ICAR News Network - Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution

ICAR News Network

Immigration Reform Needs to Embrace Realistic Solutions Not Idealogical Absolutes
Joel Censer , ICAR Intern
Posted: 06/15/07

Immigration reform has become such an important issue because people from both sides of the political aisle agree that it is desperately needed. Clearly, earlier legislation (specifically Reagan’s 1986 reform bill which gave amnesty mainly to Latin American immigrants) has been an inadequate response and has helped create a situation today where we have twelve million illegal immigrants.

This is a problem for a number of reasons. It means that we have twelve million people in our country who are unaccounted for and do not consistently pay taxes, despite using the country’s resources and social services (i.e.: hospitals or public schools) at an alarming rate. Additionally, illegal immigrants (because businesses can hire them for lower wages) also cause massive job redistribution among citizens. Perhaps most relevant, the influx of illegal immigrants reflects a lack of border security which is an issue by itself considering the events which preceded 9-11.

This is not to say that illegal immigration is a complete drain on the country. Many of those twelve million immigrants work at hard jobs that are even harder to fill. Also, America is to many, at its core, a land of opportunity where people come to better their financial situation. Completely disallowing immigration then (whether it be illegal or not), would be to some Americans simultaneously defying the mythic origins and cultural fabric on which our country was built.

The Senate’s recent immigration reform legislation has tried to balance tangible problems that illegal immigration causes with a realism that keeps America’s best spiritual interests in mind. The bi-partisan effort, spearheaded by Senators John Kyl and Ted Kennedy, works to first reinforce the border with fences and troops. Additionally, the twelve million illegal immigrants would not be given amnesty, but instead would be included in a guest-worker program where after paying a substantial fine, facing a comprehensive background check, having to learn American customs and English, would then have to return to their home country before being considered for possible citizenship. Finally, employers would be faced with large fines if they were found to be hiring undocumented aliens. Proponents of this legislation say that this is both a realistic and enforceable solution. The border would be better protected, businesses would have less of an incentive to hire illegal immigrations, and the guest-worker program is a more efficient, workable, and affordable alternative to that of deporting twelve million people or for calling for total amnesty.

So then why does this bi-partisan compromise draw the ire and repeated criticism from both Liberals and Conservatives? For many Republicans the legislation reminds them too much of the seven amnesty plans that the U.S. has used over the past twenty years. They see amnesty as bypassing our laws, benefiting aliens who broke them, and ultimately encouraging more illegal immigration. They have a point. The Center for Immigration Studies makes the claim that the United States has spent “more than $100 billion in social assistance programs and services over 10 years, $8 billion in public costs for illegal immigrant children and job displacement of an average of more than 187,000 U.S. citizens and legal immigrants each year.” (Washington Post, May 30, 2007)

Moreover, liberals and Democrats also have problems with the bill. The guest-worker program gives priority to illegal immigrants who have certain skills that fit the job market. Democrats believe this merit-driven process ignores families, which they believe should take priority during immigration. Additionally, others point to how illegal immigrants have been incredibly important in certain industries where their labor is needed. They think the guest-worker solution is too strict, and not sympathetic enough to the fact that these people are leaving their countries for a reason. The idea of having to pay almost five thousand dollars and return to their home country makes the financial benefits of coming to America non-existent and ignores the fact their immigration is mutually beneficial. Proponents of a more relaxed immigration reform bill strongly believe that amnesty for hard-working industrious aliens parallels the values of our country.

So is the animosity towards new legislation the result of a polarized political climate, or are both parties right that it is, in fact, seriously flawed? Each side to the immigration debate has valid points. The anti-illegal immigration faction does have a point that illegal immigration causes tangible problems, specifically in that it creates an unfair situation where people who do not pay taxes still reap some of the benefits of our country. Moreover, regarding security, enforcing our own borders does seem to make a lot of sense. However, deporting twelve million people is not only impossible, but incredibly costly from a financial standpoint. Indeed, the other side, which supports more sympathetic immigration reform, also has a reasonable position. Illegal immigrants often work a lot of the jobs people do not want to work, and come here because of the shaky economic situation of their home countries. More to the point, when they do come to America, they can also get jobs and make up a key component of a number of industries (specifically in agriculture). By coming to American then, these immigrants represent some of the important values of our country regarding opportunity and a chance. Despite this though, because we are a country built on laws, continually disregarding our laws on citizenship and allowing aliens to live untaxed cause problems as well.

Thus, where the legislation is right is in its optic. Despite having flaws, the bill not only tries to create compromise but more importantly does not get caught up in the absolutes and intense polarization of the debate. Instead, it tries to make a solution which not only gives concessions to each side, but also is both practical and enforceable. Clearly, immigration reform is needed. To do this properly it is important not only to take both sides into account, but also make and support solutions that are not unfeasible and overly ideologically driven, but instead, more inspired by policy that is both relevant and can actually be enforced.

News Network Homepage / Armenia / 2008 Elections / Afghanistan / Diplomacy/ Egypt / Environment / Global Peace Index / Health / Immigration / Iraq / Iran / Islam / Kosovo / Nuclear Proliferation / Pakistan / Palestine-Israel / Russia / Somalia / South America / Turkey /




ICAR News Network Immigration Reform Needs to Embrace Realistic Solutions Not Idealogical Absolutes Joel Censer , ICAR Intern Posted: 06/15/07 Immigration reform has become such an important issue because people from both sides of the political aisle agree that it is desperately needed. Clearly, earlier legislation (specifically Reagan’s 1986 reform bill which gave amnesty mainly to Latin American immigrants) has been an inadequate response and has helped create a situation today where we have twelve million illegal immigrants. This is a problem for a number of reasons. It means that we have twelve million people in our country who are unaccounted for and do not consistently pay taxes, despite using the country’s resources and social services (i.e.: hospitals or public schools) at an alarming rate. Additionally, illegal immigrants (because businesses can hire them for lower wages) also cause massive job redistribution among citizens. Perhaps most relevant, the influx of illegal immigrants reflects a lack of border security which is an issue by itself considering the events which preceded 9-11. This is not to say that illegal immigration is a complete drain on the country. Many of those twelve million immigrants work at hard jobs that are even harder to fill. Also, America is to many, at its core, a land of opportunity where people come to better their financial situation. Completely disallowing immigration then (whether it be illegal or not), would be to some Americans simultaneously defying the mythic origins and cultural fabric on which our country was built. The Senate’s recent immigration reform legislation has tried to balance tangible problems that illegal immigration causes with a realism that keeps America’s best spiritual interests in mind. The bi-partisan effort, spearheaded by Senators John Kyl and Ted Kennedy, works to first reinforce the border with fences and troops. Additionally, the twelve million illegal immigrants would not be given amnesty, but instead would be included in a guest-worker program where after paying a substantial fine, facing a comprehensive background check, having to learn American customs and English, would then have to return to their home country before being considered for possible citizenship. Finally, employers would be faced with large fines if they were found to be hiring undocumented aliens. Proponents of this legislation say that this is both a realistic and enforceable solution. The border would be better protected, businesses would have less of an incentive to hire illegal immigrations, and the guest-worker program is a more efficient, workable, and affordable alternative to that of deporting twelve million people or for calling for total amnesty. So then why does this bi-partisan compromise draw the ire and repeated criticism from both Liberals and Conservatives? For many Republicans the legislation reminds them too much of the seven amnesty plans that the U.S. has used over the past twenty years. They see amnesty as bypassing our laws, benefiting aliens who broke them, and ultimately encouraging more illegal immigration. They have a point. The Center for Immigration Studies makes the claim that the United States has spent “more than $100 billion in social assistance programs and services over 10 years, $8 billion in public costs for illegal immigrant children and job displacement of an average of more than 187,000 U.S. citizens and legal immigrants each year.” (Washington Post, May 30, 2007) Moreover, liberals and Democrats also have problems with the bill. The guest-worker program gives priority to illegal immigrants who have certain skills that fit the job market. Democrats believe this merit-driven process ignores families, which they believe should take priority during immigration. Additionally, others point to how illegal immigrants have been incredibly important in certain industries where their labor is needed. They think the guest-worker solution is too strict, and not sympathetic enough to the fact that these people are leaving their countries for a reason. The idea of having to pay almost five thousand dollars and return to their home country makes the financial benefits of coming to America non-existent and ignores the fact their immigration is mutually beneficial. Proponents of a more relaxed immigration reform bill strongly believe that amnesty for hard-working industrious aliens parallels the values of our country. So is the animosity towards new legislation the result of a polarized political climate, or are both parties right that it is, in fact, seriously flawed? Each side to the immigration debate has valid points. The anti-illegal immigration faction does have a point that illegal immigration causes tangible problems, specifically in that it creates an unfair situation where people who do not pay taxes still reap some of the benefits of our country. Moreover, regarding security, enforcing our own borders does seem to make a lot of sense. However, deporting twelve million people is not only impossible, but incredibly costly from a financial standpoint. Indeed, the other side, which supports more sympathetic immigration reform, also has a reasonable position. Illegal immigrants often work a lot of the jobs people do not want to work, and come here because of the shaky economic situation of their home countries. More to the point, when they do come to America, they can also get jobs and make up a key component of a number of industries (specifically in agriculture). By coming to American then, these immigrants represent some of the important values of our country regarding opportunity and a chance. Despite this though, because we are a country built on laws, continually disregarding our laws on citizenship and allowing aliens to live untaxed cause problems as well. Thus, where the legislation is right is in its optic. Despite having flaws, the bill not only tries to create compromise but more importantly does not get caught up in the absolutes and intense polarization of the debate. Instead, it tries to make a solution which not only gives concessions to each side, but also is both practical and enforceable. Clearly, immigration reform is needed. To do this properly it is important not only to take both sides into account, but also make and support solutions that are not unfeasible and overly ideologically driven, but instead, more inspired by policy that is both relevant and can actually be enforced. News Network Homepage / Armenia / 2008 Elections / Afghanistan / Diplomacy/ Egypt / Environment / Global Peace Index / Health / Immigration / Iraq / Iran / Islam / Kosovo / Nuclear Proliferation / Pakistan / Palestine-Israel / Russia / Somalia / South America / Turkey /		About ICAR Student Information Prospective Students Faculty and Staff Alumni Career Services Academic Programs Library ICAR In The News Events Technology Resources ICAR Publications Point Of View Center Center for World Religions, Diplomacy & Conflict Resolution