| | |  Editorials | Opinions 
US Immigration: 'Normalization' vs. Comprehensive Reform
 Rosa Martha Villarreal - mexidata.info
go to original
February 15, 2010
 |  | Why should people who jumped ahead of the line be rewarded for their actions when millions are waiting through legal channels to enter the country? |  | | |
There is a scene from the film Gladiator where the emperor’s sister Lucilla appeals to General Maximus to help with an uprising against her tyrannical brother. The enslaved General replies that he has nothing but the mob. “The mob is Rome,” she replies.
Despite the fears of diverse notables such as Thomas Hobbes and Alexander Hamilton, in America the mob, or more accurately the body politic, is America. When all is said and done, no true change has ever occurred without the overt or tacit consent of the people. Thus, a woman’s reproductive rights are her own because most men and women give their consent. If they did not, we would have divergence of opinion as we do with the issue of gay marriage. Although the courts have for the most part agreed that gays can marry, voters in state after state have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.
When President Barack Obama once again announced his determination to advance “comprehensive immigration reform” in his 2010 State of the Union address, he evidently does not believe that there is a deep-seated opposition in the body politic against this reform. As I’ve stated in previous essays, to simplistically label the opposition as “racist” (though a minority of opponents are undoubtedly racists) not only misses the mark but obstructs any effort to find a just and humane solution to the problem of 11 million or so illegal immigrants, most of whom have put down roots and started families in this country.
We cannot create a solution without considering the objections of the opponents of immigration reform, which consists of two camps, the first of which is the right-wing xenophobes exemplified by the late Samuel Huntington. Easily threatened by diversity, urbanity, and eclectic intellectualism, this group restores to ethnic baiting and slander, seeking to win the argument by weaving a narrative of selective truths. No amount of proof or reason can move this camp. This brings us to the second group.
The core of the opposition actually comes from the political center of the body politic, including a many U.S.-born Mexican Americans especially from the second generation and beyond. The objections of these centrists stems from a cultural sense of fairness. Their argument goes as thus: Why should people who jumped ahead of the line be rewarded for their actions when millions are waiting through legal channels to enter the country?
One can counter-argue that it was a booming economy that attracted these illegal migrants. However, though difficult, there are legal channels for workers to enter the U.S. based on need of certain industries. Be it desperation or misinformation, these migrants have fallen into the belief that the only way to enter the country to work is illegally.
Though most Americans truly do sympathize with the plight of these desperately poor migrants, they are taken aback by the polemics of the pro-legalization forces who argue that the fact that people are already here and have American-born children entitles them to legalization. Most centrists recognize the fallacy of this circular argument. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, centrists worry about the future consequences of mass legalization, i.e., the distinct possibility of imploring the over-burdened social services and attracting more illegal immigrations in the future.
Can there be a humane solution that does not disrupt those portions of the economy dependent on migrant labor and does not traumatize families?
There can be a solution but only if we concede that it will be neither a perfect nor comprehensive endeavor. First of all, the American public, for better or for worst, does not want it. Any solution that goes against the will of the people is not only elitist and condescending but potentially dangerous, especially to Hispanic American citizens who could find themselves the targets of retaliation against an imposed solution.
A better proposition is normalization, where, instead of a new apparatus of non-enforceable laws, employed illegal immigrants become immediately eligible for work visas. These work visas would ensure free movement to and from the U.S. and the immigrant’s home country. These visas would be renewed for a pre-determined amount of years, say, 10-15 years, thus allowing for those with families to remain here until their children are grown rather than breaking families apart.
Henceforth, all workers, but especially those in labor markets that have favored unauthorized labor, would be checked through the E-verify system. Chronic addicts to illegal labor would be subjected to heavy fines and future illegal workers to immediate deportation. With the competition of illegal labor eliminated, wages in the low end sector would rise, raising the standard of living and giving native workers an opportunity to return to jobs that they would otherwise find undesirable due to low pay. Internal enforcement would be more cost-effective and free up our border enforcement to deal with drug and weapon trafficking.
Possession of a worker’s visa would not constitute legal residence or eligibility for citizenship. Persons with work permits who wished to obtain their legal residency would do so through the process provided by current laws. No preference would be given based on possession of a work visa. Persons with a worker’s visa could also purchase car insurance by returning to their native countries and obtaining a valid license there. In this manner, our U.S.-issued drivers’ licenses would remain a valid form of identification for citizens and legal residents.
Additionally, these workers would pay taxes but must have legal residency or citizenship for eligibility to receive public assistance. On its face value, this may be unfair; however, we must recall that the goal of most illegal immigrants has always been to work and not to settle in the country. It wasn’t until the passage of the disastrous 1986 Amnesty Bill that people began to smuggle their families into the country because reentry was so difficult and settled here by default. Especially for many Latino migrants, seasonally returning home is more cost effective than trying to weather periods of unemployment in the United States.
The issue of Social Security taxes and eligibility is more complex and could result in a constitutional challenge if not properly handled. It is up to the public to decide what course to take. However, if these workers are exempt from paying Social Security taxes, there can be no grievance of their ineligibility to collect a pension. Persons with a work visa, however, should be eligible to open IRAs and receive the same tax deduction for the traditional IRA.
The cost of health care for immigrants, furthermore, could be defrayed by a 5% remittance tax that would go into the individual state’s Medicaid program.
As for students on the cusp of a university education, the process would be similar to that of foreign students. They would be eligible for a combination of student and work visas. Upon obtaining a college degree, they should be given preference - as all well-educated foreign applicants are - for residency. Exceptional graduates would be eligible for special status just like all talented foreigners who desire entry.
This path, normalization versus comprehensive reform, will not quell the histrionics of the extremists on both the Right and Left, but it is one that moderate Americans could live with.
Rosa Martha Villarreal is a member of PEN USA. She is the author of "The Stillness of Love and Exile" (Tertulia Press 2007); and "Chronicles of Air and Dreams: A Novel of Mexico." |
|
| |
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us