ANSWERS TO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ON COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

1) Why don’t immigrants come legally in the first place?

Immigrants do want to come legally.  But with legal channels so divorced from the demands of our labor market, illegal immigration is inevitable.  For example, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that our economy requires some 485,000 full-time, year-round new immigrant workers each year.  But current immigration laws provide just 5,000 visas for such workers annually.  No wonder the system is so broken: the market demands almost 500,000 workers a year, and federal law offers 5,000!  Meanwhile, our family immigration system is so inflexible that people often wait decades to reunite with loved ones.  Because it’s a matter of feeding or being with their families, such narrow legal channels lead people to seek entry by whatever means necessary.  If we create broader legal channels for these immigrants, most immigration will happen in a safe, legal, and orderly way.     

2) Why do you support illegal immigration?

We do not support illegal migration.  We support more opportunities for people to come and live here legally.  Our country has a demand for workers, and a willing supply from south of the border, but insufficient visas to facilitate their legal entry.  We have close family members who face interminable separations because of an outmoded immigration system.  We need to fix these mismatches.  This, combined with tough enforcement, will go a long way towards solving the problem of illegal immigration. 

 

A range of groups have been thinking long and hard about what kind of reform is needed to fix our broken immigration system.  Immigration reform must be realistic while staying true to our tradition as a nation of immigrant and a nation of laws.  For reform to work it must be comprehensive, this means that any legislative package must include:

1) A workable and effective solution to bring 11 million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows;

2) Broader legal channels so in the future workers can come with a visa and with labor rights;

3) Reduction of the family backlogs so that families can be reunited in a timely fashion;

4) Smart enforcement techniques targeting those who wish us harm; and

5) Integration of immigrants into the civic and social fabric of our communities.

Immigrant rights groups are prepared to support and fight for a proposal that includes these principles, anything less is not reform and cannot be supported.

4) But your plan seems to provide for unlimited immigration.  How is that good for our country?

Our solution is not more immigration.  It is more legal immigration.  Our reforms take a migration flow that is currently happening under the radar screen and funnels it through the legal system.  Done right, it doesn’t add a single new person to the equation.  It replaces the illegal flow with a legal, orderly flow.  It is just regulating what is already happening in a way that benefits both Americans already here and immigrants coming to build new lives.  And let there be no doubt, we stand for caps, limits, controls, and screening.  The status quo leads to uncontrolled, unlimited, and unscreened immigration.  The overhaul we support will make the new limits honest, enforceable, and realistic.  Plus, more workers in our economy will be covered by U.S. labor laws.

5) Won’t this lead to more illegal immigration?

Not if we get the policy right.  If we succeed in replacing the current illegal flow with legal avenues, illegal immigration will be dramatically curtailed.  The only employers relying on undocumented labor will be the bad actors, who can be more seriously targeted through enforcement. 

But the lynchpin here is linking our reforms to reality.  If we require people to return home after working here temporarily, we enact a temporary solution that will certainly lead to future illegal immigration.  Employers have long-term labor needs.  Some immigrants may want to stay for a few years, but others may want to put down roots and build lives in America .  We have to deal with current undocumented workers and future visa holders in a way that provides the option of staying, if they want to and if they are needed in our work force.  A temporary worker program is just that—a temporary solution—and it will most definitely lead to undocumented immigration when people overstay their temporary visas or decline to “report for deportation” under the registration program.  We need to create a system that’s sustainable in the long-run. 

6) By legalizing the undocumented, won’t we be promoting a huge rush at the border by people who want to come to the U.S. ?

People enter the U.S. illegally because they are desperate to work and have no options for legal entry.  Our proposal fixes that problem by providing legal channels for migrants to come and fill available jobs without risking their lives.  The first step towards this rational system is introducing comprehensive, bipartisan legislation.  But if people do come to the U.S. undocumented before this proposal becomes law, they will be required to return home and apply for legal status—if they qualify—through the existing system.  They will not be legalized under the legislation. 

7) But, Americans don’t support this kind of reform, do they?

The American people know that the immigration system is broken and needs reform.  They also know that mass deportations of undocumented workers are not realistic.  They want a solution that recognizes we are a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. 

In a March 2005 survey of 800 likely voters from around the nation, 75% said that they support our kind of immigration reform: registration of undocumented workers, a regulated flow of future workers and family members, and reasonable rules that are fairly enforced.  Support for this reform package was solid across party lines, and didn’t waver even when given the alternatives that immigration restrictionists favor. 

Support for our version of reform is also strong among Republicans.  The conservative Manhattan Institute commissioned a nationwide poll of 800 “likely” Republican voters on October 2005.  The poll found that the Republican rank and file strongly favor earned legalization for illegal immigrants. 

While there is certainly a faction of people out there who think that if we only did more of what we’re doing now we could end undocumented immigration, they are a small but vocal minority.  The overwhelming majority of voters crave a real solution that will actually fix the system, and they gravitate toward the package we support.    

8) Aren’t you basically calling for open immigration/open borders?

The options aren’t open borders or closed borders—neither are realistic nor desirable.  What we need are smart borders.  We need to bring the overwhelming majority of well-intentioned immigrants through our legal system so that we can screen them and admit them if they intend to contribute to our nation, or bar them if they intend to harm us.  Right now we have a chaotic system in which unauthorized entry is a daily occurrence.  By writing realistic immigration laws and enforcing them to the letter, we will finally achieve border control that is good for national security, our families, and our economy. 

9) Don’t these principles call for “amnesty” for illegals?

No.  “Amnesty” means a free pass, an automatic pardon, and a trip to the front of the line.  We support a window of opportunity for undocumented immigrants who are contributing to our nation to come forward, pay a serious fine and application fee, go through rigorous criminal background checks and security screenings, demonstrate that they have paid taxes and are learning English, and then obtain a temporary visa that could lead to permanent residency, over time.  They would not be able to jump the line ahead of those who waited for their green cards outside of the U.S.    

This approach recognizes the reality that we cannot deport 11 million undocumented workers; that it is better from a security perspective to know is here, and that we will fail to restore the rule of law to our immigration system if we leave millions of undocumented immigrants in the shadows. 

10) Doesn’t this proposal simply reward illegal behavior?

The broken status quo rewards illegal behavior.  Employers who seek out vulnerable workers gain an unfair advantage over law-abiding competitors, smugglers make millions by ferrying workers to jobs across the border, and practically, immigrants seeking to work and hoping to join loved ones in the U.S. can only get in if they enter illegally.  By combining a path to legal status for those already here, legal channels for those who otherwise might come illegally, and tough enforcement that makes the new system relatively air-tight, we will replace widespread illegality with a legal, orderly system. 

11) Isn’t this proposal unfair to those who waited patiently in line?

No.  Those currently waiting in line will get permanent residence first.  Part of this is due to updating the “family preference” immigration system.  Families currently stuck in the interminable family visa backlogs will be able to reunify within a reasonable time frame.  Also, immigrants here without papers will come forward and register for temporary admission, but they won’t get permanent residency ahead of those who waited in line.

12) Doesn’t this proposal send the message that we’re not serious about enforcing our laws?

Over the past decade, we have dramatically escalated our enforcement resources, yet illegal immigration has skyrocketed.  Enforcement-only approaches have not stopped illegal migration.  There are other factors at play here, most notably the laws of supply and demand and the basic need to be with one’s family.  The first step toward restoring the rule of law is designing an immigration system in synch, not at odds, with this labor market and family reality. 

That means tying our visa quotas to U.S. economic needs and family relationships.  Once we have a system that is in line with reality, the vast majority of participants (immigrants, family members, and employers) will play by the rules.  We will be left with a small minority of bad actors, and enhanced enforcement resources to target them.  In fact, this kind of comprehensive reform we are talking about is the only way to achieve effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.  

13) By letting in more immigrants, aren’t we jeopardizing our American values and American way of life?

America is a nation of immigrants.  Studies, and experience, show that immigrants embrace America and our values.  Within ten years of arrival, more than 75% of immigrants speak English well.  Over one third are naturalized citizens, with millions more in the pipeline.  Immigrants are Americans by choice; people who want a better future for their families and who believe in the American dream. 

14) Won’t this proposal lead to more immigrants taking jobs from U.S. workers?

Our proposal helps fill a mismatch between the kinds of jobs created and the kinds of workers available in the U.S.   Our society is aging.  As baby boomers retire, they require more services.  Their kids want to go to college, not work in the fields, factories, or the service sector.  And more than half the new jobs being created in our economy require hard work but not formal degrees.  This proposal meets U.S. labor needs with a legal flow of workers to available jobs in industries that are attracting fewer and fewer native-born workers. 

15) Why can’t we just give the 11 million a temporary permit and then require them to go back home?

Undocumented immigrants have planted roots in our communities.  They have families, jobs, friends and colleagues in the U.S.   They own homes, have U.S. citizen children, belong to churches and work in all kinds of industries.  According to the Hispanic Pew Center, up to 70% of the more than 10 million undocumented living in the U.S. have been here more than 5 years.  It is unrealistic to expect that they will pack up and leave their families, children, employment and communities behind.  Common sense dictates that such requirement would fail.

16) Won’t this proposal lead to wage depression for U.S. workers?

In fact, the status quo leads to wage depression, as many industries and regions rely upon undocumented workers.  These workers are less likely to assert their rights in the workplace and to join unions, and their bargaining power is limited because of their legal status. 

Once well-intentioned employers have access to a stable and legal workforce, hiring of undocumented immigrants will become marginalized and labor laws fully enforced.  Temporary workers and newly-legalized immigrants will enjoy all the freedoms of U.S. workers, including the right to change jobs and to join a union.  Their bargaining power in the workplace will rise dramatically, lifting the floor for all workers. 

Indeed, after immigrants achieved legal status under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, their real wages rose 14%.  Employers benefited, too, as workers learned English and improved jobs skills, which combined to dramatically increase productivity. 

17) We tried something like this proposal before, in 1986.  Why should we go down this path again?

The problem with the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was that it fell far short of real reform: the enforcement measures were not effective enough, the path to legal status was not complete enough, and the legal channels for future workers and family members were ignored completely.  The package we support combines tough enforcement, legal channels for the future flow, and a path to legal status for those here without papers.  This combination will turn the status quo that is rife with illegality into a modernized system that is legal and orderly.  We should learn from the mistakes made almost twenty years ago.    

18) Why does reform need to be comprehensive and bipartisan?

Legislation to fix the broken immigration system has to be comprehensive to work and bipartisan to pass. 

“Comprehensive” meaning it has to address the problems with our immigration system holistically—it has to deal with the people who are here illegally now, and provide legal options for workers and families to come in the future.  And the proposal cannot be simply a guestworker program with no chance at permanent status.  Millions of undocumented immigrants, especially those here for longer than a few years, with family, kids in school, and multiple jobs, simply will not sign up.  Such a program also won’t address our future labor needs.  It is not comprehensive reform.

The legislation also has to be bipartisan, because for any such proposal to pass in the Congress it needs votes from both sides of the aisle.  Democrats have been reform-friendly for years, but they control neither chamber of Congress and don’t drive the legislative agenda.  Republicans do control both chambers and many support these reforms, but they also have to contend with one wing of their party that opposes any reform that is not simply more enforcement.  So, reform-minded Republicans and Democrats need each other in order to enact these reforms.   

19) Our consulates and USCIS are already overwhelmed with applications.  How can they possibly handle a new temporary worker program and a program for millions of people already here?

The one thing the government did right some twenty years ago was set up a parallel structure to administer the program.  Community groups helped people make their applications so that the INS wasn’t overwhelmed with poorly-prepared files.  Of course these reforms will take significant ramping up at U.S. consulates and within the Department of Homeland Security.  But the proposal’s fines and fees will cover the costs of such expanded government resources.   

It will take years, but it can and must be done.  And in the end, our government will see a huge benefit in terms of resource allocation.  Right now, our immigration enforcement resources are overextended chasing after undocumented workers and their families.  Our reforms will shift much of the work that is currently tying our enforcement agencies in knots to legal admissions channels.  Then, border and interior enforcement agents will be able to better focus their resources on real threats and dangers to our country.

20) Shouldn’t we get control over our borders first, and then consider something along the lines of your proposal?

We’ve tried the enforcement-only approach for decades, and what has been the result?  People cross in the most remote and dangerous areas of the desert, they rely heavily on criminal smugglers and document forgers, and once inside the United States they are afraid to call the police, take their children for immunizations, or return to their home countries because they might be banished from their lives and jobs in the United States.  The undocumented immigrant population has swollen to 10 million people according a recent study by the Pew Hispanic Center.  Obviously we need a new approach.

Our proposal combines reform of our admissions laws with modernized enforcement that includes a compliance system with teeth, enhanced capacities for interior enforcement, and best practices applied on the border.  Instead of putting the cart before the horse, the cart and the horse must be driven together.  

21) But if we had more agents on the border, wouldn’t we stop undocumented immigration?

We’ve tried ramping up resources on the border, and it simply hasn’t succeeded.  In the last decade or so we tripled the number of border patrol agents and quintupled the enforcement budget.  Yet the number of undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States has steadily increased to 10 million.  Of course, this growth coincided with record-breaking economic prosperity, and it is well-documented that immigrants were a vital part of that success. 

So, an increase in border agents alone is not going to keep immigrants from coming illegally.  We have to understand the reasons they come illegally—jobs, opportunities, and family reunification—and provide legal options.    

22) Given the tragedy of 9/11, how can you consider legalizing undocumented immigrants?

Rather, the question should be, how can we continue to tolerate the status quo?  Ten million people live in the United States without authorization.  They rely on the same smugglers and document forgers that terrorists might also exploit.  And our enforcement resources are overextended chasing after busboys and gardeners when they should be focusing on real security threats. 

We need to bring well-intentioned immigrants through the legal system.  When the vast majority of the current illegal flow is happening legally, our enforcement resources will be better trained on the smugglers and fake document rings, the drug runners and violent criminals, and the terrorists who might manipulate our system.

A path to legal status for the current undocumented population is integral to enhance national security.  Once the good people come forward for registration and criminal background checks, the people who cannot and do not will be isolated.  Then, our enforcement agents will have a much smaller haystack to sort through than they do now, with so many decent people outside of the legal system. 

23) Aren’t you worried that terrorists could use this new visa program to enter the U.S. ?

When people are admitted legally their identities, photos, and fingerprints are checked against watch lists and criminal databases.  Potential security threats can be identified and either apprehended or deterred from entering the U.S.   The bigger problem is that so many people enter the U.S. without inspection.  Although there is not one shred of evidence that our southern border has been crossed by potential security threats, the possibility exists.  A legal, orderly system that funnels workers and family members through proper vetting procedures and legal channels will significantly reduce this vulnerability.

***