Oppose the Politically Convenient, Flawed Immigration Reform Deal

(Updated on May 26, 2007)


By Partha Banerjee

http://www.geocities.com/chokmoki


Oppose Politically Convenient, Flawed Immigration Reform Deal

(Some sections in blog are published as a letter in the New York Times, May 19, 2007)

______________________________________________


A Politically Convenient, Flawed Immigration Reform Deal

By Partha Banerjee


The immigration reform negotiators in the Senate announced an unworkable deal. Our elected leaders, in their politically expedient maneuvering, excluded from the dialogue the millions of working-class, undocumented immigrants who came out and marched all across the United States demanding a real, meaningful, comprehensive reform. The new deal despite making some rudimentary progress, falls far short of their expectations and their children’s aspirations.

Many labor unions, pro-immigrant advocates and lawyers, faith institutions and grassroots organizations opposed the bill, now introduced in the Senate as Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Even key politicians such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid and Sen. Robert Menendez expressed strong reservations.

Republicans and Democrats wanted to cater both to the conservative and liberal voters, and thus paid more attention to the 2008 presidential elections than the lives and suffering of the immigrants who do not have a vote. The especially bypassed the millions of so-called "illegal aliens" who, unlike the better-placed non-citizen, permanent resident immigrants, do not have any economic or political power. That is an opportunistic insider game, and not just. It is also beyond any known standards of morality or ethics. Well, who said the current American political establishment was ethical or pro-poor?

The so-called bipartisan move is a huge disappointment, because among other flaws, the proposal takes away our country's bedrock family-based immigration path, prevents temporary, "guest" workers from earning legalization, thereby perpetuating an indentured servitude, and links post-September-Eleventh national security with immigration reform, rationalizing an increased border militarization, expansion of interior enforcement and detention center beds, and a national ID system.

Already, hundreds of thousands of immigrant detainees are languishing at numerous federal, state and county prisons, without having been charged of any crimes. The newly introduced bill will take the already grim situation one step farther. Even a minor offense committed years ago -- such as shoplifting or jumping turnstiles -- would be enough reason for an indefinite detention without due process, and then a sure deportation.

The bill also proposes a heretofore-untested, pro-business, education- and skill-based point system, creating deep divisions in the immigrant community.

Basically what our politicians and business owners say is, if you're rich or highly educated, you're welcome; if you're poor or unskilled, get out -- it doesn't matter if the rest of your family is U.S. citizens.

Under the plan, out-of-status immigrants present in the U.S. could initially seek a probationary status while border security measures and a high-tech, worker identification program are put in place. Qualified applicants could then seek a renewable visa. After paying fees and fines totaling up to $10,000 and waiting for at least eight to thirteen years, they could finally get on track for a Green Card -- although heads of households would first have to return to their home countries.

The so-called guest workers would have no chance for permanency -- they'll be allowed in for three installments of two years each, with a mandatory gap of a year in between their stays. After all, these people will be needed to pick apples, grapes and strawberries at pesticide-laden farms, will be put to use to work night shifts at corporate chain stores to mop up, employed as round-the-clock maids or nannies, or worked in the back of plush Indian, Italian or Chinese restaurants to do dishes. Meatpacking industries will need them too.

The entire process is inhumane, unrealistic, cumbersome, and puts severe onus on the immigrant worker and families. Irony is, the measure is being proposed by politicians who do election-year, wide-smile photo-ops on family values.

We immigrant and civil rights activists are not utopians or blind idealists. The complexity of the issue and its many intricate facets make us politically more pragmatic and understand the importance of a reasonable compromise between the opposing sides. However, as believers in human rights and opposers of global aggression and domestic repression, we must not support a compromise that puts profit and politics over voiceless people and their relentless suffering. Fact is, the immigration landscape of U.S. has changed over the past fifteen or so years, and South Asian, Korean, Chinese, Filipino, Haitian or the large majority of Hispanic newcomers are suffering miserably.

Are we ready to embrace this corporate-America-sponsored, deeply flawed legislation now being debated in Congress? After all, this is no comprehensive reform that millions of new immigrants marched for. America needs its working-class immigrants and their labor. America must give them back their due rights, respect and dignity.


###

________________________________________________________

National Immigration Law Center (NILC)'s Statement on the Senate-White House Immigration Reform Proposal

Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007

May 21, 2007

The National Immigration Law Center was one of the first national organizations to support the legalization of undocumented immigrants, and we have consistently encouraged and supported steps toward the goal of comprehensive immigration reform. Even where we have found serious flaws in legislation, we have praised the members of Congress who have had the courage to put proposals on the table and confront the angry critics of reform. We continue to admire Senator Kennedy for his willingness to put his legacy on the line on behalf of some of his least powerful constituents.

That said, the deal that Senate negotiators have consummated is a step in the wrong direction. Although the deal includes the DREAM Act and AgJOBS and promises significant short-term benefits for many undocumented immigrants, the nation's experience suggests that the rest of the provisions would have dire long-term consequences for both immigrants and citizens.

The following are some of the features of the deal that would put immigration reform on the wrong track:

A long and expensive legalization process. The legalization program would be less restrictive on the front end than the one in last year's Senate-passed bill, but on balance the program would be more precarious for those who begin the process.

Those granted the new Z nonimmigrant visa would become deportable if they fail to maintain continuous full-time employment or school attendance until able to adjust to lawful permanent residence status, a period that would continue for at least 13 years for some applicants.

During this extended period, legalized immigrants would have no ability to petition for their spouses and minor children who live abroad.

The requirements to adjust to permanent residence for Z nonimmigrants would include a mandatory departure and return by the head of household, not just across the border, but generally to the immigrant's country of origin. There would not be any exceptions to the requirement to leave the United States other than disability.

The final stage of the legalization process, adjustment to lawful permanent residence status, could not be completed until the current immigration backlog has cleared for applications filed before May 1, 2005, and certain difficult-to-achieve immigration enforcement "triggers" have been met. This would require all legalized immigrants to wait at least 13 years-and some at least 18 years-before they could apply for citizenship.

Sharp cuts in family immigration, a change that would be both inhumane and unsound, and one that would undermine our country's shared belief in family values. In addition to being the right thing to do, permitting families to stay together provides important social and economic benefits to our nation.

A drastic dismantling of our longstanding system of legal immigration and its replacement with an untested "merit-based" points system that devalues the historical contributions and potential of immigrants whose first language is not English and who do not have advanced degrees. The proposed system would focus almost entirely on immigrants' perceived economic value to determine if they are worthy of being accepted into the U.S.

A massive new temporary worker program that fails to meet key bottom-line requirements for such a system: that temporary workers who establish ties here must have a realistic path to permanent residence and true job portability that allows them to change employers freely if they are mistreated.

A mandatory electronic employment eligibility verification system with absurd implementation timelines calibrated to guarantee that the system will be implemented whether or not the necessary improvements are made to ensure its accuracy. The proposed system is so poorly designed that significant increases in discrimination, privacy lapses, and multitudes of unnecessary firings are inevitable.

Wholesale sharing of personal information between government agencies that would undo confidentiality provisions in the tax code and undermine privacy rights.

Several provisions that compromise the due process rights of immigrants, which were originally included in last year's infamous Sensenbrenner legislation (HR 4437) and that migrated into last year's Senate-passed bill. Some of these have been modified from the form they took last year, but troubling provisions remain.

Increased militarization of the border without sufficient civil and human rights protections for migrants and members of border communities.

A provision that requires immigrants who have worked and paid into the Social Security system for years to forfeit all of the contributions they made before obtaining a newly issued Social Security number, thereby sentencing millions of workers to deep poverty in their retirement years despite the hard-earned taxes they have paid.

Undue restrictions on the ability of courts to review Dept. of Homeland Security decisions in individual legalization cases and in the agency's implementation of the legalization program.

In recent days many organizations and individuals have argued that this agreement represents a step forward. Undoubtedly it is a step towards enactment of legislation. But if enacted as is, we project that it would lead -- within a few short years -- to a situation that is even worse than the status quo: a society that is more divided and less free.

We fervently hope that this bill can be improved on the Senate floor. If not, it should be opposed.

For more information, contact:

Josh Bernstein, Federal Policy Director
bernstein@nilc-dc.org | 202.216.0261 x. 2

Joan Friedland, Immigration Policy Director
friedland@nilc-dc.org | 202.216.0261 x. 6


###