 |
| Flickr user: xomiele |
The legislation is built around three broad pillars: border security, work authorization, and a path to citizenship. At first glance, it is clear that this bill is heavily oriented towards soothing the concerns of those who claim the bill amounts to an "amnesty" for undocumented workers; it's no coincidence that "border security" comes first in the title. The concern of course, is that with any pathway to citizenship for some 11 million undocumented aliens living in the country at the moment (add to that somewhere between a few hundred thousand and several million family members that could follow in the years after they gain citizenship) would encourage increased illegal migration from the southern border in the years to come--a common criticism of the Regan era immigration reform bill. In this sense, the bill is in fact a form of amnesty--the whole point is to start bringing these people "out of the shadows"--but does its best to mitigate against the impending flood of migrants that many conservatives fear.
To counter this, the bill includes several "triggers" related to stepped up border security. In it's current form, within five years of passage, the administration will need to certify that they have achieved a 90 percent effectiveness rate at "all high risk sectors," which presumably refers to parts of the southern border but may include other ports of entry.
"Our bill will appropriate $3 billion to implement this strategy. This money will be used for acquiring, among other things:
o Surveillance and detection capabilities developed or used by the Department of Defense;It will also provide funding for 3,500 additional Customs agents nationwide, Border Protection, and State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies, and will:
o Additional Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers at and
between ports of entry along the Southern border;
o Fixed, mobile, and agent portable surveillance systems; and
o Unmanned aerial systems and fixed-wing aircraft and necessary and qualified staff
and equipment to fully utilize such systems...."
"Provide Authorization for the National Guard to be deployed to the Southwest border for the following purposes:At this point, the "border security goal" will have been achieved and the provisions for citizenship can continue for those in process. It isn't clear to me whether the entire process needs to wait for this certification, or if a failure to achieve 90 percent effectiveness would just stop the process five years in. There is a lot of ambiguity here, and I've heard some complaints that the vague language could allow the Secretary of DHS to simply say the 90 percent target has been reached. And, as if deciding on a metric wasn't hard enough, DHS will of course issue its own guidance on implementation, which could really affect how the border protection strategy looks on the ground. I imagine this will be hashed and rehashed over the coming months before anything is settled.
(1) to construct fencing, including double-layer and triple-layer fencing;
(2) to increase ground-based mobile surveillance systems;
(3) to deploy additional unarmed, unmanned aerial systems and manned aircraft sufficient to maintain continuous surveillance of the Southern Border;
(4) to deploy and provide capability for radio communications interoperability between U.S. Customs"
The second major aim of the reform bill is the path to citizenship. The bill creates a new status for non-citizens in the country: Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI). Those who meet the eligibility criteria (below) will obtain this new status, after passing a background check and paying a $500 fine, which allows them to work for any employer. The 10 year period during which these individuals (what do we call them at this point?) have RPI status, they can work and travel, but not vote or obtain means-tested federal benefits (welfare). They also become ineligible if:
o Convicted of an aggravated felony;I'm not sure what "other morality grounds" means, but it (worryingly) seems to leave a lot of room for interpretation. After 10 years, individuals with RPI status can "adjust" to lawful permanent resident status provided:
o Convicted of a felony;
o Convicted of 3 or more misdemeanors;
o Convicted of an offense under foreign law;
o Unlawfully Voted; and
o Inadmissible for Criminal, National Security, Public Health, or other morality grounds.
o The alien maintained continuous physical presenceThe legislation also includes the basic provisions of the so-called DREAM Act, which creates a five-year path to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants brought by parents to the U.S. illegally or in the country on expired visas. Last, according to NPR, the bill revamps the foreign worker visa scheme, creating up to 10,000 new "start up" visas for foreign entrepreneurs who create a minimum of five jobs and raise a half million dollars from investors; more visas for highly skilled foreigners with advanced degrees; increases the number of H-1B visas awarded annually from 65,000 to 110,000, in part to bump up to 25,000 visas available for those in science, technology, engineering and mathematics; and establishes low-skilled guest-worker program and new agricultural-guest-worker visa program that allows undocumented farm workers to obtain legal status.
o They paid all taxes owed during the period that they are in status as an RPI
o They worked in the United States regularly;
o And demonstrated knowledge of Civics and English
o All people currently waiting for family and employment green cards as of the date of enactment have had their priority date become current.
o A $1,000 penalty fee is rendered
The third major provision in the bill involves the (mandatory) use of a government database by American employers to certify that potential hires are in the country legally. This system, known as E-Verify, has been a darling of immigration hawks for years now, and will (assuming passage) be phased in within two years for firms with over 5,000 employees, three years for those with over 500, and five years for all others. When I was working in a congressional office in 2011, I remember receiving hundreds of calls and emails supporting widespread and mandatory use of E-Verify as a "demand-side" solution to illegal immigration. The proponents of E-Verify argue that if businesses both have the tools and the mandate to weed out illegal workers before hiring them, then the draw for potential undocumented migrants would be less, as they would know they couldn't get a job.
The logic here isn't wrong, but rests on some weak assumptions. First, it assumes that firms who hire undocumented workers do so unknowingly; this is demonstrably false. There may be some employers who, with E-Verify in place, eliminate their hiring of illegal workers, but I expect that those who have hired undocumented workers in the past will continue to find a way around the system. At the very least, I suppose that the mandate to use E-Verify could provide the legal tools to prosecute such employers. Another concern relates to privacy issues, as well as the potential for mistakes. Civil libertarians worry (rightly, I think) that creating another large scale database of employment information that would include US citizens creates all kinds of potential privacy hazards, and, in the case of a clerical or technical error, could wrongly deny lawful citizens their right to work.
It's still early in the debate on immigration reform, and this plan is likely to face an assault of amendments and delay before it passes the senate. As with many legislative projects these days, Representatives of the House will likely have the final say. Whereas even Senators representing "red" states such as North and South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, etc. may support a plan, their colleagues in the House may not, because their individual districts are less likely to provide an incentive due to lower numbers of migrants. In other words, whereas Marco Rubio or John McCain, for example, have a strong incentive to address immigration because their states, even if conservative, have huge Latino populations, the homogenized make up of many conservative districts allow their representatives the luxury of being more myopic. I would expect to see a clamor from these members (and their conservative PACs) to "enforce the laws already on the books," despite the fact that the Obama administration has done the most of any in recent memory to both secure the southern border and punish those in the country illegally. According to the Financial Times, "the number of deportations has hit record highs under Mr. Obama, up to about 400,000 a year." We'll see if the language in the first sections of the draft law is strong enough to assuage coopt these arguments, some of which are genuine, others are disingenuous attempts to block any reform.
Immigration reform in this country is long overdue, and I am optimistic that the gang of eight plan at least has a chance of living up to the "Economic Opportunity" promise of its title. I tend to agree with the vast majority of literature that shows immigration to be a net positive for the country. I agree with the Cato institute's assessment that immigrants are advantageous to American society because they are "self-selected on the basis of motivation, risk taking, and work ethic; they often come to the US during their prime working years; they make huge contributions to our otherwise unsustainable social safety nets (social security); and fill niches in the labor market where demand is high relative to supply, complementing rather than directly competing with American workers." Another Cato article dispels the toxic myth of the "immigrant welfare queen," noting that non-citizen immigrants are far less likely to use social welfare services than their native-born peers. This Huffington Post article digs a little deeper into the issue of how much immigrants pay in taxes and other withholding verses how much they use; it turns out immigrants, including undocumented, are a clear benefit to national budgets because they pay much more than they receive in benefits. Their impact on state and local budgets is mixed, however.
Unfortunately, (legal or illegal) immigration to the US is not a simple function of American immigration policy and border protection: it is almost as much a result of economic and security concerns in sending states. This is especially true with Mexico, which now has a net migration rate of zero, as this Pew Research Center report shows, but also with Central America. As the security situation continues to deteriorate, especially in the northern triangle, the numbers of Central Americans taking risks and crossing the border will continue to be high. In an ideal world, Congress would look at elements of foreign assistance and trade policy in conjunction with the domestic aspects of immigration. Nevertheless, this may be a step in the right direction. Its announcement by the gang of eight, and their apparent sincerity in heading off criticism in advance of its consideration in the Judicial Committee and then on the Senate floor, is a good sign.
