Suman Raghunathan

Family Ties (Not Those Seen on Television) in Immigration Policy

The immigration free-for-all resumes this week in Washington, with over 100 amendments slated for introduction on the Senate immigration reform bill currently under consideration.

Surprisingly enough, a bipartisan amendment to the Senate bill [recently unveiled by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Robert Menendez (D-NJ)] would go a long way to address one of its many fundamental problems: withdrawing support for family ties in our country.

No, I'm not talking about the 1980's television show starring Michael J. Fox.

I'm talking about the recent proposal to allow immigrants with green cards already living in the US to bring their spouses and children into the country. The amendment would reunite hundreds of thousands of immigrant families who want to build roots here and contribute to the economy in a real and sustained fashion. Once they are in the US, these family members can also begin working, paying taxes, and propelling our economy as consumers -- thereby generating economic growth that benefits the middle class.

Seems like a simple and fair idea, right?

Not so easy, pardner.

Allow me to explain.

There are currently over one million spouses and children under 18 who have been waiting in line an average of five years to join their family members in the US. These folks are waiting in the famous (or infamous) immigration case backlog for one of 87,900 visas given to family members of immigrants already living in the US.

The American middle class depends on immigrants and their families. This separation (where demand for permission to enter the US dramatically outpaces the supply of visas to do so) sabotages what hundreds of thousands of immigrant families can bring to our economy as workers, taxpayers, consumers, and entrepreneurs.

Just think about it: an immigrant who can bring his or her spouse, child, or both to the US will have a real incentive to work even harder to provide for that family once they're here. That one individual's hard work will in turn generate more tax revenue, help sustain the Social Security net (crucial to the retirement of many middle class workers), and consumer activity. Then you've got one, two, or more family members who will also be working, paying taxes, and more importantly buying consumer goods here -- all of which benefit the middle class. Contrary to popular belief, immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they receive in public benefits, and pay nearly the same share of their incomes in taxes (or even at a higher rate for some highly-skilled immigrants) as do native-born workers.

And let's not underestimate immigrant consumerism:Latino and Asian-American consumer markets alone accounted for an estimated trillion dollars in buying power in 2004, or about 12 percent of the nation's buying power. Coincidentally, a Harvard study found immigrants were also 12 percent of first-time homebuyers in 2001. In short, immigrants and their need for consumer goods helps fuel economic demand for the products and services produced by the American middle class and those who hope to join it. Allowing more immigrants to enter the country also means more workers who can be unionized and thereby increase the collective bargaining power of unions, who can in turn push for better wages for all workers regardless of where they were born.

For more information on how the shared interests of the US's middle class intersect with those of immigrants, see DMI's report.

Expanding the definition of those who can actually come to the US and further contribute to our economy only makes sense, and will encourage immigrants already in the US to work hard to support their families.

The proposed amendment would simply expand the "immediate relative" definition to allow legal permanent residents -- immigrants who generally have lived in the US for at least five years to get a green card in the first place -- the same right to petition (put in an application) for a spouse or family member as US citizens. Right now, US citizens' spouses or children are exempt from a ludicrous cap on family-based visas: essentially, permission to come to the US. This means they don't have to wait in line with the other one million potential immigrants who have applied to come to the US, because they have family members already living here. Legal permanent residents' spouses and children, however, do have to wait in line for one of the 87,900 visas available annually. The proposed amendment would exempt family-based visa petitions from spouses and children of green card holders from these annual visa caps.

Immigrants working and waiting in the US have to put their lives on hold as they comply with government travel restrictions imposed on them due to their immigration status, which usually means they can't go to their home countries to see their families. As a result, babies are born in other countries without seeing their parent's face. Spouses grow old, even die while waiting to see if they'll be able to squeak in under the annual quota of 87,900 visas granted to "immediate relatives"of green card holders -- ironically called Legal Permanent Residents in immigration law-speak.

If those spouses or children don't get in this year, then good luck -- they're back in line for anywhere from five to ten years.

The bipartisan amendment is particularly welcome given its sponsorship by Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), who has come a long way from her previous silence on immigration to co-sponsor this amendment with Senators Hegel and Menendez, himself the child of immigrants.
Given Senator Clinton represents the state home to the quintessential immigrant city, this is welcome news.

Now there's a way to build some family ties.

Suman Raghunathan: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 8:02 AM, Jun 06, 2007 in Immigration
Permalink | Email to Friend