O Border (Security), Where Art Thou?

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.

Immigration Reform and the Presidential Race

There has been much ado about President Obama's announcement last week that he would use his executive privilege to use discretion regarding dealings with unauthorized immigrants who meet certain criteria. This discretion is focused on Dreamers, the self-named group of young people whose parents brought them to the United States illegally when they were very young, who attended and completed their schooling in the U.S., have no criminal background, and/or have served in the military. Obama has said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement will now use discretion with regards to this group, halting their deportation if they meet certain criteria, and even granting them temporary 2-year work permits. 

Initially, there was elation from immigration reform advocates, especially the Dreamers, but upon further examination that excitement was tempered. 

First, they had to respond to critics that this executive order was unconstitutional and sidestepped the legislative process and Congress. This was despite an open letter to Obama sent by a large group of legal scholars and lawyers  two weeks prior to the President's announcement, criticizing the President for not using executive powers around immigration. They argued that historical actions by other presidents and legal precedent would allow Obama to exercise his authority to halt deportations and grant temporary legal status to some immigrants. 

A second point, was the issue of political pandering by Obama. Some argued that Obama's decision to defer action on the deportation of some unauthorized immigrants was reacting to this pressure and the pressure from Dreamers who were occupying some of his campaign offices. They suggested that Obama's act was purely political, but pragmatically for them it was a step in the right direction. 

This raised a third area of doubt, because the order did not represent any sort of permanent change. Obama had a longstanding position that discretion should be used with regards to unauthorized immigrants who had no criminal records. Despite that he still holds the dubious distinction of deporting record numbers of unauthorized immigrants compared to other administrations. Actually, some wondered if anything changed at all because his current announcement is really just "old wine in a new wineskin." 

These previous points relate to the issue of the President's commitment to immigration reform and  Latinos more generally. Despite promises of comprehensive immigration reform that would occur in his first year in office, he did nothing to move the issue forward. When the less comprehensive DREAM Act reached Congress for a vote, he expended very little, if any political capital to get it passed. When called out by immigration reform advocates regarding his lack of support, Obama has proven "testy" and even "hostile." An extended Washington Post piece cites numerous examples of Obama's defensiveness around immigration issues, and a seeming overall unwillingness to change his actions, leading some to question where he really stands on the issue.

Romeny's political reaction was muted at first, but he finally proposed some potential reforms to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) yesterday. Ironically, despite calling the president's immigration policy unconstitutional, he proposed very similar unilateral executive policies as part of his immigration stance. Overall, though, he presented little of substance in the way of immigration reform, perhaps showing that he still stands on his simplistic "self-deport" platform.

Perhaps Romney believes that his immigration and Latino trump card is Marco Rubio. An article by African American writer Earl Ofari Hutchinson seems to suggest this might be true. In this article I think that Mr. Hutchinson's lens is clouded by the Black-White binary paradigm that pervades American thinking. Latinos are really diverse and complex. While there are some trends such as being opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage, IN GENERAL, when you look at Latino sub-groups, such as generational status, age, specific country of origin, these overall trends disappear; One trend that does seem to trump that complexity and gives Latinos something to stand together on is immigration; we are all still pretty closely tied to our immigrant roots AND many people (using the Black-White paradigm) assume that Latino is synonymous with immigrant. Because we realize that having our nativity questioned is a big source of bias, we tend toward favoring immigration reform that might remove that stigma. We would probably be much more likely to vote on that issue alone, as the Obama bump in the last week shows. That is much more a reason for us to vote as a bloc than whether someone with a Spanish surname was on the ticket of either party. While Rubio may offer some moderate views that are agreeable to Latinos, especially given his Democratic past and love of hip-hop (sarcasm), he too has been pretty much in the background in terms of his immigration stance, with the public still awaiting the immigration reform legislation that he said he would be putting forward a while ago. 

All of this is to say that immigration will certainly be a big deal this election. And, with the Census releasing more evidence of the ever-growing Latino population, it really is time that politicians of both parties stop talking and start acting.