social rights activists and his influence on the world today, we must paint the minister’s picture in a proper light.