Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Posted by Freddie on April 23, 2007 under Uncategorized |

As Sam Quinones mentioned last week in our interview with him, “comprehensive immigration reform” is a loaded term, much like many of the other political footballs tossed around in perpetuity in our national political dialogue. Toward the end of the year, Foreign Affairs published the best article I’ve yet seen on what exactly is meant by comprehensive immigration reform.

Let’s look at the summary, and then I’ll highlight a few excerpts. Comprehensive immigration reform comprises three principle elements:

• more immigrant worker visas
• tougher and more effective enforcement
• a one-time transitional measure that allows the illegal immigrants already here to earn their way out of the shadows

Note that enforcement is in there. It’s just not the only thing that’s in there. And instead of mass deportation, there is deference given to the level of demand that exists in the American economy in the form of a guest worker program in combination with a transitional measure. Certainly, those two items are tied up in the controversy surrounding this debate. But they shouldn’t be. And Tamar Jacoby, the author of the piece, lucidly explains why.

Ms. Jacoby did the legwork on this piece, which I think is spot on, so let me defer to her words:

In fact, the nation is far less divided on immigration, legal or illegal, than the current debate suggests. In the last six months, virtually every major media outlet has surveyed public attitudes on the issue, and the results have been remarkably consistent. Americans continue to take pride in the United States’ heritage as a nation of immigrants. Many are uneasy about the current influx of foreigners. But an overwhelming majority — between two-thirds and three-quarters in every major poll — would like to see Congress address the problem with a combination of tougher enforcement and earned citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already living and working here. A strange-bedfellow coalition — of business associations, labor unions, and the Catholic Church, among others — has endorsed this position. In Washington, the consensus behind it is even more striking, with supporters spanning the spectrum from conservative President George W. Bush to left-leaning Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), from mavericks like Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) to party regulars like Senator Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and all but a handful of congressional Democrats.

Congress’ failure to act is largely a product of political circumstances. The high-stakes midterm elections in November put an unusual premium on the opinions of the 20-25 percent of voters who depart from the emerging national consensus. Mostly male, white, and lacking college degrees, these naysayers believe immigrants are bad for the economy; they want to build a wall along the southern border and adamantly oppose allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens. Only about half are Republicans, and they account for no more than a quarter of the GOP. But many Republicans in Congress, particularly in the House, are convinced that this group is more intense — more concerned, more motivated, more likely to vote on the basis of this single issue — than anyone else likely to go to the polls. So the naysayers have become the tail wagging the dog of the immigration debate…

The term of art for what the consensus favors is “comprehensive immigration reform.” But the shared understanding is far more than a grab bag or a horse traders’ deal with a little something for everyone. The president and Senator Kennedy, for example, are both convinced that far from being a threat or a crisis, immigration is a boon to the United States — that the newcomers bring a welcome vitality, and that openness and optimism are a critical part of the nation’s character. Neither man sees danger in the growing role immigrants play in the economy; both see today’s influx as a force to be harnessed for the United States’ benefit. And although troubled by the illegality currently associated with immigration, both believe that reform must go beyond reasserting existing law in the face of lawlessness. Any effective overhaul must also bring the immigration system more into line with the changing realities of a global world.

But here’s the kicker:

This, then, is the essential architecture of comprehensive reform: more immigrant worker visas, tougher and more effective enforcement, and a one-time transitional measure that allows the illegal immigrants already here to earn their way out of the shadows. Together, these three elements add up to a blueprint, not a policy, and many questions and disagreements remain. But on one thing everyone who shares the vision agrees: all three elements are necessary, and all three must be implemented together if the overhaul is to be successful. Think of them as the three moving parts of a single engine. There is no tradeoff between enforcement and legalization or between enforcement and higher visa limits. On the contrary, just as enforcement is pointless if the law is unrealistic, so even the best crafted of laws will accomplish little if it has no teeth, and neither one will work unless the ground is prepared properly.

The above are highlighted excerpts, broad brushstrokes. The whole article, which contains plenty of compelling facts and evidence, is well worth a read.