President Obama spoke last week on overhauling U.S. immigration. He went straight to the thorniest issue -- what to do about the millions of unauthorized migrants already here. Obama wants a third path between the extremes of blanket amnesty and mass deportation.
That compromise approach, he goes on to sketch, would be a combination of sending troops to the border, cracking down on employers, and obliging unauthorized immigrants to:
"admit that they broke the law, ... register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, ... learn English [and] get in line and earn their citizenship."
Will this be enough to cause compromise?
President Obama delivering a speech on immigration on July 2/WhiteHouse.gov
Political analyst Jim Kessler has a useful thought exercise: He often asks American audiences if they would accept $1 million in return for giving up their U.S. citizenship. He gets few takers. That is, most Americans consider their citizenship to be an extremely valuable asset. Giving that asset away for free to people who broke laws appears to dilute the value of the asset. Diluting one of people's most valuable assets without consulting them is the kind of thing that will make them upset.
What Obama's compromise ultimately seeks is to allay those fears by making the asset more costly to unauthorized immigrants -- raising its value rather than diluting it. But many things aren't clear: Will opponents of reform be satisfied that the cost of the asset is sufficiently raised by this formula of "register/tax/fine/English/get-in-line" (hey, it rhymes)? And will new enforcement procedures be enough to make all immigrants follow the rules this time?
There are other routes to political compromise, other ways to avoid the perception of diluting the value of citizenship: offer some immigrants something other than citizenship. There is no fundamental reason why the bundle of obligations and privileges we call U.S. citizenship -- jury duty, military service in time of draft, access to federal government services, access to many jobs, and so on -- must always and exclusively be conferred to other people as an unchangeable bundle. Different elements of the bundle can be conferred to different people. Granting some of today's unauthorized immigrants a status that is legal but is not citizenship is another, different way to avoid the perception that amnesty cheapens citizenship.
This is far from radical. It has been the norm in past regularizations of migrants. Amanda Levinson of the Migration Policy Institute lists 24 different regularizations in the U.S. and other countries over the past three decades. These have offered a range of different permits -- that is, a range of different bundles of obligations and privileges. I've seen thoughtful discussions of how citizenship is defined by Alex Aleinikoff, Kerry Howley, and CGD's Lant Pritchett, and there are many others. All of them point out in different ways that there have always been different bundles of obligations and privileges given to people living in the same place, and it is up to societies to choose how many bundles there are, what's in each bundle, and who gets them.
So why is it that in the Obama speech, the only alternative offered to mass deportation or blanket amnesty was that of a universal-but-costly path to full citizenship? Certainly not everyone who wants to come work in the U.S. for a substantial period wants to become a U.S. citizen. And if offering something other than a path to citizenship for some of today's unauthorized immigrants turned out to be the key to achieving compromise -- and moving past the train wreck we have now -- then it would be better than the alternative.
To be specific, suppose that some of today's irregular migrants were offered a temporary visa, for a period of a few years? It would allow them to emerge from the shadows, making it harder for them to bid down wages for all workers by working below minimum wage in secret. Many irregular migrants working here now don't want to stay forever and would gladly take the chance. There would be less perceived dilution of the value of U.S. citizenship, because what's being given to those workers would not be citizenship. In other words, this could be a win-win for some migrants and for many U.S. citizens.
I've heard at least three objections to such a proposal:
Follow Michael Clemens on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@m_clem
I take it your research didn't look into this article on immigrants in Dubai, a so called wealthy country whose track record on migrants was abysmal.
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20050919135817472
You are arogant - No one should have to compete with ILLEGAL ALIENS because they SHOULDN'T
BE HERE!
Those who hire ILLEGALS should be HEAVILY fined and their business license should be suspended. Do this a few times and employers will get the hint. The jobs for ILLEGALS would dry up and they would self-deport leaving jobs and BILLIONS of tax dollars, that we use on ILLEGALS, for CITIZENS and LEGAL immigrants.
They didn't follow the rules the first time - What makes anyone think they will now?
Obama is right on two fronts - reinforce the border and hold those who hire ILLEGALS accountable. Where he falls short is punishing those who are here ILLEGALLY. ILLEGAL ALIENS must return to their own homelands and get in line there. You CANNOT reward ILLEGAL behavior of any kind!
Until gays can marry legally this will be an issue. However, no ILLEGAL ALIENS should be sponsored at all.
Have you ever done farm work? I did as a teen on my uncles Horseradish and Sweet Corn farm. I spent lots of time in the fields during the summer hand tending the Horseradish, Hoeing the radish and had picking and bagging the Sweet Corn. Now we also dug and prepared the radish for market in the fall and winter, and hand planted sets the next spring.
The job was back breaking, dirty and we experienced everything Mother Nature had to offer from blistering heat to bitter cold.
At the time I did this in the mid ‘80’s they paid under minimum wage. I seem to remember $120 checks after taxes. Last I heard they were still under minimum wage so let’s figure $7 an hour. Even if they paid $10 an hour they would have trouble finding workers.
Now that younger generation is grown up and they're putting a dollar value on citizenship. Have we learned nothing?
Give me Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land" any day over any of those points of view. And instead of worrying about economic status, how about instead asking for a willingness to improve the country to which you immigrate, not just benefit from it?
Then we could take a cap and trade approach to immigration. If the right number of folks we want to bring into the country is the guesstimated 12 million now here illegally (so we really have any idea of the number?), then we could cap immigration over some specified period at that level and auction those immigration slots off to the highest bidders. Billions of new government revenues to fund programs and reduce the deficit could be realized and we'd probably get as new citizens a lot of hghly productive people - some Mexicans and other Latinos, but also Russians, Chinese, Indians, Koreans and even Kenyans.
Cap and trade - equal rights to all from around the world to bid for citizenship with immigration at a capped level.
We don't want two-tiers of citizens. That's not a good idea.
We need a biometrics ID card, and strict fines for any business that hires illegal immigrants. Long-term residents should be allowed to apply for amnesty, but everybody else should leave. They are not entitled to have my government bend over to help them. Honestly, somebody snuck across the border 6 months ago and we're told there's some compelling equitable reason to allow them to stay. No there isn't. They shoujld leave.
It isn't the concept of citizenship that's imperiled. It's local finances, which are exhausted by illegal immigrants. It's wages, unemployment and working conditions were are undermined by an unrestricted flow of labor into this country. It needs to be stopped, and most of these people need to be sent packing. How about enforcing the laws for a change? Anybody feels compassion, go to Mexico and help the people there. Or better still, how about help your unemployed neighbors, stand up for them and stand up against foreign labor being brought in to take American jobs.
People are not going to buy into the amnesty thing this time because;
1. It does cheapen US citizenship. Mexico wants to cheapen it even more by letting their citizens have dual citizenship. These people have no respect for our laws to begin with, did not earn it and have to right to demand anything, much less our sacred birthright.
2. We got burned badly in 1986 and there are a lot of people who recall it. Then 1.7 million (3 Million), now 11 million. (25 Million?). In 20 years it could be 40 million demanding we share our birthright with them. No security, no amnesty, maybe not even permits.
Without Mexico's cooperation, there will be no border security and Mexico plainly does not want a secure border. We have to ween them from stealing from our economy.
So these people want a better life? So do 1.7 billion others in the world. Are we obligated to give it to all of them or do Americans have any say in it?
I can sum up the author in a few words, "....yadda yadda Amnesty..."
Work permits ? No. Apply for immigration status or get out.
Cesar Chavez was opposed to illegal immigration. Why aren't you?
Also, he is not saying they should just get a free pass-he is saying let us take seriously the issue of *why* some are here.