This post was originally published on ILW.com, a leading immigration online law publisher, on July 3, 2012.
What are we going to do about U.S. immigration policy? That question is back in the spotlight again after a whirlwind two weeks for the issue. First, the Obama Administration announced that it would end the deportations of undocumented young people who would be eligible for relief under the DREAM Act. Then, last week, the Supreme Court struck down three of four key elements of the controversial anti-immigrant law passed in 2010 by the state of Arizona.
Both of these developments are significant steps in the right direction – but they rightly beg the question: How do we really go about fixing the problem we have when it comes to U.S. immigration policy? What is needed is a comprehensive approach to immigration reform that is based in fairness, facts, and a shared future.
These three concepts aren’t just nice words – they mean something.
Immigration reform should be fair: We need to address the needs of the country while allowing for discretion toward the individual, and to strive for equity in spirit and execution.
Immigration reform should be based in facts: Overheated hyperbole, stereotypes, and uncorroborated statements won’t get us anywhere and only inject more division. We need to seek vetted, well-researched and relevant information that can move us toward an unbiased, balanced solution.
Immigration reform should promote our shared future: Decisions we make will have long-term consequences for individuals, families, communities, and who we are as a nation. We must seek solutions that embrace our identity as a nation with a long tradition of welcoming immigrants.
NAFSA: Association of International Educators has been engaged in the debate on comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) for many years, for three simple reasons:
- A comprehensive bill is the most likely vehicle for the provisions involving high-skilled immigration which most concern our members.
- The current dysfunctional immigration regime places limits on our ability to maintain a dynamic system of educational and scholarly exchange.
- Our immigration system is an important part of the face that the United States presents to the world. In short, if we are viewed as an unwelcoming, suspicious country, talented people will be less and less inclined to come here.
The bottom line is this: In an era of global mobility, how can the United States attract the best international students and scholars if our immigration system is stuck in the pre-global age and our immigration debate too often screams anti-foreign sentiment?
While there is no authoritative definition of CIR, it is useful to think of it as consisting of three primary pillars:
- Enforcement—sometimes divided into border security and interior enforcement.
- Visa reform broadly—including employment-based visas—based on levels of skill and agricultural employment, plus family-based immigration.
- The undocumented—resolution of the status of some 11 million undocumented people living in the United States.
Because of the politics surrounding the issue, Congress has been able to act on only one of these elements: enforcement. It has been willing to devote extraordinary resources to fortifying the southwest border and deporting illegal immigrants, with some success. But even leaving aside the question of whether the benefits produced by border security are worth the enormous costs, the effort is ultimately doomed unless we recognize the link between border security and visa reform, as well as the status of undocumented immigrants.
Indeed, the three pillars above are inextricably related. Tweaking one part generally affects other parts. And the various pieces of the system are of concern to different constituencies – making it difficult to impossible to put together a coalition to enact a policy to address one issue while ignoring the concerns of another constituency. At the end of the day, the political calculus is: If your issue gets resolved with my support, how am I to trust that you will be there when I need support to resolve my issue?
This is why the well-intended band-aids recently introduced in Congress will not fix the underlying problems. These kinds of bills are unlikely to pass – each one that is introduced attracts various constituencies that attach their particular issues, thus making the bill less coherent and viable. A proactive, comprehensive approach is needed that looks holistically at the interrelated issues and considers both present concerns and future needs the immigration system will need to accommodate.
Bringing about comprehensive immigration reform will require a sustained, collaborative effort – this isn’t going to be a quick fix. Complex problems require complex solutions. We must keep our eye on the ball and focus on what’s fair, what’s based in facts, and what sets us on a path toward a shared future.
Speaking of facts, NAFSA is releasing today a summary of common misconceptions that surround the immigration debate. By sharing resources and perspectives, we aim to help shed some light, rather than heat, on the subject. We’ve got enough heat to last us the rest of summer.
Similar issues in Australia, absolute politicisation of immigration, and any directly or indirectly related negative issues or proxies, are constantly amplified by well organised anti immigration or simply racist lobbies, with media and politicians being complicit too.
In Australia it has now become seemingly “politically incorrect” to be sympathetic to immigration, international education, refugees, population growth, temporary workers, values not shared, identity being diluted etc. etc. Good example here http://theconversation.edu.au/new-migration-council-to-fight-for-a-bigger-australia-7895
Plus one of my rants about thinly veiled racism by politicians, media etc. impacting international education http://aiecquest.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/outlook-for-australian-international-education-student-visa-immigration/
Recently, a university head finally spoke out about the fact that the international education sector needs to educate the Australian public if it is to prosper, if not, the sector will become “political road kill”.
Legalizing illegal aliens is not a solution to illegal immigration — it will only lead to more illegal immigration. We already know this is true since the 1986 amnesty resulted in more illegal immigration; the U.S. sent the message around the world that people no longer had to go through the legal process to achieve legal status. Doing it again would be a huge and silly mistake.
The enforcement proposal is the only thing both sides of the debate agree with, so let’s start there. Enforcement now and maybe we can talk about a small amnesty in the future. Otherwise, we know the enforcement will never happen. Look again at the 1986 “comprehensive bill.” That bill made it illegal to hire illegal aliens and started what today is known as E-Verify. Yet supporters of that comprehensive bill are still trying to undermine E-Verify and workplace enforcement. They cannot be trusted.
Enforcement now. It’s the only answer to getting immigration under control.
Comprehensive immigration reform cannot fail to address the undocumented population living in the United States. Deportation of the estimated 11 million estimated individuals would require billions of dollars, which would be another huge burden on taxpayers. Providing a path for undocumented individuals living in the United States to establish legal residency in the United States is a more economical way to address the issue. According to the Congressional Budget office, passage of legislation like the DREAM Act could even decrease the federal deficit by as much as “$2.2 billion over 10 years because of increased tax revenues.”(Read more at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/12/ten-ways-immigrants-help-build-and-strengthen-our-economy). And as proposals like the DREAM Act prove, providing a means for undocumented workers to become official, contributing members of the U.S. economy does not have to mean amnesty; there can be requirements and controls placed on just who stands to benefit from the process.
If Congress focused on comprehensive immigration reform, which is exactly what Ms. Stewart champions above, legalizing the undocumented population currently in the U.S. wouldn’t necessarily lead to de facto increases in illegal immigration. Individuals generally risk coming illegally to the United States out of economic necessity; reports already show that due to current economic trends and stricter enforcement, illegal immigration fell during the period from 2005 to 2009 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090106940.html). New legislation could provide more channels for less skilled laborers to work legally in the U.S. for short periods during times of high demand within the U.S. economy, so that individuals could come to the United States to work temporarily and then return home. If individuals seeking to work in the United States had a more simplified and legal means to come and go, there is hope that immigration would not have to continue to be such a divisive and unsavory issue in the future.
All in all, as Ms. Stewart argues, there is the importance of providing for a “shared future.” Americans shouldn’t be so quick to view immigration reform as a debate over who should benefit: them OR us. There is a brighter path to follow that would provide benefit for both them AND us.
Just read through NAFSA’s “summary of misconceptions” and wow there are some whoppers! Anyone who believes “the border is secure” is woefully uninformed. There are millions of drug smugglers and human traffickers who know the border remains wide open.
You should probably update your numbers, too. The last “truth” claimed is that the DREAM Act would only benefit 50,000 illegal immigrants. But the Obama administration claims that it’s new “DREAM” plan would benefit 800,000 illegal immigrants — and that’s an understatement according to the Pew Hispanic Center which puts the number at 1.4 million.
All of your responses to alleged “misconceptions” are themselves misconceptions.
Great post, Heather. We as a nation have a lot of challenges ahead and I agree that the fact-based element of comprehensive immigration reform is one of the most crucial. In response to some of the comments above, no one on either side is advocating for amnesty. Amnesty is a pardon, or forgiveness without punishment. All proposed paths to citizenship include fines, back taxes, background checks and extensive processes to be completed by those who seek it.
As far as the number of people that would be affected by the DREAM Act, when you examine the context of the numbers in different reports, you’ll notice that they refer to different segments of the population of undocumented immigrants.
-1.4 million is the most recent estimate of undocumented young people who *may* eventually benefit from the DREAM Act if it passed: 700,000 who are between the ages of 18-30, were brought here as children and are currently enrolled in school or have graduated from high school; and 700,000 who are under the age of 18 and currently enrolled in school.
-800,000 is the number of undocumented young people (under 30 and came to the U.S. before the age of 16) who are eligible for the Obama Administration’s most recent Deferred Action Process Policy.
-360,000 is the estimated number of undocumented high school graduates, aged 18-24, who would be eligible for *conditional* legal status if the DREAM Act were passed.
- 50,000 is the estimated number of undocumented students who are enrolled in colleges and universities across the U.S. and are therefore likely to be eligible for adjustment to their *permanent* status, again, if the DREAM Act passed.
With our accelerated access to media today, it can be difficult to be meticulous information consumers, but it’s important that we make an effort to understand just what some of the reported numbers and proposed solutions really mean.
That being said, one of the biggest difficulties is obtaining accurate estimations of undocumented populations as there are millions of people living in shadows and in a status-limbo that, in the DREAMers case, they may have had no control over as a child.
The NAFSA Public Policy team does it again. I can’t agree with this article enough. It lays out in very specific terms the very difficult prospects that congress and our country have to resolve. CIR needs a real coordinated effort from many agencies to be done the right way.
1.Enforcement—sure we need border security.
2.Broad Visa reform —employment-based visas and family-based immigration
3.The undocumented—more than11 million people need a resolution of their status in the USA.
We understand that there is no quick fixes, but we also do nto want any band-aid solutions. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue, it is an American and human rights issue. I hope that as a country we can once again live up to the words etched on the statue of Liberty!
[...] Shedding More Light, Less Heat, on Comprehensive Immigration Reform(nafsa.org) [...]
There is no easy fix for this. I lived in North County San Diego for some time and there are a good number of illegal immigrants, some living in the bushes, or several families to one home and getting some work as they could. They appear to be hard working and want a better life for themselves and family.
When this includes children here illegally, this compounds the problem, as they need schooling and proper care, which would be hard in the bush, or when people are hiding from authorities.
Border security – People do manage to slip their way thru to the U.S. It would be a place to start, but the enormity of care, sorting who goes back & who stays, who is going to pay for this and just general enforcement is staggering.
“Immigration reform should be fair: We need to address the needs of the country while allowing for discretion toward the individual, and to strive for equity in spirit and execution”.
There are various anti immigration and anti population growth advocates working in unison, as most, if not all, are connected. The same goes for Australia where they access mainstream media and lobby government under the guise of concern for the environment and sustainability, while creating alarmist soundbites e.g. “runaway population growth”, “carrying capacity”, describing temporary e.g. students as “immigrants” etc..
The objective is to stop or limit non European immigration and in the case of Australia (plus UK), is to have caps placed upon net overseas migration of which over half are international students, temporary workers and working holiday visa makers.
However, much if not most of their claims have no grounding let alone evidence, but have resonance amongst bigots and also appealing to many progressives.
Fox News Latino has reported about the same:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2013/02/18/as-immigration-debate-heats-up-keep-out-extremists/