I’m Done with Comprehensive: How About Humane Immigration Reform?

As I’ve watched the latest comprehensive immigration reform debate play out in Congress and in the media, I’ve grown more disenchanted by what I’ve heard. Or, more to the point, what I haven’t heard, and what that means for activists and allies. This essay is an attempt to work through some of what’s missing in our national discourse, and get at how we – advocates, activists, allies, and communities – can develop something better.

Introduction

There are two basic levels on which the debate over immigration reform operates: policy and paradigm. The level of policy is more or less where we’ve confined our debates in Congress and in public since the early 20th century, and it seeks to answer a valid question: what should the United States’ reaction be to people who migrate to this country?

At the same time, though, there’s a debate we’ve steadfastly avoided having, by ignoring the underlying philosophical question: what are the social, political, and economic circumstances which bring immigrants to the United States, and in what ways have our policies driven immigration?[1]

My hope for immigration reform is a paradigm shift. I don’t want to give the appearance of being too optimistic, mind you: I have precisely zero faith in the ability of Congress to push this debate in a different direction. My hope and my goal is that as communities, advocates, and allies we can move away from a myopic focus on effects, and move to an honest discussion of root causes.

That’s not to say that I don’t have policy goals, which are really low-hanging fruit which have been analyzed in depth elsewhere: quick and easy legalization for all folks who are currently undocumented (without any of the double taxation, travel restrictions, and lack of access to the social safety net currently being hailed in Washington as “sensible” reforms), a humane reform of our agricultural and guest-worker programs to give everyone a fair shot at citizenship, and a concerted look at how we can streamline the asylum and refugee processes.

But the policies we adopt are ultimately the concrete reflection of our principles, given the force of law. The principles which we’ve entrenched in the immigration system of today are logically and morally tortured, and it’s time to take a different tack.

The Myth of Agency, root causes, and symptomatic treatment

 One of the foundations on which our immigration system is built could be called the Myth of Agency. It’s the notion that immigrants actively and affirmatively choose to come to the United States, absent any external influence. We need to deconstruct and move away from the myth: although every immigrant may at some point make a conscious decision to migrate to the United States, those decisions are made at the intersection of a dizzying array of power relations (e.g. race, class, ethnicity, history, political reality, the exigencies of war, famine, just to name a few), which we can’t in good faith ignore. Unless we work to understand the root causes of immigration, we are destined to have this debate every five or ten years in perpetuity.

Let’s look at a clear example, the effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on Mexican immigration to the US. First, a general comment: free trade agreements have certainly boosted profits for corporations which have gained access to new markets. Unfortunately, they’ve done nothing to boost our own economy, and have wreaked havoc on labor, employment, and economic growth worldwide. The profit-at-all-costs mentality is effectively an economic suicide pact, with an empirically demonstrable effect on international migration.

After NAFTA went into effect in 1994, the sudden elimination of barriers to imports and exports of American produce was devastating to Mexican agriculture. Undersold by agricultural conglomerates, local farmers were effectively priced out of their own markets, and agricultural unemployment in Mexico skyrocketed. With a lack of available work, thousands of folks migrated north in search of some semblance of stability and security for their families and communities.[2] The public and political narrative, though, developed as if Mexico’s rural farming communities suddenly decided to uproot their lives and migrate to the United States, without any kind of pressure pushing or pulling them.

Criminalization and the Era of Detentions

Unfortunately, a discussion of the root causes of immigration hasn’t made its way into the political sphere, and our elected officials and public personalities have focused, nationally and state-by-state – as well as in the current debate over comprehensive immigration reform – on so-called “enforcement,” which is often a euphemism for the wholesale criminalization of immigrants. Focusing on enforcement is both short-sighted and dehumanizing. It effectively blames immigrants for coming to the United States and works to make the country as inhospitable as possible for those who do migrate here.

From E-Verify & ICE raids to a border strategy which forces immigrants into more dangerous crossings, the enforcement approach ignores the United States’ complicity in creating the conditions for migration to this country, and quietly avoids recognizing our government’s history of fostering war, famine, instability, and economic collapse all over the world. Our government has created the conditions for folks to immigrate to the United States, and then has the gall to blame those immigrants for coming here.

It’s not just federal action which pushes enforcement at all costs. The American Legislative Exchange Council has been enormously successful in pushing “Arizona-style” laws all over the country, and while the Supreme Court may have dismantled some of the more draconian provisions, “Show Me Your Papers” is still in full force in many states. Under Secure Communities and 287(g) agreements, local law enforcement has been deputized to execute immigration laws. As has been seen all over the country, this collaboration creates the perfect conditions for racial, ethnic, and religious profiling, and has eroded communities’ trust in law enforcement.

And let me be very clear that the Era of Detentions isn’t just a Republican phenomenon. Barack Obama ran in part on the promise of immigration reform and a change from Bush-era detention policies; in reality, his administration has deported more people in four years than any previous president, kicking more than one million people out of the United States, while ramping up every enforcement program designed under Bush. I’d offer that he may be the worst president we’ve had on immigration issues since Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

Solutions

What’s the solution, and where do we start? We have to redesign our immigration system to focus on people. Not people as abstract units of labor power or as targets for enforcement, but as human beings. Call it Humane Immigration Reform: a package of policies which acknowledges and works to correct the underlying causes of immigration to the United States, while working to help folks who immigrate to the US to thrive here. There are dozens of different directions we could go, but here are some easily-identifiable targets:

  • Immediately abolish free trade agreements to which the US is a signatory (to effect the biggest impact, we can start with NAFTA and CAFTA-DR). The impact of “free trade” on local economies and immigration waves has been analyzed at length by literally hundreds of scholars, and the so-called benefits don’t justify the harms.
  • Provide an easy, quick pathway to regularization and citizenship for all folks who are currently undocumented. Making the system difficult, expensive, or by placing long time periods on eligibility is prima facie punitive, and accomplishes no rational, logical, or moral objective.
  • Abolish the immigration quota system, both for countries and visa categories. In our current system, we impose arbitrary caps on who can get visas, and from where. To give an example, we issue 10,000 U visas a year to undocumented victims of sexual or domestic violence; demand far outpaces supply, and thousands every year are denied a lifeline out of violence. For countries which send a high number of folks to the US, country-based quotes are totally inadequate, as well.
  • Streamline the administrative system underpinning immigration by hiring more judges, more attorneys, and more staff, to make the process itself quicker, easier, and less expensive. The backlog of visa applications and the relative difficulty in being admitted to the United States is symptomatic of a tremendously inefficient, understaffed system. We should also work to increase transparency in the immigration courts, which have historically operated in a poorly-overseen vacuum.
  • Dismantle all collaboration policies between local law enforcement and Immigration & Customs Enforcement, and work to end profiling in law enforcement.
  • End the privatization of immigration detentions. Corrections Corporation of America, often a villain in the criminal justice arena, has made quite a bit of money operating immigration detention facilities, which creates a perverse incentive for more detentions..
  • Give all immigrants & refugees access to the social safety net, education, and employment opportunities. Again, to deny immigrants access to scholarships, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, nutrition assistance, Medicaid, etc. is simply punitive, and rejects the reality that these folks are part of our social contract (if not through living here and contributing to our communities, then perhaps by paying billions per year in taxes).

And to truly achieve better, more humane principles, we have to ensure that the work of reforming immigration is led by the folks most impacted. The most disastrous reality of the immigration debate is that, at virtually every level, immigrants & refugees are treated not as people, but as labor and/or political commodities. Even essays like this one run the risk of talking around, over, or for immigrants & refugees, all the while treating people and communities as abstracts. I’ve got a soft spot for white citizen allies – I am one, after all – but we’ve got to take a supportive role on immigration issues: we’re ultimately not affected by the work we do.

I’m concerned that, as we get farther down the path to “comprehensive” reform over the next year, we’ll be forced to be defensive and responsive. Instead of working to affirmatively further alternative proposals for immigration reform, we’re forced to respond to whatever it is that Congress is entertaining themselves with for the moment. It’s great political theater – and certainly generates a flood of campaign contributions from every angle – but it doesn’t do a lot for our communities.

We can do better.


[1] This question may sound like I believe that we should reduce or eliminate immigration, which is absolutely not the case.

[2] There’s an incredible wealth of literature focusing on free trade agreements’ impacts on local agriculture. For two well-analyzed sources, I recommend Acevedo & Espenshade’s prescient “Implications of a North American Free Trade Agreement for Mexican Migration into the United States,” Population and Development Review 18, no. 4 (1992), and McCarty’s “The Impact of NAFTA on Rural Children & Families in Mexico,” Journal of Public Child Welfare 1, no. 4 (2007).

3 responses to “I’m Done with Comprehensive: How About Humane Immigration Reform?

  1. Free trade accounts for millions of jobs as we produce goods to be exported. Your ascertain that the U.S. has not benefited from free trade is absurd. As for Mexico, I see hundreds of thousands of people that have taken the first step up the ladder be taking the factory jobs. The issue of free trade treaties are far to complex to simply say they should be abolished.

    I also notice that you make no mention of the fact that only a few very small nations on this planet have not developed laws and policies to govern migration. I work with immigrants every month and am in the border cities of Mexico very often. I agree with many of the things you write, but disagree with your ‘solutions’ and your view of congress suggests that you only became aware of the reality of our congress because of this singular issue. I hope that is not the case.

    • Hi Bob, thanks for the comment. Suffice it to say that I absolutely disagree with your characterization of FTAs worldwide, in terms of tangible benefits and job growth. The data dispute that, but even if there were some benefit to FTAs, I’d argue that we also have to examine the associated costs. If you look on balance at benefits and harms, even conceding things which I’m not sure reality supports, I’d argue forcefully that they do more harm than good. Complex? Yeah, sure, but the complexity of a law doesn’t justify its continued existence, the merits do.

      The same is true of laws regulating migration: it’s a fallacy to assume that 1) I favor no laws whatsoever or that 2) other nations’ immigration policies somehow justify our own. The question isn’t comparative, it’s absolute: are our laws working as written? The answer is an easy “no.”

      As to your ad hominem attack about my interest in Congress, I respond with a little bit of a sarcastic smile: I’ve been an activist (and, now, political staffer) for more than a few years now, and I’m far from a single-issue politico.

  2. Hello Andrew,
    I see first hand that thousands of Mexicans that previously worked on farms and now work in factories along the U.S. border. They tell me that their lives vastly improved because they moved north to work in the cities. This is similar to the migration of our own nation’s people as we moved into an industrial economy. Although I’ve read studies about NAFTA (both pro and con) I have visited people in their homes every two weeks- since 2001. Most lost their farm jobs and were forced to move to the cities for work.

    The original plans for N.A.F.T.A. included this loss of farm jobs in Mexico and the move to the cities. However, tens of thousands of people moved north because of the stories about better paying jobs and better educational opportunities in the cities. There were not enough factory jobs so they migrated to the USA. To blame N.A.F.T.A. for the illegal immigration is a bit unfair.
    Reality? Better education for children. Better health care. Better economic opportunities. Better wages. I am not sure if any of this fits into the studies you mention.

    I have two questions for you. When did you visit the rural areas of Mexico? When did you talk with families that made the move from farm life to the cities? I’ve talked regularly with hundreds of families and with all due respect to the think-tank studies, I value 13 years of working directly with these families more than any study.

    As for the 70,000 pages of immigration law, I agree that they need to be changed and that they need to be frequently adjusted as our own economic and security issues change.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s