Most analysts agree that the chances of immigration reform in the first year or two of Obama's administration are extremely slim. We can't expect politicians and policymakers to take action. The change we want to see has to come from below.
We can make it happen if we unite around a common goal: swift, practical, inclusive legalization NOW, as a first step, and eliminate the backlog for people whose immigration cases are in process. Bring people out of the shadows, resolve their status, reunite their families. (And don't worry about what to call it -- amnesty, legalization, regularization, path to citizenship, etc. We know what we're talking about, and we're not fooling our opponents by coming up with new names for it.)
A simple bill we could get behind might look something like this:
1) Change the "registry date" in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), currently set at January 1, 1972, to January 1, 2006. That will allow anyone here since that date to apply for residency through the relatively straightforward registry process.
2) Restore Section 245(i) of the INA, which lets people who entered the U.S. without permission adjust their immigration status here without having to first return home and face the punitive 10-year bar. Section 245(i) has been lapsed since 2000, leaving millions of people without options to legalize.
3) Get rid of the national origin quotas on family-based petitions and expand the total number of family-based visas available, so people don't have to wait 20 years to reunite with their relatives.
4) Pass the Child Citizen Protection Act, which restores the power of judges to weigh the impact on children when considering the deportation of a parent.
Those four steps will provide options for a huge number of people, including those who would benefit from measures like the DREAM Act (undocumented youth) or AgJobs (farmworkers.) If we're strong enough, we can also win the Uniting American Families Act (equal immigration rights for same-sex couples), a repeal of the harsh 1996 laws, an end to employer sanctions and other badly-needed measures.
We can win these changes now if we:
- Mobilize, organize, march, petition. We need mobilizations twice as big as the ones we saw between Valentine's Day and May Day in 2006, in the months after the House passed anti-immigrant bill HR4437. Those mobilizations changed the whole climate in Washington, leading the Senate to approve a package that included AgJobs and the Dream Act. Unfortunately, the mobilizations didn't continue past May 1, 2006, and the measures approved by the Senate never made it through the House.
- Don't wait. The sooner we act, the sooner we'll see results. By the time Obama's administration passes the 100-day mark on May 1, millions of people should be marching in the streets and calling or visiting their members of Congress.
- Dialogue. Slogans and soundbites won't convince people who aren't already on our side. We need to get people talking to each other about immigration, sharing thoughts and experiences, working through fears and doubts and taking a deeper look at the root causes.
Let's not forget that Congress, not the president, has power over immigration. We don't need to convince Obama, we just need to make sure that the Democrats in Congress understand that they will benefit from swiftly passing a measure to legalize the undocumented -- and they will pay a price if they don't. Latino voters were key in this latest election, and even though many Latinos are not immigrants and many immigrants are not Latino, a large number of US-born Latinos have immigrant relatives, have experienced anti-immigrant racism and are sympathetic to immigrants. Most naturalized immigrant voters are also sympathetic, having struggled through the system themselves.
Inclusive legalization can consolidate the demographic shift of rural America and permanently change the electoral map. Many of the rural areas which overwhelmingly voted for McCain include substantial immigrant populations -- often working in agriculture, meatpacking or other industries -- which have been clamoring for legalization. In Finney County, southwestern Kansas, fewer than 10,000 people voted in this year's presidential election, and McCain beat Obama by 35 percentage points (67%-32%). Yet on April 10, 2006, an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 people rallied for legalization in Garden City, the county seat, out of a total population of around 30,000. McCain won with similar numbers in nearby Ford County, where several thousand people rallied for immigration reform in the county seat, Dodge City, in April 2006. Over in Madison County, Nebraska, with just over 13,500 voters, McCain won 69%-30%; on April 10, 2006, the Tyson Fresh Meats pork plant in the county seat, Madison, had to shut down because so many of its employees walked out to demand legalization. McCain won with 62% of just over 20,000 votes in Hall County, Nebraska, where on May 1, 2006, hundreds marched in the county seat, Grand Island, for immigrant rights.
It's clear in the minds of most immigrants and their friends and families that during eight years in power, the Republicans did nothing good on immigration. Most people don't remember the anti-immigrant bills approved under the Clinton administration, or that the last amnesty came under a Republican presidency. So right now, while the Republican Party is busy trying to develop a strategy for winning Latino support without alienating its white racist base, the Democrats have a chance to move. The Democratic Party needs to see that if it approves legalization now, it will win the continuing loyalty of a large bloc of existing voters, and at the same time create a large bloc of future voters, spread over rural and urban areas, whose gratitude could boost the party's standing over the next decades.
Will there be a backlash if Congress approves legalization? The 52% of voters who elected Obama mostly don't hate immigrants, so they won't get too riled up about legalization, and many will support it, especially if we work to win over those still unconvinced. Among the other 48% of voters, many probably resent immigrants and oppose legalization, but three years from now, most will have forgotten about it or will have gotten used to it. We will likely see a rise in hate crimes and racist attacks over the next four years, with or without legalization for immigrants, but a focus on dialogue will help to ensure that hateful acts don't gain wide support. And if everyone has legal status, at least immigrants will be able to report threats to police and protest publicly when they are victimized.
There's no time to waste. Any delays in pushing through legalization will hurt its chances. We need to mobilize behind a united demand, and make our voices heard every single day until we get what is needed.
Jane Guskin is co-author of The Politics of Immigration: Questions and Answers, published by Monthly Review Press in July 2007. She lives in New York City, where she is interim co-director of the A.J. Muste Memorial Institute, a grassroots foundation supporting nonviolent action for social justice.
Keep up the good work, Jane!
If we're going to give some people a free pass, shouldn't we consider what harm is caused by certain acts, rather than whether they are illegal or not? How many of your white American neighbors get away with drunk driving? Meanwhile, what harm are your undocumented neighbors actually causing you, or anyone else, by their presence? What terrible consequences would stem from giving them green cards?
Slavery was the law once, and slaves who escaped it were "law-breakers" and "criminals" who were hunted down by law enforcement. Segregation was still the law in many places until the 1960s, and black people and white people couldn't legally sit down and eat together, or watch a movie together. Breaking these laws had consequences. Exposing these laws as unjust, and ultimately defeating them, took a monumental effort on the part of hundreds of thousands of activists, organizers and educators.
Illegal immigration = slavery? The white man does it so why can't we?
With all due respect, this analogy is not only tepidly sophomoric but far out of focus with respect to the devastating impact this swarm of law breakers is having on our economy and way of life. This is not immigration in any form. This is an invasion of a sovereign nation. One conducted with an air of entitlement and impunity.
As you suggest, call it any thing you want: Amnesty, Free Pass, etc. A rose by any other name...
I suspect your enlightenment will come if and when this issues comes before the citizenry for a popular vote. From what I've been able to read, the polls seem to indicate that around 70% of the citizens of this nation want our borders secured and want a screeching halt to this invasion madness. What say ye to the majority?
There`s not illegal human being.people send money home because they being called illegal,
if you`re going to be deported you`ve to make sure that there`s something to live-on.
so,to answer your question they send money to be secure.if you give them document
they ll live like everybody else:buy car,plan vacation,buy house and invest.
THat what we call common - sense!
you cannot expect people to get here legaly if the coutry himself was obtain
illegaly.just check historic perspectif.
THAT gets to the ROOT of the issue.
Also, it would be nice for us in the United States to have more options - some reverse immigration.
Having said that, I believe in the legal path for the immigrant who comes here in good faith to become a U.S. citizen and assimilates himself to us. There should be no tolerance for discriminating against him or her because of their color, creed or origin. But it should be predicated on those people becoming U.S. citizens in every sense. There should be no divided allegiances. There should be but one flag and sole loyalty to it and the laws it represents. Breaking the law entails accountability.
I can agree that we should keep our government nose out of Mexico's business. I also agree that our NAFTA arrangement is helping no one. But you are suggesting that because the Mexican citizenry is either unwilling, unable or incapable of reorganizing their government for the benefit and protection of the Mexican people, that, somehow this dilemma belongs to we in the U.S. With that kind of logic most of the third world would be living here under your protection (referred to as the 'camels nose under the tent'). If the Mexicans spent the same amount of time organizing in mass, waving their flag demonstrating their national pride and demanding their "rights" in their own country, as they do in the one the illegally entered, perhaps more could be accomplished. Building a nation is no easy task. People in this country have fought and died doing just that. Unlike other regimes, Mexicans will not be assassinated if they return to their home country. If the 'proud' Mexican citizens don't take this problem into their own hands and work towards resolution, who is suppose to? According to you we're only responsible for the welfare part.
You're only questioning it now because you're talking about people from Mexico, and you see them as being invaders. Well, the US took over a big chunk of what was Mexico, meaning that many people of Mexican descent didn't even cross the border, the border crossed them. They didn't invade--they were invaded. People of Mexican heritage are as much a part of this country as the descendants of European invaders and immigrants, and as the descendants of Africans who were brought here in chains and forced into slavery.
I agree with you 100%. There was a recent study done in Suffolk and Nassau Counties that reported billions in taxable revenue generated by so called 'illegal immigrants' (Caribbean/South/Central America). Also, immigrants send money to their respective countries to help the unfortunate within the family and as a back up plan, if ever they get deported. Yes, the government does tax remittance monies. Most immigrant families work to better themselves; they are not criminals.
Immigrants are the lifeline of most boroughs other than Manhattan. All businesses amongst the boroughs of New York depend on immigrant dollars to operate. Most immigrants work hard to own a home and try to past on the opportunity to relatives to also work towards home ownership.
Hello, America is not Five Points, its a massive piece of land that need to be utilized to its fullest capacity.
Ask these slum lords that live in a mansion due to these illegal immigrants?
So granting an amnesty is not only IMMORAL, but ILLEGAL as well.
I am a life long liberal Democrat and I will NEVER vote or support ANY candidate who supports an amnesty for illegals. I will NOT contribute a dime or my vote to such a person. The mantra that we used to have in the labor movement was to call for EMPLOYER sanctions, and now we see whose side the illegals are on, The employers. NO progressive can possibly support this call since it is racist, reactionary, and hurts the working class American worker who is having a hard enough time now. Thankfully we are the majority now on this issue and any so called amnesty will not be passing any time soon.
The current climate of enforcement and de facto tolerance of the "illegality" of labor keeps wages down. More enforcement just makes workers more fearful of organizing and defending their rights, and more likely to accept lousy wages and conditions. An amnesty would bring wages up. It's not going to solve all our problems, but it will help more than it will hurt.
Meatpacking wages declined because the big meatpacking companies deliberately crushed the unions and pushed down wages, moving to remote areas and hiring recent immigrants. Those immigrants are now trying to organize with the UFCW, and immigration enforcement is standing in their way. Check out David Bacon's article: http://dbacon.igc.org/Unions/28KillFloor.htm
The big corporations don't actually support an amnesty. They don't want their businesses disrupted by raids, but they definitely don't want workers to be empowered to push for better wages, improved working conditions and union representation.
The unions initially supported employer sanctions but have since realized that they made a mistake, since these sanctions are used as a tool to keep workers from organizing. Since you obviously support organized labor and workers' rights, I really encourage you to read the book I co-authored, "The Politics of Immigration: Questions and Answers," because it goes much more in-depth about all these labor issues and I think you will be surprised at how we address them.
So what happens when you grant amnesty to all illegals that were here in 2006? They'll want what we all want, good jobs, healthcare, unemployment benefits, etc. That's fine except there are not enough of these jobs to go around right now. So who will fill the marginal jobs or the jobs that pay under the table that these former illegals once did? More illegals. We'll create a new class of poor citizens sucking on the government teat while encouraging a new group of illegal aliens. Maybe in a few years we can then give the new group amnesty and then repeat on a 5 year cycle. Of course this will be a vote factory for the Left.
So if amnesty passes will there be anyone in Mexico other than drunk American college kids?
Your post is fraught with, shall we say, misconceptions;
1) Undocumented immigrants as well as paying the consumption taxes we all pay also pay payroll taxes by the billions of dollars. At the last reckoning there were $7 billion in the Treasury coffers that came from illegitimate SS#s and went unclaimed. The IRS is loath to reporting this bonanza to the INS for fear of losing precious revenues and violating privacy laws. Yes, they do this as well as sending monies back home to their nation of origin, but that is their choice as it is their hard earned dollars. Maybe you choose to blow yours on booze, who knows?
2) Undocumenteds DO spend their money in the community because, like everybody else, they need to be fed, clothed, sheltered and entertained. All of these monies generate tax dollars, and employ thousands if not millions.
3) Whether or not they get good jobs depends on their ability, and as is the case with new immigrants they more often than not start at the bottom rung of the ladder, and are unlikely to land plumb employment. That is a merit issue and as Americans, we've never been afraid of competition now, have we?
No. Competition is good, or so goes the capitalist mantra - it gets the best out of all of us.
A recent study in Portland, Oregon concluded that undocumented workers generate $17.7billion in productivity annually. Imagine this amount extrapolated on a national scale.
Now you tell me, which politician is going to forgo this money and explain the lack of resources to their constituency?
Instead, they choose to play people who hold Archie Bunker views like you like a yo-yo, spinning horror stories to get your vote and doing nothing but collect the cash when they get in power. They make suckers of you, believe that!
If undocumenteds weren't here, the economy would fold like a tent in a heartbeat.
An amnesty, followed by a more streamlined fast-track immigration procedure is in the best interest of all of is.
After all, for the vast majority of European immigrants landing on Ellis Island in the latter part of the 19th and early 20th century, all that was required was a clean bill of health and proof of ability to pay your way, unlike the myriad of hoops that potentials have to jump through now.
Of course if you want to include the money saved by employers because their illegals will not file workman's comp claims, EEOC complaints or notify OSHA or the EPA of abuses then yes, they probaly are more productive. Perhaps all future workers everywhere should be criminals that cannot call the authorities.