I just read through the “Bipartisan Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” put together by a group of eight U.S. Senators, and the White House’s four-point platform on immigration reform, both statements which are (deliberately, no doubt) fairly similar in substance.
My first impression:
Good things: both statements agree that (1) there should be a route for non-criminal unauthorized immigrants to obtain lawful status, including making amends for their unlawful actions such as paying back taxes and paying a fine; (2) our immigration system should permit individuals who have received advanced educational degrees in the United States to stay here without first getting an employer to sponsor them, thus freeing them to start businesses rather than rely upon an employer-sponsor for their status; (3) children brought to the United States without knowingly violating our immigration laws – commonly referred to nowadays as DREAMers – will face a less onerous route to obtain their permanent resident status than their parents; and (4) immigrant agricultural workers who have been paid “subsistence wages” should be granted permanent resident status, as there simply are not enough American workers for these agricultural jobs, and granting these workers permanent resident status would make them less vulnerable to exploitation by employers.
There seems to be a recognition running through the Senators’ framework that unauthorized immigrant workers are easily exploited by unscrupulous employers and thus granting these workers lawful status will, among other things, help build up stronger labor protections for workers in general. (Of course, that brings us to a separate debate on business competitiveness when industries have to compete with overseas workers with weaker labor protection movements.)
Bad things: The Senators’ framework makes permanent resident status for unauthorized immigrants contingent on “securing our borders and combating visa overstays.” This statement raises the question of when will our borders be considered secure “enough”? Another point made in the Senators’ statement restricts this class of “lawful probationary immigrants” from accessing federal public benefits, which means that while this class of immigrants would be required to pay taxes and thus fund these benefit programs they will not be able to access them when in critical need of social services. This will create a new class of persons, with less rights than citizens or legal permanent residents. Sounds complicated, and ripe for adverse unintended consequences.
Some of the points stated in these platforms sound great on paper but the real question is how they will be executed, such as: Prohibit racial profiling; create an effective entry-exit tracking system so that we will know when someone who entered on a valid visa fails to depart on schedule; and provide “businesses with the ability to hire lower-skilled workers in a timely manner.” I would love to see the “timely” part of that statement turn into reality. Will timely mean a month? Six months? A year? Two years?
The issue that faces one of the biggest implementation hurdles is creating an effective employment verification system. As an immigration lawyer, it is difficult for me to sometimes identify the immigration status of the person in my office who has brought me all their immigration documents, and sometimes immigration officers themselves have a hard time, even with government databases at their fingertips. The E-Verify system currently in place to verify employment authorization does not stop incorrect verifications through identity theft. The Senators’ platform calls for an identity-theft-proof system. A tall order.
Overall, a good start to the debate over what should be changed in our immigration system. We’ll see where it goes from here.