As the battle in Congress to hammer out a bill for
comprehensive immigration reform rages on, it is heartening for an academic
like me to see the strategic use of research by pro-immigration advocates to
make their case. In the past several days we have seen a report from the
Congressional Budget Office revealing that the legalization of immigrants in the U.S. would lead to a significant reduction to the deficit--nearly $200
billion dollars injected into the economy through increased tax revenue—over the next
decade. Other research shows that having immigrants in your county has been shown to increase home values, and could do so even further if some of the
undocumented become legal. A finding long known in sociological circles, the current wave of Mexican immigrants, the largest immigrant group in the U.S. right now, is adapting to American society and culture in much the same way, and perhaps even at a faster pace than previous waves of immigrants, including Italians and Germans. We also see polls that show well over 70 percent of Americans wanting immigration reform before the end of the year. So, why would
there be any question at all about passing immigration reform in Congress? It
has been on the table since the November election as a Presidential priority in
Obama’s second term. Yet, we continue to see our politicians debate and as with
most issues, facts rarely drive politics.
Well, that is not exactly true. Some would have you believe
that the culture war is what has Americans wary about immigration reform. Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington sounded the alarm in 2004 that Latin American immigrants and Mexicans in particular would fundamentally change the United States because they do not adapt to our cultural norms. As
opinion-writer and political scientist Stephen Nuño points out, assimilation is a two-way street. The facts above show that the current wave of immigrants has
changed; while there is no doubt that the United States has changed, too. I
would argue that two-way assimilation is inevitable, regardless of which groups
you are talking about. Think about it when you are eating those tacos, drinking
a pilsner, cheering a Japanese pitcher, and snacking on frankfurters as you
enjoy the “all-American” pastime this summer. All immigrant groups have
deposited some of their culture on us and we have enthusiastically embraced it
time and again. Sometimes cultural changes are more consequential than sports
and they are unequal, messy, and contentious, but resisting them is like trying
to stop the sun from rising. There is no doubt that there is unreasonable
xenophobia, and reactionary laws that actually impede the assimilation process,
such as the banning of ethnic studies in Arizona. There is also evidence from countries like Canada, that intentional policies that provide a balance ofassimilation and multiculturalism work, but these issues aren’t even the center
of what is really being argued in Congress. The cold hard fact that is
currently at the core of the disagreement is money, but again it is shrouded in
misinformation.
Preying on the small minority of people who really are
xenophobes, pundits and politicians would have you believe that the sticking
point is border security. If we give legal status to the 11 million or so
undocumented residents of the U.S., what is to prevent yet another wave of
illegal immigration, just like we saw after the last amnesty in 1986? But for all intents and purposes, the facts show that net immigration from Mexico has all but stopped. Some of it is due to increased border security and the record number of deportations overseen by the Obama administration; however, a lot of
it has to do with the fact that Mexico has one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and with a growing middle class with more job opportunities,
there is no need to migrate to a country where opportunities might not even be
there because of our own precarious economic situation. The idea of needing
more border security is a real red herring then. So, why is it being argued?
One of the groups with a large membership that is opposed to reform is the union representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.One might think that increasing the number of legal immigrants would make their
job easier; you’d be right. It would make their job so easy that they might see
their way out of a job. Right now, Homeland Security spends over 18 billion dollars on border security, which makes it the largest Federal law enforcement agency; even larger than the FBI. Simply waving the legal wand and making an
easier path to citizenship would put a lot of ICE agents out of work. To ensure
their job security, senators reached a bipartisan “compromise” that would add thousands of new agents and increase Homeland Security spending eventhought the immigration numbers show we really don’t need them. Further,
ensuring that there are at least some migrants who remain in the U.S. who do
not have legal status (by not covering them under the proposed law), we also ensure that the private corporations that build prisons also get their share of money. Now those are numbers you can count on.
