Good Night and Good Luck

Hello all,

Today is my last post on A New Approach for class.  The blog will go on a hiatus for at least the summer, although I would like to continue it in some fashion in the future.  

I hope that A New Approach succeeded in its goal of presenting the immigration debate in a new light, one that places greater importance on the human cost of not reforming the current system. 

The current system has created a black market for human smuggling, and violent "coyotes" have taken the market over with ruthless tactics and little regard for human life.  Making legal immigration easier would lessen the number of immigrants who put their safety in the hands of people who see them as dollar signs and little else. 

Reform is also needed to stem the "reverse brain-drain" phenomenon that our country is currently experiencing.  Skilled and intelligent immigrants who have come to the United States to study and work and being denied permanent residency by the thousands.  These workers provide huge net gains for the economy, and their departure leaves a hole in the economy that we simply cannot fill.

For those two reasons alone the U.S. immigration system needs to be reformed, not tomorrow, not next week, but today.  When you consider the emotional pain caused by workplace raids and the separation of families, as well as the resources and attention diverted from true public safety concerns to enforcing current immigration laws, it becomes obvious that a path to amnesty has to be included in any reform. Otherwise, we are just ignoring the elephant in the room while sweeping around it.  

Hopefully by the next time I post there will have been some meaningful progress in this direction.  The longer the problem drags on the harder and harder it will be to deal with it.    

 

Looking North for a Solution

Immigration reform has been debated ad-nauseam, and there have been many theoretical solutions discussed that seem smart and plausible.

The problem is that no one knows for sure whether or not these reforms will actually work how they are intended to. What an incredible waste of time and effort it would be if an immigration reform bill made its way all the way through Congress and onto President Obama's desk, only for it to fail or create a new set of bigger problems down the line.

One solution to this would be to ignore our desire to blaze a new path and to instead imitate what other countries in the world are doing. What to do about a mass influx of immigrants is hardly a dilemma unique to the United States; all the top economies are destinations for people looking to emigrate.

In fact, the situation in Western Europe with immigrants from Africa shares many similarities with immigrants to the United States from Mexico and Central America. But, unfortunately, the countries of Western Europe have also had many of the same outbursts of xenophobia within their native populations that has also hindered smart immigration policy. They may not offer the best model for reform.

Australia and New Zealand have long been top destinations for immigrants, but for a compassionate and functional immigration system we need not look so far away. We just need to follow the lead of our neighbors to the north.

First, let's start with the numbers.  Canada has admitted more than 200,000 immigrants in each of the past 10 years, while the United States has admitted an average of about 1 million immigrants per year since 2000.

While the U.S. admits a greater total number of immigrants, because Canada's population is around 30 million compared the U.S.'s population of 300 million, Canada actually gives citizenship to twice as many immigrants per capita per year.  

According to many anti-immigrations proponents in the United States, this must mean disaster for Canada's economy since it is surely overburdened by so many immigrants. 

But reality doesn't bear that out. Canada has the world's 11th largest economy in terms of Gross Domestic Product at 1.5 trillion dollars in 2008.

Canada's immigration policy has three main categories: economic, family reunificiation, and refugees.  According to an article from the Council on Foreign Relations, from 1990 to 2002 49 percent of immigrants came from the economic category, 34 percent from family reunification, and 13 percent from the refugee category.  

Canada figured out a clever way to keep its economy strong by balancing economic immigrants with other types of immigrants. 

This should absolutely incorporated into the U.S. system.  In an earlier post I wrote about the U.S.'s systemic problems that have forced many professionally skilled immigrants to return to their home countries despite being in great demand and that they would benefit the U.S. economy greatly. 

Canada's policy, combined with the appeal of the U.S. and its colleges, could be used to boost the economy and innovation, while also allowing more refugees and family members to come to the U.S. without being an economic burden.

It really would be a win-win situation.  The economic benefits of granting citizenship to every doctor, engineer, and scientist that wants to come here to work would be enormous, while the social and moral benefits of allowing more people in who are looking for a better life or fleeing atrocity would help return America to its place at the top of compassionate nations.       

An Update on Immigration Enforcement Policies

Following up on last week's post, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement is expected to issue new rules for local and state police that enforce immigration law.

An article from the Migration Policy Institute says new guidelines will instruct agencies participating in the 287 (g) program to focus on immigrants with criminal convictions rather than those just here illegally.

The 287 (g) program was created in 1996 to allow some local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law. While some agencies have only used their expanded po

wers under 287 (g) to find out the immigration status of convicted felons, others have used them in day to day interactions with the community, meaning people who come into contact with the police for offenses as minor as speeding tickets have been deported.

Police departments have also criticized the program for diverting resources away from more pressing public safety concerns and for damaging the relationship between the police and the community.

The face of the program has become Maricopa County Sherrif Joe Arpaio because of his aggressive enforcement of immigration law. The article says the Justice Department is

conducting an investigation of his department.

I think the new rules are both more sensible and more humane. It makes sense to go after the people who have been convicted of a felony before you go after the person who is just here trying to make a living. The new rules, if properly advertised, could help improve the relationship between undocumented immigrants and the police because people may be more willing to talk to the police knowing they won't be asked about their immigration status if they haven't done anything wrong.

These steps by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, along with reviewing workplace raids, should come as welcome signs that the new administration is serious about immigration reform. Even if President Obama can't convince Congress to agree on a complete overhaul of the system for several years, or ever, making changes within the current system is an improvement for the time being and a step in the right direction.