President Obama Intends to Address Comprehensive Immigration Reform

President Obama on Immigration Reform [ 0:01 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Downloads 93

The New York Times reported last week that the White House will take steps to tackle the controversial subject of immigration by the end of this year. the President will speak publicly in May, and serious work on legislation will begin in the summer with the expectation that legislation will be ready in the fall.

Many people see this as a natural step for the President to take since he is fulfilling a campaign promise. While the immigration system is dysfunctional to say the least, there is strong opposition to comprehensive legislation, especially in a time when many Americans have lost jobs.Even before the economic crisis, the debate raged between those who, on one end of the spectrum, provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants, and on the other end, those who believe that our laws should be enforced to the point of deporting all 12 million illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, having millions of people already in the United states illegally, and a border that the government refuses to close, does not make it easy to fashion a law that will somehow be acceptable to people on both sides of the issue.

The President and Congress will probably tell us that we need an orderly immigration program which will help our economy and promote family unity. We are likely to also hear that if this legislation is passed, there will be a crackdown on the border, and on employers who hire illegal workers. Of course, the problem is that we have heard all of this before. While there may be enough votes to pass reform legislation, it is doubtful that many Americans are ready to trust our federal officials to keep these promises.

As the debate moves forward, we would like to see Congress use a different approach, especially in light of the following: 1) Economic studies concerning the impact of illegal immigrants do not agree. Some say that the buying power of immigrants offsets the cost for social services. Other reports reach the opposite conclusion that States are unable to keep up with the cost for social services for illegal immigrants; 2) Amnesty has been given to illegal immigrants before, with the promise that we would not be in this position again; 3) The federal government has not explained the reasons for failing to control the border or enforce the current immigration laws; and, 4) A satisfactory explanation has not been provided about how an amnesty law complies with the principle of the Rule of Law.

We believe the approach should be to first require an impact study be conducted to determine the effects of a new law on our society. Each point mention above should be considered in the study.

Secondly, if America does not have control of the borders, we will be in the same position again in a few years. It is recognized that proponents of a bill will argue that the law will not grant amnesty because conditions will have to be met in order for an illegal immigrant to obtain permanent residency. This may be true; it will depend on the conditions. There will have to be something more than a mere acknowledgment that the immigration laws have been broken. There must be some action required by the immigrant to compensate, in a sense, for the violation.

Thirdly, whatever the reasons are for not enforcing the immigration laws, the federal government should simply be upfront with the American people. If there is insufficient funding, then at least with an acknowledgment of the problem, there can be a debate about whether or not we can really expect the border to be controlled, or, on the other hand, we can expect to live with the fact that we will continue to have a porous border. If the reason is that large corporations need labor at cheap wages, then acknowledge the fact and figure out a way to redesign the visa system to allow more people to come in and work, and at the same time, ensure Americans will not lose jobs and wages will not be reduced. By being silent in the past, Congress has caused local governments to pass a myriad of laws which further complicate the issue.

Fourthly, a rationale for the new law should be provided to the American people. Why do we make it easier for people to come here illegally than we do for people who are trying to immigrate legally? In some cases, that is what we have now, and a new comprehensive immigration bill will make this even more so. How do we explain to Americans and the immigrants who are following the rules that illegal immigrants can “jump in front of the line?”

If Congress is not able to use this approach, then it would be better to take one step at a time rather than passing a comprehensive bill. In effect that is what is happening with the DREAM Act recently proposed in both the House and Senate. This bill identifies a specific problem i.e. children of illegal immigrants who through no fault of their own find themselves unable to legally work and go to school. Other areas could be identified and addressed to allow Congress to demonstrate it will actually do what it says it will do.

Finally, we would propose that while we continue our immigration philosophy of uniting families, part of any new comprehensive system should incoporate a point system for some of the visas. In other words, points would be assigned for knowing how to speak English, being able to invest money in the economy, having a college education, or certain skills, etc. These prospective immigrants would receive favored treatement, although they may or may not have a family sponsor. The point system would help keep America competitive at a time when we are seeing scientists, mathematicians and engineers elect to migrate to China, India and Europe.