Suman Raghunathan

A Fresh Start on Immigration for 2008

Ah, a New Year: a time for New Year's resolutions, housecleaning, fresh starts, and... 800-pound gorillas.

As Iowa gears up for the frenzied Democratic and Republican Presidential caucuses and candidates from Romney to Huckabee to Giuliani sling expensive ad mud against each other for their (at least previously) sort-of-practical stances on immigration policy, immigration has become the 800-pound gorilla in campaign war rooms across the country.

Though up to 78% of voters polled expressed support for legalization undocumented immigrants, candidates and the major parties continue to approach the issue without broaching how the American middle class, in addition to immigrants themselves, can benefit from smart immigration policy. A recent essay from Christopher Jencks points out just how little substance there is to most mainstream political stances on the issue.

(As in Hillary’s hokey-pokey on whether or not she supported issuing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants, Rudy’s hokey-pokey over his immigration policies during his tenure as New York City’s Mayor, and even Mike Huckabee’s initially practical approaches to Arkansas immigrant community needs before deciding if he becomes President, all undocumented people will leave the country within 120 days. Now if those aren’t examples of dances of indecision, I don’t know what are.)

I really like this idea of a charade on immigration, because it seems to me it’s a game that pretty much all the Presidential candidates are playing these days in some way, shape or form. Looks like everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon of being against illegal immigration and undocumented immigrants without taking the time to wrestle over what a smart immigration platform would look like – and how it could also benefit the American middle class, the group that has traditionally been pitted against immigrant workers and their families.

The New York Times did a good job this weekend (goodness, I seem to be giving a lot of shout-outs to their editorial board these days!) of calling out the candidates on both sides of the partisan divide for their eternal and increasingly furious pandering to what they see as popular anti-immigrant sentiment – and also for the lack of substance and practicality in their immigration platforms.

Political pundits opine that after the demise of last summer’s attempt at large-scale immigration reform – which failed despite strong backing from the White House and lukewarm support from the Democrats – it is unlikely that any new attempt at reform will happen for at least the next two years. If Rahm Emanuel, Lou Dobbs, and Pat Buchanan had their way, immigration policy would not emerge as a real policy option except to focus on enforcement as the only angle worth taking on immigration.

I’ve already written about how this approach (dubbed ‘employer sanctions’, an ironic misnomer because immigrant workers will be the real ones who’ll feel the brunt of this enforcement plan) will not nab the real bad guys in this drama of American firms employing undocumented workers: crooked bosses who hold immigration status above the heads of their undocumented workers to force them to accept substandard wages. We know from past experience with employer sanctions and similar programs (SSA No-Match, anyone?) that employers don’t fire their undocumented workers when they become aware of their lack of immigration status – no, they wait until these workers begin to unionize, demand worker safety protections, or ask for a fair wage to sack ‘em.

Mind you, all these existing worker protection laws apply to ALL workers regardless of their immigration status – but who’s counting? When it comes to immigration policy, who cares about workers’ rights? Or how upholding fair wage and worker protection laws for immigrant workers will in the end help the American middle class by bringing up the playing field for all workers.

Sure, immigration defies easy answers; and sure, the nation’s number of foreign-born residents is at one of its highest levels in our nation’s history. But resorting to knee-jerk nativism, English-only, or mass deportation is neither a smart or practical way to deal with the one in ten US residents who is foreign-born.

In the meantime, the courts continue to see a maelstrom of lawsuits and rulings on immigration policy: the latest development is a Michigan State Supreme Court ruling that bars the state’s undocumented residents from receiving driver’s licenses. So much for an example of immigration policy that honored the economic contributions and potential of immigrant workers while effectively bringing down car insurance rates in a state that is, coincidentally, usually a battleground state in national electoral politics.

Well, folks, I’m here to tell you that is not a way for our nation to move forward into a future that’s healthy, just, and prosperous not just for those in the highest tax brackets, but for the country’s beleaguered middle class.

As DMI has been saying for a while, what we need is a pro-immigrant, pro-worker agenda that first legalizes undocumented immigrants to bring them out of the shadows and the underground economy, then forces shady employers to comply with existing worker protection and fair wage laws – which will level the playing field for all workers, including the American middle class, when it comes to wages and work conditions.

Yikes. After all this time analyzing the Presidential candidates’ stances on immigration, I’m starting to sound like one of them myself.

Suman Raghunathan: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 10:35 AM, Jan 02, 2008 in Immigration
Permalink | Email to Friend