Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the U.S.

Moving from Today’s Proposals to Tomorrow’s Reforms

Immigration touches upon a complex and interconnected series of controversial topics, including national identity, race, economics, and morality. Whenever one subject is offered for discussion, it inevitably invokes a countless number of other issues. For example, one would be remiss to discuss border security outside the context of free trade and human rights. Border controls affect the free movement of goods and labor between countries, which in turn, implicates the deeper morality borne by an infringement upon liberty. Ultimately, however, at the root of any debate over immigration policy are the broader interests of the various parties involved and the consequences of past and proposed legislation.

In many ways, the history of American immigration reform is a story of marginalized interests and unintended consequences. For instance, the National Origins Quota Acts of the 1920s favored whites of Nordic ancestry to the detriment of almost every other social group, especially Asians and eastern Europeans. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, on the other hand, helped to turn the tide of discrimination, but none of its creators ever anticipated that it would pave the way for today’s multicultural, American nation.

The recent proposals from President Bush and the 109^th Congress highlight comprehensive reform that is multifaceted but not truly comprehensive. On December 16, 2005, the House passed bill 4437–The Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act (H.R. 4437).1 The House bill represents American xenophobia at its finest and completely ignores the topic of sociopolitical feasibility. It provides no path to citizenship for the more than 11 million undocumented residents already in the U.S., fails to institute any temporary worker program with Mexico, makes an individual’s illegal presence in the country a felony, and directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to build more than 700 miles of dual-layer fencing along the southern border. While the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) pushes the U.S., Mexico, and Canada towards greater economic integration, the House bill would have America walled off from the rest of the world. House supporters of the proposal somehow believe that a massive attrition program is the best way to deal with the large population of undocumented residents, many who have well-established familial and social ties to the U.S.

Although radically different from the House bill, the Senate and Bush proposals are essentially in agreement. Both support a temporary worker program with Mexico, regularization of most of America’s undocumented population, and greater fortification of the southern border.2 Significantly, each of these policy prescriptions recognizes, to some degree, America’s geopolitical ties with Mexico, yet, both still mistakenly believe that militarizing the Mexican border represents the best manner to deter future, migrant flows. Neither the legislative nor the executive branch of the U.S. government adequately understands the consequences of impeding the free movement of labor or increased border controls. Although the Robert Frost saying that “good fences make good neighbors” might carry weight in the domestic context, international relations is an infinitely more complex game where making the wrong decision can often result in tragedy.

Vilifying immigrants could almost be considered an American pastime. While the national origins quota laws were the most virulent and resolute strain of anti-immigrant sentiment in history, today’s anti-immigrant lobby is composed of newscasters, politicians, and pseudo think tanks. CNN anchor Lou Dobbs references the southern border as the “front line” of the “illegal alien invasion.”3 Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo refers to America’s undocumented residents as a “scourge that threatens the very future of our nation” and laments America’s “cult of multiculturalism.”4 And the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which claims to be “an independent, non-partisan” think tank, publishes “research” reports that all conspicuously demonstrate how immigration will hurt the economy and reduce Americans’ quality of life.5

As humans, we owe each other more than reducing one another’s actions to metaphors and half-truths. When defining a theory for perpetual peace among nations in 1795, Kant included a right to “universal hospitality” as a pillar of his philosophical model.6 He postulated that “the right to visit, to associate, belongs to all men by virtue of their common ownership of the earth’s surface.”7 Although moral arguments often fall upon the deaf ears of government officials, policy progress depends upon a paradigmatic shift in public and political perception. How come foreigners are considered “others” first and “humans” second? The American government does not seem to have a good response to this question.

In seeking an outline for a synergistic package of policy proposals, this work concentrates upon the interests of those affected by immigration and the consequences of political action, whether past or theoretical. Chapter 1 reviews the last century of immigration reform, explaining the folly of our forefathers. Chapter 2 provides a morally, economically, and socially constructed lens for analysis. In chapter 3, the deleterious consequences of increased border fortification and employer sanctions are discussed. The fourth chapter demonstrates how, after 9/11, the government misused immigration policy in the name of national security and then goes on to show the importance of binational and multilateral cooperation amongst the NAFTA countries. Finally, chapter 5 delineates the basic tenets that any successful comprehensive immigration reform proposal should possess.

In general, this paper seeks to reconcile America’s immigration policy with history, morality, economics, globalization, national security, and diplomacy. It is difficult to see this occurring without: (1) some form of binational, U.S.-Mexico agreement that implements a temporary worker program for Mexican nationals, (2) the repeal of employer sanctions, (3) strict, status-blind enforcement of all labor and employment laws, and (4) a path to citizenship for most of America’s undocumented population. These suggestions are not revolutionary, but their merits continue to elude many politicians and a substantial portion of the general public. And while almost anyone will notice that they are more in line with liberal American values than those on the political right, this work does not deal with politics per se. Rather, it forwards well-reasoned arguments that are consistent with the current state of world affairs. Ultimately, the most practicable and morally defensible manner to achieve comprehensive reform is through the institution of a sufficiently liberal immigration policy.