Immigration solution: Will there ever be one?

ON DISTANT SHORE
by Val G. Abelgas

Arizona’s immigration law has reignited an emotional debate that threatens to divide the country once again, just as slavery sent the United States into a catastrophic civil war a century and a half ago, and just as segregation brought tumult to the nation decades ago.

For decades, nay for centuries, Americans have argued over immigration. The conservatives, who have shown an innate fear for anything new, including newcomers, want those who are here illegally to be kicked out and for the doors to legal immigration to be tightened. The pro-immigrant activists want all those who have been working and living in the United States – some 12 million of them – to be legalized and given a path to citizenship, and to allow them to be reunited with the family members they left behind.

For years, it seemed that theirs was a case of “East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.”

On December 16, 2005, the House of Representatives, still under the control of the conservative Republicans, passed a similar bill as that of Arizona’s SB 1070 that sought to make criminals out of illegal immigrants and those who harbor them. The Sensenbrenner Bill, named after its principal author, Wisconsin Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, at the same time mandated the building of a huge wall across more than a thousands of miles across the US-Mexican border with high-technology surveillance equipment.

The Sensenbrenner Bill was passed by a vote of 239 to 182 (with 92% of Republicans supporting, 82% of Democrats opposing), but did not pass the Senate. The bill triggered massive protests the next year.

The more liberal Senate, on the other hand, proposed in early 2006 a bill that called for increased border security and related measures, but also tried to find a way to legalize some of the illegal aliens and putting in place a guest worker program that would allow thousands more of needed workers for American farms and businesses.

The mid-term elections came and the great immigration debate was once again relegated to the dustbin. The Arizona law, authored by staunch Republican Russel Pearce, pushed back the debate to the forefront.

The Arizona law copied most of the provisions of the Sensenbenner Bill, and allowed local police officers to stop people on “reasonable suspicion” that they are illegal immigrants and require them to show proof of legal residence or citizenship.

The law exposes ethnic minorities, especially Latinos, to “racial profiling” and other discriminatory acts. At the same time, it could discourage illegal immigrants from reporting crimes, emboldening criminals to prey on them.

There is no question that the unchecked entry of illegal immigrants has been a major source of irritants among the people of the United States. On one side, conservatives are claiming that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from American citizens, are causing a big drain on US funds for public services, and are responsible for raising crime rates in several US cities, and are making a mockery of US immigration laws.

On the other side, pro-immigrant activists are claiming that the failure of the government to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship has kept them living “under the shadows,” and unable to take a fair share of the opportunities offered by the US economy and a full share of public services, for which they have contributed much through their hard work and taxes. They also said that because of their status, the undocumented immigrants are unable to reunite with their families. Thus, they should be legalized, given a path to citizenship and be reunited with their families.

Such extreme views are hard to reconcile, and for years, the nation’s leaders have tried to find a compromise formula that would be acceptable to the majority.

The conservatives are saying “No way!” while the pro-immigrant extremists are saying “Thanks, but no thanks!” One of them has got to give, or both of them would have to give up a little and take a little, thus a compromise solution to the nagging problem.

The conservatives, calling earlier compromise proposals an amnesty, say there is no way they would accept any form of amnesty for people who broke the law. They insist that the illegals should be punished and deported, instead of rewarded and given a chance to become citizens, while hundreds of thousands have been waiting in line for years.

The pro-immigrant activists, on the other hand, claimed that the path to citizenship offered in 2006 was, at the very least, circuitous and full of danger. For example, why does the breadwinner have to go back to his home country and await his or her visa there? Who would provide for the children while the head of household is away, which could take a year or more? Will his employer wait for him that long?

Under the 2006 proposal, the illegal alien would be given temporary, but indefinite “Z” visa that would allow him to work in the US and his dependents to stay with him. However, he has to wait until the backlog of pending immigrant visa applications is removed, which could take from 8 to 13 years. Also, no green card applications will be accepted until full border security measures have been put in place, which could also take 8 to 15 years. In the meantime, these “Z’ visa holders would pay their taxes and contribute to the economy without getting the benefits of citizenship.

The biggest drawback to the proposal, however, is the plan to limit family petitions in favor of a merit-based system, wherein the granting of immigrant visa would be based on how the prospective immigrant could contribute to the American economy and society, instead of on the need for family reunification.

Under the compromise plan, citizens can no longer petition adult children and siblings, while the annual quota for petitioned parents would be reduced from 90,000 to 40,000.

With these drawbacks and with the insistence of the conservatives to deport all undocumented aliens, will there ever be an acceptable comprehensive immigration reform program?

The nagging immigration problem has divided the American people since the first immigrant group arrived after the Pilgrims. It definitely needs a lasting solution, one that may never come unless the extremists on either side of the immigration divide accept realities and commit to a compromise.

(valabelgas@aol.com)