|
The U.S.
Senate is in
the midst of
a raucous
debate on an
issue that
the U.S.
Congress
avoids until
it has
absolutely
no choice
but engage
it —
reforming
the nation’s
immigration
laws.
The
legislative
vehicle is a
lucid if
imperfect
bipartisan
compromise
negotiated
painstakingly
over countless
hours of
face-to-face
meetings and has
been denounced
by both
extremes.
The
proposed bill is
a radical
departure from
the present
system, put into
place over 40
years ago — a
vastly different
political and
economic era. It
challenges
Democrats and
their allies by
giving them
their number one
immigration
reform goal: a
legalization
program that
offers virtually
every illegally
resident person
who was here on
January 1, 2007,
a nearly
automatic
temporary work
permit lasting
for 1 months and
the opportunity
to gain
permanent legal
status (a “green
card”) between
eight and 13
years later.
In
the interim,
between three
and four million
relatives of
U.S. citizens
and permanent
residents who
had been
languishing on
massive waiting
lists would get
their green
cards — hence
honoring the
political mantra
that legalizing
immigrants would
have to wait
their turn for
green cards
until the
infamous “queue”
empties out.
In
return — a
“trade off” to
many serious
advocates but a
“Faustian
bargain,” and
worse, to many
of the
Democratic
party’s more
unyielding
constituencies —
enforcement
would be
ratcheted up
enormously and
family
relationships
beyond the
nuclear families
of U.S. citizens
and U.S.
permanent
residents
(albeit in
highly
restricted ways)
would no longer
gain automatic
if greatly
delayed access
to green cards.
Instead, such
relatives would
need to
negotiate
successfully a
points-based
merit system
that awards
permanent status
only to those
with the “right”
occupational
characteristics,
significant
labor market
experience and
connections in
the U.S.,
education, and
English. Only if
applicants earn
55 out of 100
possible points
can they gain
access to up to
10 bonus points
for their family
ties.
Finally,
Democrats and a
variety of
stakeholders are
asked to agree
to several
temporary worker
programs mostly
for low
skill/wage work
in
configurations
intended to
prevent them
from developing
roots in the
U.S. and
explicitly
prohibit them
from gaining
green cards
automatically —
unless, of
course, they can
earn their way
to such status
through the
points based
system.
If
the Senate bill
presents a
fundamental
challenge to
Democrats, its
Republican
authors face a
much uglier
challenge: a
total and loud
renunciation by
some of their
colleagues and
the more extreme
wing of the
party’s
chattering
class. Those
ideologues’
brightest line
in this debate —
“no amnesty” —
has been
breached in the
fullest and most
direct way.
Vigorous
explanations by
those who are
committed to the
bill’s approach,
which includes
the President,
that the bill is
not an amnesty
is merely
throwing fuel to
an already
raging fire.
So,
how should
reasonable
people
regardless of
party
affiliation
think of this
bill? First,
the compromise
bill has a deep
inner logic and
meets a crucial
political
requirement —
mainly, that
only a
bipartisan bill
that “draws some
blood” from both
sides can pass
this or
virtually any
Congress absent
some truly
dramatic
political
realignment.
Second, the bill
gets many more
things right
than it gets
wrong. Foremost
among the things
it gets right is
that
legalization is
just as the
President says:
an imperfect but
pragmatic
response to a
problem that is
simply too
massive and too
imbedded into
our society and
economy to
address with the
musings of the
“just say no”
crowd. But this
bill gets a
whole raft of
other good
governance ideas
essentially
right — most
notably, by
reflecting the
key lessons from
the 1996
legislation that
all sides
criticize so
fluently.
•
Enforcement is front and center. In fact, by requiring that a
variety of very
robust triggers
be in place
before
legalization
commences, and
considering the
massive control
and enforcement
efforts already
in place, the
demand of so
many Americans
and Republican
legislators that
enforcement
precede
legalization is
being met —
period.
•
The legalization date is virtually current and the program’s
initial
requirements are
clear and
intended to get
full
participation.
That means that,
taken together
with the
enforcement
build up, there
will be no
nucleus of
illegally
resident persons
left behind
around whom the
next wave of
illegal flows
will be built.
It also means
that by thus
reducing the
proverbial
haystack of the
unauthorized,
the government
can deploy its
resources to
finding the
“needles” that
should be of
concern to us
all.
•
Finally, the bill widens and deepens the channels for legal
immigration
dramatically —
and in line with
most estimates
of the size of
the “demand” for
new workers.
Does this all
mean that this
is the exact
bill that can
take us to the
promised land of
good public
policy and
better
governance? Not
really. The
bill’s blemishes
are many and
they will need
to be fixed
through
amendments and
in the
negotiations
with the House
of
Representatives.
Three areas are
in need of
particular
attention.
First, the point
system is
inflexible —
thus missing a
key reason why
point systems
are being
adopted by so
many high and
even middle
income
countries. As
conceived, it
cannot be
changed for at
least five years
after it
takes effect,
virtually eons
in the fast
changing U.S.
(and global)
economy. This
means that some
of those who
meet the points
requirements
will not meet
true labor
market needs.
Furthermore,
the bill takes
away from U.S.
employers the
ability to
attract the best
workers anywhere
by offering them
a U.S. green
card at a time
where the
competition for
the most skilled
and talented is
becoming
intense. Why
hobble our most
competitive
firms when one
of the proposed
bill’s basic
thrusts is to
align our
immigration
system better
with our
economic
interests?
Second, some of
the restrictions
on family go
beyond the
stated aim of
reducing chain
migration and
contravene most
common sense
principles of
fairness and
family unity —
even if they are
in the bill
primarily in
order to be
traded for other
things. To stand
on principle on
this issue,
Republicans must
do two things.
Allow amendments
that will
support the
unification of
nuclear
families,
period. That
means that green
card holders
must be able to
bring their
spouses and
minor children
with them or
reunify with
them after the
fact. This makes
sense
demographically
(we will need
their youth)
while avoiding
starting a new
backlog of those
whose (re)unification
is most
consistent with
what we stand
for when we
speak of family
values. In
addition, family
relationships
must be given
more points in
the point system
while the
attributes they
bring — hard
work and
entrepreneurship
— are properly
recognized.
The
final area that
needs fixing,
the proposed
temporary
program, will
need help from
both sides of
the aisle.
Democrats should
stop trying to
kill it or
relegate it to
numerical
insignificance.
It is an
essential part
of overall
reform if we do
not want to have
another ugly
standoff about
immigration a
few years from
now. They
should focus
instead on the
terms and
conditions under
which these
workers will be
employed and on
making the point
system
“friendlier” to
them.
Republicans, in
turn, should
drop their
“temporary is
temporary”
mantra.
The
objective of
reform must
remain focused
on legality,
order and
competitiveness
— and those who
play by the
rules and can
demonstrate that
they can make
long term
contributions to
our country
should be
allowed to earn
their way to
green cards
through a more
thoughtful
allocation of
points.
RF
Dr. Demetrios G.
Papademetriou is
co-founder and
President of the
Migration Policy
Institute, a
Washington-based
think tank
dedicated
exclusively to
the study of
international
migration.
|
