Originally published on the CGS blog on February 4, 2015.
A few weeks ago, House Republicans passed a bill that, along with providing more funding for the Department of Homeland Security, could reverse Obama’s recent executive order providing amnesty for millions and lead to the deportation of many undocumented immigrants. Regardless of which side of the constitution you are on, this seems more like immigration refusal than reform. But do we even know what real immigration reform would look like?
To be honest, I don’t know much about immigration. While I live in California, which has more immigrants than any other state, I am not am immigrant. My parents are not immigrants. Sure, I know the rhetoric (from both sides of the political spectrum) about the problem of illegal immigration, but I never knew enough to feel comfortable talking about the issue, let alone analyzing policy. Recently, however, I’ve begun taking a class on immigration, and while (spoiler alert) I still don’t know much—we’ve only had three lectures—I wanted to write something applying what I’ve learned so far.
One more spoiler alert: there is too much to be said about immigration for any one blog post to do it justice. The point of this one is to give some quick facts, leave some food for thought, and call it a day. If you think I missed something, you’re probably right, but please don’t mistake my brevity for bias; I just want to get everyone thinking about an important issue, no matter which side you are on.
For a quick “immigration-for-dummies” version of Obama’s executive action last year, along with some other facts about immigration, I found this Washington Post article to be quite helpful. The main thing to remember is that the order gives amnesty to “undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who’ve resided in the country for at least five years,” while also expanding the qualifications for who can apply for a deportation deferral.
While for many this is a much better step forward than what the Republicans are offering, it isn’t reform either. “Reform” literally means “the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.” Though this temporary solution might be the right (and only) option right now, it doesn’t make any changes to the structural problems within the current system.
In fact, as Tina Griego argues, the current system actually encourages illegal immigration by setting up levels upon levels of bureaucracy that extend the “line” for coming into the country and give people more reasons than not to skip the process entirely.
Ours is a system of many legal detours, cul-de-sacs and dead-ends. A straight path is hard to come by.
Reform is important, then. But what are the right reforms to make?
Some say we should close our borders. Ignoring how hard this policy is in practice, let alone the moral arguments against it, let’s just focus on the economics. These close-border advocates often paint immigration as a drain on our resources – taking away jobs from citizens, using welfare and public assistance, etc. And yet, much research shows the benefit of immigration, legal or illegal: they take the jobs we don’t want, and sometimes even drive wage growth. As capitalist theory predicts, moreover, the market will adapt to this increase in labor and firms can grow. In fact, where crackdowns on immigration have been particularly tough, many employers have been struggling to find workers. For once, capitalism seems to be on the side of the proletariat.
Others say we should open our borders completely, simply on the grounds of morality. If we believe everyone to be equal and have the same rights, how can we restrict something like migration? How can we separate families? And if there are jobs to be filled, who’s to say which of us can take them? There is also the issue of refugees, which hasn’t been addressed in this post at all, but falls completely under this moral ground as well.
Within this vein of the argument, there are those who argue that borders are irrelevant – we are all global citizens, are we not? I can’t disagree with this point. So many of the world’s problems become everyone’s problems – climate change, terrorism, trade – regardless of territorial lines. Why is human movement thought to be immune to these trends?
I still don’t know what “immigration reform” is exactly. My economic side sees the benefit to a more efficient bureaucratic process that has some restrictions but still enables movement; my moral side sees the lack of humanity in blocking someone from a better life for any reason.
I still don’t know what “immigration reform” is, but I’ll let you know when I find out. (Hopefully, Congress beats me to it.)
