Maureen Lane

Immigration Reform and The Human Factor: A College’s Perspective

(this post is by Maureen Lane. Blog's having technical problems so I've posted it for her)

The New York Times reported yesterday that immigration reform is not completely dead but may be in death throes in the United States Senate. Today will tell the story.

Whatever passionate arguments supporters and opponents of the bill may have, the New York Times notes "polls have shown that most Americans reject the idea of mass deportations and see the legislation as a reasonable solution, while most immigrant groups are strongly in favor." People, by and large, have a personal relationship with the immigrant community. We know people who were born in another land or have parents or grandparents who were. The human connection is important and in the end of the day laws don't just impact policy, they impact people.

Drum Major Institute (DMI) has a good framework for evaluating immigration policy. In a nut shell, policy should bolster the contribution of immigrants and strengthen their rights in the work place. DMI posits that policy that achieves both these goals will not only be good for immigrants workers, entrepreneurs, taxpayers and consumers but it will be good for America's struggling middle class and those fighting their way into the middle class.

Recognizing the people, the human factor, Ellen Chesler wrote this week in The Nation, "For now, immigration reform has died an inglorious death in the US Senate, beaten to death by John Cornyn, Republican from Texas, and others of his party who seem to think that behind every effort to facilitate the entry of foreigners seeking employment in this country, and to legalize the status of nearly 12 million hardworking immigrants already here, lurks an open invitation to criminals, terrorists and other undesirables from whom the country needs protection. Given this decidedly unflattering view of the character and motivation of America's immigrant population, it comes as no surprise that Senator Cornyn and others in his party of family values also see no reason to provide additional visas for foreigners who seek to be reunited with close family members already in the country as US citizens or lawful permanent residents, another stumbling block to passage of compromise legislation."

My colleague Professor Chesler notes, "Here at Hunter, approximately one-third of our students are foreign born, and many more are the children of immigrants, most of them first-time college graduates in their families. Hunter students hail from some 150 different countries and speak nearly 100 languages. Here in the city that has welcomed the world's downtrodden for more than two centuries, we continue to educate and offer opportunity to a proverbial melting pot of talented and ambitious young people--or, as former New York Mayor David Dinkins liked to call them, the "gorgeous mosaic" that illustrates our noblest aspirations for our city and country and offers the greatest promise for our future."

The Welfare Rights Initiative at Hunter College (the organization of which I am co-director) cheers Professor Chesler's piece and the praise she has for all of our students. WRI is reflective of Hunter College, a third of our program's student leaders are immigrants. Some with family members without legal status. Our students are bright, energetic, indomitable. They face not only challenges on the immigration front but with poverty as well yet they are doing all they can to succeed. We have students excelling academically, socially, volunteering and working to make education policies better for us all.

What happens today with immigration legislation in the Senate will not end the debate and certainly not the rancor. But it can. If leaders from legislatures and colleges, to neighborhoods and factories, see and respect the humanity of the people effected by immigration policies. As Professor Chesler says after writing the profiles of some of Hunter College's finest, "So there you have it. Each one of these extraordinary young people is likely to bring distinction to his or her family, city, and adoptive country. Not a likely subversive among them. Each one deserves to be treated with basic human dignity and accorded full benefits of citizenship."

Right on Chesler!

Maureen Lane: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 9:36 AM, Jun 28, 2007 in Immigration
Permalink | Email to Friend