A BIPARTISAN FIX FOR IMMIGRATION (PARTS I & II)

 PART I: THE BROAD CONTEXT OF IMMIGRATION REFORM

“We need comprehensive immigration reform. Dr. King wouldn't be pleased at all to know that there are millions of people living in the shadow, living in fear in places like Georgia and Alabama.”

                                                                        JOHN LEWIS

 In the middle of a southern border immigration crisis and other diversions like the release of the Mueller Report, passing legislation to fix immigration in America is not on the radar of the United States Congress. Many politicians seem to believe that this is not the time to address immigration reform because of the extreme partisan bickering. Moreover, to fix immigration might interfere with the political calculations being made by both major political parties leading up to the 2020 election.

Republicans have labeled Democrats as supporters of open borders.  Democrats claim that Republicans and the President are ignoring immigration law and creating a humanitarian crisis at the border for political advantage.  This commentary will argue that despite the political rhetoric there is no better time than now to initiate a bipartisan fix of our immigration system.  Moreover, there is a middle road that would require some compromise, but would address concerns raised by both Democrats, Republicans and to avoid a veto, the President.

Part I of this commentary will present the components of immigration that require congressional attention. The American immigration system has been broken for decades with multiple year backlogs waiting for processing and millions of undocumented workers.  Now there is a new immediate crisis, well beyond the long standing chronic problems, caused by large numbers of Central Americans seeking refugee and/or asylum status into the United States.

To understand the extent of the issues raised by immigration and to weigh possible solutions, one must first consider the three distinct streams of immigrants seeking to enter the country: economic, family and humanitarian.  After our elected officials determine a revised realistic number for admitting new immigrants, judgements must be made on how to divide that number into these three groups.

First and most important is the economic calculation in a reformed immigration system. Few disagree that there is a need for new immigrants in agriculture, the food industry, health-care, the hospitality industry and construction, on the low-skilled end of our economy, or for professionals in the medical and scientific fields, in high skilled areas. The sensible way forward is to involve prospective employers in identifying the need.  Then the government would conduct studies with local unions and business leaders to determine that the number and type of new immigrant were not putting pressure on local services or hurting domestic workers.

Most experts agree that the economic stream of immigrants should be the largest component of a reformed system.  Anyone with a job and a clean background, who fits into a category of needed workers, should be given an uncomplicated path to work and a well-defined path to citizenship.

 Both New Zealand and Australia have adopted innovative systems of worker immigration that can serve as templates for the United States.  The systems that are effective are designed to change the numbers of immigrants without bureaucratic delay as economic conditions warrant.

The second group of immigrants to consider is the family stream.  Because the benefits of immigrants moving to join family members are less tangible than those who move to fill needed work positions, a different set of criteria is necessary.  The immediate dilemma for Congress to consider is to define what is a family: the nuclear family?; does it include parents?; adult children and siblings?

It is difficult to argue that intact families are good for society.  Moreover, a network of family members is invaluable as a support group, providing skills necessary to assimilate and to provide intra family employment. Over time, family members contribute to the economy.

Lastly, is the humanitarian stream.  In the past, refugees and asylum seekers were a small percentage of American immigrants.  This was due to geography, as most of the world’s refuges live in camps near their respective third world countries. An exception was the resettlement of thousands of Vietnamese following the Vietnam War.

The recent tide of immigrants from Central America seeking to enter the country has changed this reality.  Deteriorating living conditions in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras have compelled many families with small children to risk the dangerous journey north, to our border.  In 2018, 162,000 Central Americans arrived at the U.S. border seeking legal admission.  This year the number has increased dramatically with 92,000 presenting themselves to the border in March of this year.

The two legal pathways available for humanitarian immigrants, refugee status and asylum are inadequate under existing law.  There is a cap for refugee admissions from each region of the world.  For Latin America the cap number is a paltry 1,500.  Under existing law, to apply for asylum, a migrant must only set foot anywhere on U.S. soil, either by legal or illegal entry.  This has encouraged many Central Americans to cross the border illegally and skip the long lines at ports of entry.  They then turn themselves in to border authorities and claim asylum.

 The present crisis at the border is simply the result of outdated and unworkable United States law and regulations.  The recent words of acting Homeland Security Chief, Kevin McAleenan, summarize the refugee/asylum problem: “Without action from Congress, criminals will continue to profit from human misery along our border. It is clear that all of our resources are being stretched thin. The system is full and we are beyond capacity.  We don’t have the room to hold them, we don’t have the authority to remove them, and they are not likely to be able to remain in the country at the end of the immigration proceedings.”

The last issue that must be considered and resolved by Congress is illegal immigration. The illegal population in our country peaked by 2007, when it was at 12.2 million and 4% of the total U.S. population. Billions have been spent to enforce the existing dysfunctional law with little improvement. Similar to prohibition in the 1920s, the war against illegal immigrants spawned an underground economy and criminalized what was otherwise peaceful behavior by those seeking a better life.

Prior to the most recent crisis involving Central American refugees, the overriding immigration issue in America was resolving the fate of young immigrants who had arrived illegally as children, now known as “DREAMers”.  The back and forth political discussion over DREAMer deportation versus a path to citizenship has created a mountain of animosity and no solution.

Part II of this commentary will expand on my original premise that now is the time to fix all aspects of immigration.  I will propose a path forward that could find support in all corners of our political universe.

A BIPARTISAN FIX FOR IMMIGRATION

 PART II: WHY NOW IS THE TIME FOR CONGRESS TO GET DOWN TO

BUSINESS

“Our Nation depends on immigrants’ labor, and I hope we can create an immigration system as dependable as they are.”
Luis Gutierrez

In part I of this commentary the essential elements of the immigration problem were reviewed.  In part II, the recent past history of attempts to reform immigration will be summarized, followed by a proposal for comprehensive overhaul of our immigration system.

President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act into law in 1986. This legislation provided for: legalization of undocumented immigrants who had entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and resided here continuously; required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status; and made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants.  Employers found a loophole in the law by using subcontractors to supply them with workers.  There are now in excess of 12 million new undocumented immigrants living in the United States since the passage of the 1986 legislation.

The next significant step occurred when the “Gang of Eight” in the United States Senate wrote the first draft of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013.  The 9/11 attacks on our country radically changed many of the calculations on immigration and there was now an increased emphasis on security.

 The policies proposed by the Gang of Eight included: a restricted path to citizenship for illegal aliens already in the United States, including “DREAMers”; substantial business immigration reforms focused on reducing backlogs and fast-tracking permanent residence for professionals in the STEM fields; an expanded and improved employment verification system;  and more realistic work visa options for low-skilled workers, including an agricultural worker program.

In June of 2013, the immigration bill passed the Senate with a strong majority- 68-32.  Fourteen Republicans joined the Democrats.  Unfortunately, the anti-immigration Freedom Caucus was too strong in the House of Representatives and no House action was taken on the bill. While not perfect, this bill would have gone a long way to address those policy issues discussed in part I of this commentary.

Since Donald Trump has been in office the outlook for immigration reform appears to have dimmed and conditions at the border have deteriorated.  Trump’s immigration agenda, most notably building a wall, is untenable in Congress.  Not even shutting down the federal government for more than a month gave Trump his funding.  He was forced to declare a national emergency, where most observers feel none exists, to obtain the financial ability to proceed with the wall.

While the wall remains Trump’s central goal, other proposed policies and threats have continued to emanate from the White House.  First, there was the announcement of “zero tolerance” and the separation of migrant children from their parents, before losing them in foster care. This was followed by ultimatums to close the border to all legal commerce; announced policy to withdraw financial aid to those Central American governments that are the genesis of the migration; and an executive action to deploy thousands of U.S. troops to southern Texas.

With all of this partisan disagreement and a national election on the horizon, why do I believe that now is the time for Congress to place immigration reform front and center?  There are three reasons.  First, the President is correct on one important point.  There is a true humanitarian crisis at the border that requires immediate attention. The breaking point has been reached, which should encourage rational debate and compromise.

Second, while the immediate crisis is Central American migration, comprehensive reform would guarantee that the concerns of all political actors would be addressed. The demands of conservatives who want a wall and enhanced security, progressives who want expanded legal immigration along with more humane treatment of illegals, employers who want work programs that meet their needs, individuals with temporary immigration status (TIPS) that have not been renewed and DREAMers who want a path to citizenship can all be accommodated.  Legislation that gives something to all interest groups provides political cover and is good government.

Third, immigration as a topic, encapsulates many of the value conflicts we have in our society. These include hot button topics like security, law breaking, inequality, equal opportunity, nationalism and what it means to be an American. I believe only a global omnibus legislative effort will win over all participants.

So, what is to be done? Below are proposals for each of the areas I pointed out in Part I that must be considered and reformed under new legislation.

The Number of Legal Immigrants Admitted to the Country Each Year.  The one thing that stands out when reviewing immigration systems that work from those like ours, that do not, is flexibility.  Countries that have enacted quota systems that can quickly change along with economic conditions are far more successful.  I would propose an appointed non-partisan immigration commission made up of diverse interest groups to set quotas each year, within wide parameters set by Congress.

The Economic Stream.   In return for more security measures, Republicans should be willing to give agribusiness a revised guest worker program because it favors employers and denies workers a permanent legal status. The conservative worry about taking jobs from able-bodied Americans is not an issue in our full employment economy.  The progressive worry about agri-workers being taken advantage of by under paying employers can be resolved through Labor Department regulations.

The new legislation should improve the “E-Verify” program to allow needed foreign labor access to American employment as needed and wanted. The Trump administration has actually looked favorably on a merit based system for professional immigrants, emulating the Canadian model.  Prospective immigrants are prioritized based on merit and evaluated by a point system.  In Canada, high scoring immigrants are admitted with little delay, giving our neighbor to the north the most educated foreign born population on earth.

The Family Stream. Our dysfunctional system is more liberal with the definition of family based immigration than many countries while being stingy in the number of visas granted for each category.  Many family member applicants qualify and wait 20 years for a visa to open. I propose eliminating siblings and married adult children from the family stream and dramatically increasing the visa numbers for spouses and minor children.  The first part would satisfy the President and conservatives, the later would unite more primary families, a positive for social engineering.  Notably, the number of visas for immigrant family members from throughout North and South Americas should be substantially increased.

The Humanitarian Stream. Prior to 2013, one out of every 100 migrants sought asylum. Now, that number has skyrocketed to one out of every 10. It is time for the Trump administration to stop trying to drive applicants away at the border (it has only increased the number of illegal crossings) and for Democrats to stop blaming the President for a manufactured crisis.

 Any new legislation should appoint more immigration Judges to quickly hear and decide cases. This would reduce bogus claims and not permit asylum seekers to disappear into the underground economy while waiting years for a court date.  Funds should be allocated to update the antiquated paper based immigration court system. Mexico should be pressed to control its southern border.  Rather than cut financial aid to the involved Central American countries, increase it to help stem the physical violence and improve economic conditions.

Illegal Immigrants. Lastly, what is to be done with illegal immigrants already in the country?  This issue has been a major obstacle in prior efforts to reform immigration policy.  Satisfying the needs of DREAMers has become a major political issue for Democrats.  Providing enhanced security to prevent future illegals from crossing the border is a primary campaign issue for President Trump and his base. 

The formulae to break this logjam is not difficult.  The obvious compromise has been close to becoming a done deal on several occasions. Trump should be given a portion of his wall funding and DREAMers should be awarded a rational path to citizenship.

It is time to put politics aside and to make 2019’s immigration crisis a focus to finally pass comprehensive immigration reform.  This will not be easy, but it is what responsible elected officials do in times of crisis.