Immigration reform, cont'd

[Harold F. Schiffman]

US - Which Way Immigration Reform? Toward a Comprehensive Immigration
Policy (by Tom Barry, IRC)
Friday 31 March 2006.


IRC - Why has immigration become such a hot social and political issue in
the past few years? What is the intersection between immigration policy,
domestic economic policy, and foreign policy in these times of rapid
economic globalization and the global war on terrorism? And what are the
outlines of a comprehensive immigration reform that would resolve the
immigration policy crisis, protect immigrant and worker rights, and
address legitimate citizen concerns, while at the same time deflating the
agenda of the hard-line restrictionists who are setting the terms of the
national policy debate? This is the first of two IRC discussion papers
written by IRC policy director Tom Barry that aim to contribute to a
constructive discussion of these pressing questions. We invite your
criticisms and comments.

There exist wide divides on the policy proposals to address immigration
problems, but over the past several years, particularly since Sept. 11th,
there is a growing political consensus among Democrats and Republicans
that immigration reform should include the following measures:

Greatly increased border security, including more agents and surveillance
equipment. Some system of verifiable electronic identification cards to
ensure that only citizens and authorized residents can obtain employment.
While there is broad consensus on the need for more effective border
security and for a national worker identification system, there is a
narrower range of bipartisan consensus on the issues of earned
legalization and guest-worker programs.

The hard-line restrictionists focus almost exclusively on punitive law
enforcement measures and stricter border control. They refute all
proposals for legalization, arguing that we cant have an immigration
policy based on rewarding those who have broken the law by either entering
the country illegally or allowing their temporary visas to expire.

This hard-line, enforcement-first approach to resolving the immigration
issue is embodied in the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal
Control Act of 2005, which was shepherded through the House of
Representative by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). In the Senate, majority
leader Bill Frist (R-TN) introduced a reform bill that also takes the
hard-line, enforcement-first approach that immigration restrictionists
favor.

Since 1985 funding for border enforcement has quintupled and the number of
Border Patrol Agents have increased tenfold, but illegal border crossings
have dramatically increased-with an estimated 9 million immigrants having
successfully albeit illegally immigrated since 1990. Nonetheless, there is
widespread agreement, even among some immigrant advocacy groups, that the
United States needs more Border Patrol agents and increased electronic
surveillance, although bipartisan consensus on border control does not
include agreement on the various proposals to wall off large sections or
the entire U.S.-Mexico border.

Both proponents and opponents of legalization largely agree that the time
has come for a worker identification system tied into a national database.
Legalization opponents regard an ID system as a way to separate citizens
from unauthorized immigrant workers, while legalization proponents argue
that it would elevate immigrant workers from their underground status,
reduce employer exploitation, and discourage new illegal immigration.

There is also broad support for a variety of guest-worker programs as part
of a comprehensive immigration bill. Outside the policy community, the
AFL-CIO and many progressive immigrant advocates oppose the introduction
of new guest-worker or temporary worker programs because they contend that
they will be used by business to undermine prevailing wage rates, obstruct
union organizing, and deny workers their rights.

The comprehensive immigration reform measures outlined by President Bush,
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), Senators John Kyl (R-AZ) and John Cornyn
(R-TX), and Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ), while all
echoing the call for increased border security, also address the central
immigration issue of the continuing demand for labor by proposing
different types of guest-worker programs. Under the Bush and the
Kennedy-McCain bills guest-workers could apply for legal residency and
eventually citizenship.

In the Kennedy-McCain bill, the guest-worker program is described as a way
to address the need for new labor above and beyond the labor already
provided by the existing illegal workforce-which would be eligible for
earned legalization upon payment of fees, English language skills, and at
least six years of work history. While the president also supports earned
legalization, immigrants would only be eligible under his plan if they
first registered as guest-workers-which constitutes a major disincentive
for unauthorized workers who already have jobs and homes.

The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, sponsored by Senators
Kennedy and McCain, has received the backing of many pro-immigration
groups, liberals, and moderates. President Bushs proposal has been
endorsed by a coalition of corporations called Americans for Border
Security and Economic Security, led by former House Majority Leader Dick
Armey (R-TX) and former Rep. Cal Dooley (D-CA). But the presidents
proposals and most of those introduced in the Senate have been rejected by
restrictionists as unacceptable because they provide legal pathways for
immigration.

A clear signal that the Republican Party leadership is moving to embrace
the restrictionist resurgence was the introduction in mid-March of a new
immigration proposal by Majority Leader Frist. Our country needs security
at our borders in order to slow the flow of illegal immigration and make
America safer from foreign criminals and terrorists, said Frist, mimicking
the national security language of House restrictionists and such groups as
the vigilante Minuteman Project. Weeks before Frist introduced his
enforcement bill, a new Republican Party group called the Volunteer
Political Action Committee had launched a public relations campaign
featuring Frist that reached out to the right-wing blogs and websites with
the messaged: Help Me Secure the Borders.

Recognizing the rising political clout of the restrictionists, Frist and
the Republican Party leadership are no longer dismissing the hard-line
restrictionists but rather raising the level of fear-mongering and
xenophobia themselves. Describing immigration as a dangerous national
security threat, Frist warns that the scariest part of illegal immigration
is that we have absolutely no idea what theyll do tomorrow on U.S. soil.
The Frist proposal signaled that the Senate and the House may be able to
agree on a new immigration bill that focuses exclusively on
security-including increasing the number of Border Patrol agents,
expedited deportation of all unauthorized immigrants (including from
countries other than Mexico), and extended border fencing. Although
policies addressing earned legalization and temporary worker programs are
clearly needed for any comprehensive immigration reform, they are
increasingly being regarded as too politically costly by both parties.

Immigration policy packaged as a national security imperative and as a nod
to the respect for the rule of law will prove an easier political
sell-despite falling far short of being comprehensive and solving none of
the deep-seated problems associated with immigration as a labor-market
issue, a human rights concern, and a source for an expanding underclass in
U.S. society.

Other areas where the consensus breaks down include the following divisive
issues:

* The proposal to extend the border wall in the short-term to 700 miles
and eventually along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.

* The continuation or expansion of family reunification measures.

Backlash Measures Will Increase Tensions

As discussion continues in Washington over the various reform bills,
several measures under debate will clearly have a negative impact on
U.S.-Latin America relations and increase racial tensions within the
United States without having any countervailing benefits to U.S. society
and economy. As such, the following policy reforms should be rejected:

1. Deportation of Illegal Immigrants

While the U.S. government certainly has the right to deport foreigners
residing in the country illegally (either entering without permission or
overstaying their visas), such an initiative is neither practical nor
ethical. By having tacitly accepted that 12 million illegal aliens
constitute an integral part of U.S. workforce and society, the U.S.
government has signaled that there is room in the United States for
illegal residents. Rounding up and deporting massive numbers of immigrants
is not practical, and would lead to human rights violations and an upsurge
in anti-U.S. sentiment within neighboring countries. Not only would such a
policy initiative-advocated by the restrictionists in the Republican
Party-wreak havoc in U.S. communities, it would also severely debilitate
the already fragile economies of sending nations by abruptly ending the
flow of remittances and dangerously expanding the sectors of the
unemployed and homeless.

2. Criminalization of Immigrants

The proposal that those crossing into the country without visas be
regarded as felons would constitute an egregious violation of
international human rights norms. Not only would such a measure, actually
approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, prove costly to U.S.
taxpayers, it would constitute another blow against the U.S. reputation
and make U.S. citizens traveling abroad vulnerable to in-kind retribution.
Whats more, those advocating that illegal border-crossers be regarded and
treated as criminals also would criminalize the act of sheltering or
otherwise assisting these millions of unauthorized immigrants. As part of
this criminalization of unauthorized immigrants, restrictionists in
Congress and at the state and local levels also advocate that local law
enforcement officials and other government employees turn over
unauthorized immigrants to federal immigration authorities for prosecution
and deportation.

3. Barricading U.S. Borders

Formerly high-trafficked sections of the U.S.-Mexican border are already
largely impenetrable because of previous decisions to erect imposing walls
or fences. These barriers have proved highly effective in reducing illegal
crossings at formerly favored immigrant crossing locations. However, they
have not succeeded in decreasing immigration flows since would-be
immigrants have sought new points of entry. Presumably, barricading the
entire U.S.-Mexico border would dramatically decrease illegal immigrant
traffic, but at an extremely high cost to U.S. international standing. As
the United States has stepped up border control, including walls along
parts of the border, many immigrants have decided to make the United
States their permanent home because of the increased difficulty of
returning for seasonal, temporary, or steady jobs. Further barricading the
border would accentuate this trend.

4. Denial of Basic Services

Contrary to the declarations of the anti-immigration forces, immigrants
come to the United States to work, not to avail themselves of the countrys
quickly shrinking safety net of social services. Measures that would deny
immigrants and their children emergency and basic medical services and
education are inhumane and would further stratify U.S. society, aggravate
the public health crisis, and contribute to delinquency and crime. Such
proposed initiatives would violate basic human rights. Contrary to the
misinformation disseminated by anti-immigration groups, immigrants who
receive basic social services are not getting a free lunch since they are
taxpayers-paying their fair share of income, payroll, and sales taxes. But
it should also be acknowledged that many communities, especially in the
borderlands, are finding that their budgets are being depleted by the
increasing immigrant-related services, and the federal and state
governments should step in to ensure that these are adequately
compensated.

Two Poles of Thinking on Immigration Reform

There are two opposite poles of thinking about how to deal with needed
immigration reform.

For the hard-line restrictionists, any reform to address the immigration
crisis must fundamentally be a new commitment to enforce existing laws and
to create new measures to penalize unauthorized immigrants and those who
support them. It should include provisions that would effectively rid U.S.
society of immigrants living and working here illegally, while also
attempting to implement strict border control. Even hard-line
restrictionists like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) suggest that guest-worker
and temporary worker programs may be needed to maintain a vibrant U.S.
economy, although immigrant workers under such programs would not be
eligible for citizenship and would be immediately returned to their
country of origin if they lose the jobs for which they were contracted.

The other pole of thinking includes, to varying degrees, measures to
legalize the established immigrant population and future immigration flows
through guest-worker programs, legalization, and worker identification
cards. Some liberal immigration reform groups include provisions for
increased border security measures in their proposed reform packages. In
marked contrast with the hard-line restrictionists, immigrant advocates
and some liberal reform proposals call for more expansive family
reunification measures and quicker processing of visas and immigration
requests. In the current political climate, it is highly unlikely that
Congress would approve the kind of expansive immigration reforms that are
backed mostly by immigrant advocates and business groups.

A long-running problem of immigration reform proposals is that they are
neither directly tied to foreign policy reform nor to national economic
policy. As such, no matter how broad in terms of enforcement, employer
sanctions, worker identification, temporary worker programs, or immigrant
rights, they fall short of being comprehensive. While the lack of
connectivity is true of many policies, it is a problem that is especially
acute when it involves immigration reform because of the overlap with
foreign policy, economic and labor issues, and state-federal relations.

At its core, our immigration policy should be primarily a policy that
reflects broadly defined U.S. national interests-economic, security,
social, political-and in doing so would benefit from widespread public
support. To respond to and respect broad U.S. national interest in
providing for the common welfare and security of its citizens, immigration
policy should not be held hostage to special interest groups, whether they
be business, immigrant advocacy groups, or the increasingly vocal
anti-immigrant and anti-immigration forces. Immigration is too important
an issue-one that has defined our past and will be a key in defining the
future of our nation-to be left to the kind of political opportunism that
is now rife in Washington and in state capitols as politicians position
themselves to play on the emotions of voters.

A New Approach to Comprehensive Immigration Reform

A truly comprehensive immigration reform would complement reforms in U.S.
foreign policy designed to reduce the push factors that contribute to
immigration flows to the United States, taking into account that its
economic policies abroad currently contribute to the large number of
economic refugees seeking to enter the country to escape poverty. It would
also recognize the moral and legal responsibility of the United States to
provide refuge for those fleeing wars and repression at home.

A comprehensive immigration reform bill would also be formulated within
the context of a domestic policy commitment by government to full
employment at livable wages and working conditions. An immigration policy,
then, would be designed to supply workers-either permanent or temporary-to
meet the labor needs of businesses and individuals, primarily by having
policies that make employment available to citizens and other authorized
workers, and secondarily fill business demands through the employment of
foreign workers (first with ones already living in the country, and
secondarily through strictly limited guest-worker and temporary worker
programs).

While comprehensive immigration reform should be primarily
forward-looking, it must also fairly address the presence millions of
immigrant families who have established roots in U.S. society even though
they lack proper documentation. Clearly, a massive deportation of illegal
immigrants is neither feasible nor ethical. It is simplistic to argue, as
the hard-line restrictionists do, that because millions of immigrants are
in the country illegally, they should be treated as criminals and denied
basic rights and social services.

By making jobs available and giving low priority to workplace enforcement
of immigration laws, our society and economy have been complicit in the
illegality of millions of immigrants. Whats more, the increased emphasis
on border security over the past two decades has been a major factor in
reversing traditional migration patterns in which Mexican workers
regularly traveled back and forth across the border for seasonal and other
temporary work.

A new immigration reform package should address the failures and
shortcomings of previous immigration reform bills, particularly the 1986
reform package that included enforcement, employer sanctions,
legalization, and aid to facilitate immigrant integration into U.S.
society. In retrospect, the problems commonly identified with that bill
are the following:

Weak employer sanctions that were difficult to enforce and in effect used
mainly to intimidate workers. Lack of secure way to ensure that existing
or prospective employees were actually citizens or legal residents.
Continuation of broad family reunification guidelines that sparked a vast
chain migration of members of the extended family of legalized immigrants.
Insufficient government support to assist immigrant integration into U.S.
society. Increased emphasis on border security but failure of new border
control funding to stem flow of unauthorized immigrant labor.

Failure to underscore the ethical and humanitarian objectives of U.S.
immigration policy by giving priority to refugees fleeing repression. A
comprehensive immigration reform bill that responds to broad national
interests while respecting the human rights of immigrants should contain
the following main elements:

Creation of an earned legalization program for unauthorized immigrants who
have established roots in U.S. society and economy that would require
payment of fees and attending language and other courses to facilitate
full integration into U.S. society and eventual citizenship. The
institution of a non-duplicable electronic worker identification document
would be used only for seeking employment by citizen, resident, and newly
legalized workers.

New family reunification laws that limit residence visas to the immigrants
spouse and children, and include mechanisms for return visits. No
guest-worker or temporary worker programs, skilled or unskilled, until
such time that the legalization, full-employment, and livable wage
programs become fully implemented, and then only under the strictest of
conditions and monitoring-to protect both resident and foreign workers.

High penalties for businesses that employ illegal workers after the
implementation of a worker ID system. Give priority to refugees fleeing
persecution and repression, and turn back measures that make it
increasingly difficult for refugees to obtain asylum in the United States.

The above measures would discourage new illegal immigration, and thereby
reduce the need for a border control system that focused on immigrant
traffic, allowing customs and border officials to focus on smuggling of
illegal or regulated drugs. The issuance of worker identification cards,
whether in the form of verifiable Social Security forms or the creation of
a special worker identity card would have many benefits, including the
reduced need for border controls, fewer immigrant deaths, reduced
citizen/resident-immigrant resentment and backlash, increased opportunity
for effective labor organizing, and more readily enforceable means to
penalize employers.

There would also be risks and costs-including increased government (and
potentially business) information gathering on individuals, greatly
reduced opportunities for undocumented workers, and the loss of jobs and
likely deportation (or voluntary return) of workers and family members who
cannot meet the eligibility standards for earned legalization. Yet another
cost-a grave one for sending countries and communities-is the likely
gradual reduction of immigrant remittances as the numbers of immigrants
working in the United States diminishes.

A new comprehensive immigration reform bill would need to effectively
block new unauthorized immigrants from finding employment in the economys
formal sector and set prohibitively high penalties for those employing
illegal immigrants in the informal sector, such as in construction or
household services. The aim of a comprehensive immigration reform bill
would be to effectively discourage all unauthorized immigration while
working to ensure an adequate supply of labor to all sectors of the
economy primarily through a combination of citizens and legal immigrant
residents. If, after the worker ID system is implemented and the
government institutes policies to encourage full employment (at living
wages and decent conditions), the supply of workers is exhausted, then the
U.S. government should initiate temporary or guest-worker programs that
protect the rights of both native and foreign workers. Such programs
should give workers a path to legal residency and citizenship.

Full Employment and Livable Wages

Whats needed is a comprehensive immigration reform package that includes
legalization of unauthorized immigrants who have established economic and
social roots in the United States together with employment measures that
would obstruct future unauthorized immigrants from obtaining jobs. This
would establish the foundation for new standards to assess what would
constitute sustainable immigration flows into the United States , whether
through immigrant visas, guest-worker, or temporary worker programs.

However, without an associated government commitment to domestic economic
policies whose objectives would include full employment and livable wages,
its likely that many of the concerns the country now faces-growing numbers
of unauthorized residents, increased pressure to barricade our borders
against job seekers, and ability of restrictionists to tap feelings of
resentment, fear, and vulnerability to create anti-immigrant backlash
campaigns-would again surface.

Not since the end of World War II, when Congress passed the Employment Act
of 1946, has the U.S. government been committed to an economic policy that
provides full employment. In the past five decades, U.S. economic policy
has become increasingly less concerned about creating the conditions for
full employment.

Rather, our economic policy has measured economic progress more by such
standards as increased trade, high corporate profits, high productivity,
and low inflation-all assumed to be the product of a downward pressure on
union organizing, a large surplus workforce (unemployed, women, migrants),
deregulation of government oversight of business, government subsidies and
tax breaks to business, and decreased wages and benefits. Economic
globalization in the past couple of decades has accelerated these
worker-unfriendly trends, leading to increased income inequality,
unlivable wage rates, decline of unionization, and harsher working
conditions.

A commitment to full employment implies a reversal of all these adverse
trends. Instead, governments at the national, state, and local levels
would recommit themselves to the objectives of full employment, livable
wages, and an efficient social safety net for those unable to work. A
small beginning of this reversal of priorities is the establishment of
livable wage laws by some towns such as Cambridge and Santa Fe . An
underlying assumption is that all workers, no matter what the industrial
or service sector, would be paid a livable wage to ensure that all
families have basic needs covered. Government regulation would ensure that
all business sectors employ best practices so that no job would be
considered undesirable by citizen/authorized resident workers because of
demeaning working conditions or non-livable wages.

Through increased social services, such as universal medical insurance,
the government would supplement the income for the working poor and middle
classes. A full employment policy would not assume, as our society now
does, that both father and mother need to work to ensure that the needs of
themselves and children are met. Other elements of a full employment
program might include job programs by the government to meet the real
needs of communities. Such a package of programs would increase the
domestic market by raising wages for those now receiving unlivable wages,
while at the same time, if done properly, would increase productivity as a
result of a more contented workforce.

Absent a national commitment to providing existing residents with jobs
that can support themselves and their families, the immigration reform
debate is subject to manipulation-on one side by Corporate America that
benefits from a ready supply of cheap labor, and on the other side by
right-wing populists who, by scapegoating immigrants, deflect popular
attention from the real causes for economic insecurity and the fraying of
the countrys social fabric.

Despite the history of abuses and exploitation associated with
guest-worker and temporary worker programs, such programs should remain a
component of immigration policy, but not, as has been proposed, a
permanent feature. Limited worker visas are a necessary part of doing
international business with foreign firms, many of whom have substantial
investment in the United States.

However, company requests for guest-workers or temporary workers-whether
skilled or unskilled-should be immediately put on hold to give time to
evaluate the impact of the legalization of undocumented residents and the
impact of the range of full-employment and livable-wage policies. The U.S.
government can begin to revert the downward pressure on wage levels by
legislating that employers offer wages and benefits (such as minimum or
livable wage laws) necessary to attract the vast numbers of unemployed and
underemployed in our own country, and no longer assume they can run their
businesses relying on cheap labor working in substandard conditions.

Similarly, the United States should reduce-rather than expand, as has been
the trend-the current temporary worker programs for skilled workers, which
not only are sidelining resident workers but are also depleting sending
countries of their most skilled and educated citizens. As is, the U.S.
practice of attracting professional, technical, and health workers, for
example, undermines the human resource base of developing nations.

Hammering out a comprehensive immigration reform bill that gains public
and bipartisan support will be difficult enough without insisting that it
be tied to changes in U.S. economic policy, drug policy, and foreign
policy. Over the medium and long terms, however, effective immigration
policy will need to work in tandem with other policies that are directly
or indirectly related to immigration flows into the United States.

It is unlikely that the U.S. Congress will approve a comprehensive
immigration reform bill in the coming year-an election year when
incumbents, especially moderates and liberals from both parties, will be
reluctant to make themselves targets of restrictionist criticism. More
likely in the short term is bipartisan approval at the national and local
levels for measures that aim to increase border security, increase the
authority of local police and other government officials to aid in the
enforcement of immigration laws, and add new punitive measures that
further restrict the integration of unauthorized immigrants into U.S.
society.

Summary

One of the main problems in organizing support for a fair, comprehensive,
and effective immigration reform policy has been the lack of a conceptual
framework to help policymakers evaluate the problems and benefits of
immigration while at the same time linking immigration policy to both
domestic economic and foreign policy. To summarize, a comprehensive
overhaul of our immigration system would include these components:

Occurs in the context of a national economic policy that encourages
full-employment at livable wages and with respect for basic rights to
organize. Prioritizes the entry of political refugees.Legalizes the
presence of the large sector of unauthorized immigrants that have
established roots in U.S. society and economy.

Leaves open the possibility for guest-worker programs that do not endanger
the jobs of legal U.S. residents and guarantees respect for the rights of
these temporary workers. Determines a sustainable level of legal
immigration that benefits U.S. society and economy. Reduces immigration
visas for family reunification to ensure that any earned legalization
program does not lead to large increases in legal immigration flows.
Deemphasizes border security, and instead places the emphasis of
controlling illegal immigration on institution of a worker ID system.

Reforms U.S. foreign policy in ways that promote broad development and job
creation in sending countries. Protects the human rights (with special
attention to labor rights and conditions) of all U.S. residents-whether
legal or not.

Global Good Neighbor Ethics and Immigration

In mid-2005, the IRC identified a similar problem in addressing foreign
policy issues. The country needs a new framework for evaluating and
shaping foreign policy-one that would ensure that our foreign policy
really serves U.S. national interests and truly makes us more secure. We
observed that the Good Neighbor policy launched by President Franklin
Roosevelt in the 1930s could serve as an animating vision for what we call
A Global Good Neighbor Ethic for International Relations. Although we
recognize that the FDR administration did not always abide by its own Good
Neighbor principles, we concluded that its social democratic programs at
home and emphasis of respect in international relations were a legacy that
contrasted sharply with the pre-FDR era and with current policies and
could serve as a starting point for a new foreign policy framework for the
21 st century.

We outlined seven principles as the core of a global good neighbor ethic,
three of which are relevant to the challenge of forging a comprehensive
immigration policy.

Our nations foreign policy agenda must be tied to broad national
interests. To be effective and win public support, a new foreign policy
must work in tandem with domestic policy reforms to improve security,
quality of life, and basic rights in our own country.

Replacing foreign policy with immigration would make this principle work
as a guideline for comprehensive and effective immigration reform.
Responding to the broad national interests in immigration policy would
mean addressing the concerns of citizen workers facing an increased supply
of cheap, unorganized labor while at the same time recognizing that the
U.S. economy has traditionally depended on immigrant workers and that
immigrants will likely still be needed to keep the U.S. economy
competitive and dynamic. If the U.S. public could be assured that its own
needs for good jobs and social services were being met, then it would be
more likely to support an immigration policy that legalized immigrants and
created more legal channels for immigration.

The U.S. government should support sustainable development, first at home
and then abroad, through its macroeconomic, trade, investment, and aid
policies.

As is, the U.S. government has steadily moved away from a commitment to
sustainable development either at home or abroad. Just as FDR committed
the U.S. government to providing a New Deal for U.S. society through
better government regulation of business and banks, support for community
development, and innovative and productive job programs, the U.S.
government must again commit itself to a domestic economic policy that
ensures broad development at home rather than simply tending to the
interests of big business. Similarly, the aim of its foreign economic
policy has focused largely on furthering the interests of U.S. investors
and exporters, with the sad result of increasing economic polarization and
poverty in developing countries-the outcome being that the poor seek
employment in the United States.

The first obligation of the U.S. government is to ensure that there is
equitable development at home, but it also has an ethical obligation (and
a self-interest) to terminate macroeconomic, trade, investment, and aid
policies that increase the push factors to emigrate. This would include a
commitment to use its considerable influence in such financial
organizations as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to support
policies that alleviate poverty and foster broad development in contrast
to the neoliberal policies it has long promoted. Similarly, the U.S.
government could foster sustainable development at home and abroad by
leading the way toward the formulation of more equitable trade and
investment rules both at the World Trade Organization and in bilateral and
regional agreements.

Our first step toward being a good neighbor is to stop being a bad
neighbor.

We live in an increasingly interdependent world. If the U.S. government
expects cooperation from other nations-in drug control, global public
health, counterterrorism, etc.-then it should first seek cooperative
solutions to common problems. Yes, the United States needs to control its
borders and needs to establish the official requisites for residency and
work. But as the U.S. society, both at the national and local levels,
moves to establish new immigration policies, it should remember that
immigrants have helped create this country, and are continuing to do so.
The agenda of the hard-line restrictionists-barricading our borders,
making immigrants felons, and calling for mass deportations of
hard-working members of our communities-is a bad neighbor policy that will
aggravate tensions at home and in international relations, especially with
Mexico . The first step in shaping a good neighbor immigration policy is
stopping this vindictive bad neighbor agenda.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/3161

Reply to this article


Forum
AMERICAS - Which Way Immigration Reform? Toward a Comprehensive
Immigration Policy (by Tom Barry, IRC)
1 April 2006, by Lew Warden
You (whether Tom Barry or Manuel Garza) engage in a long chapter of
rhetoric to obscure the basic fact of national and international law:
There is no such animal as a "right to immigrate," not in these United
States or in any other nation of the world, including Mexico. Immigration
is entirely a matter of the grace of the receiving nation, and there the
United States provides the immigrant, legal or otherwise, with a panoply
of rights guaranteed by our Constitution and duly enacted statutes.

An illegal immigrant, no matter how useful he may or may not be to the
receiving nation, is still a law breaker. He also is one who by stealth,
by hook or by crook, has chosen of his own free will to push himself to
the head of the line, ahead of people who have complied with our laws.
Immigrants per se did not make this country great; only the original
free-booters who imposed their will on native American populations by
violence, guile, or force of the small pox, and those who thereafter
immigrated lawfully, made this country, for better or worse, what it is
today.

So why dont you knock off this ridiculous cant and accept the fact that
immigration, both legal and illegal, is out of control and causing
enormous problems for our existing lawful populations? This is a
dangerously explosive political football youre kicking around, and wed
best start dealing with this problem rationally before our citizens take
matters into their own hands.

Lew Warden

http://www.alterinfos.org/article.php3?id_article=320