May 2008
Walter A. Ewing, Ph.D.
|
From an article in the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy (Summer 2007)
|
Since 9/11 the watchword in the debate over immigration reform has been “security.” As a result, most policymakers and pundits now approach the subject of immigration largely from a law-enforcement perspective. That is, the focus is how best to fortify U.S. borders so as to prevent the illicit entry into the country of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. This concern has been especially acute in the case of the U.S.-Mexico border, across which hundreds of thousands of unauthorized immigrants enter the United States undetected each year. However, the current border-enforcement strategy, which tends to lump together terrorists and undocumented jobseekers from abroad as groups to be kept out, ignores the causes of undocumented immigration and fuels the expansion of the people-smuggling networks through which a foreign terrorist might enter the country. As a decade and a half of failed border-control initiatives have illustrated, law-enforcement efforts alone are not sufficient to achieve security. As long as U.S. immigration policies remain unresponsive to the economic forces which drive immigration, U.S. national security will be continually undermined by a system that sends the dual messages “Keep Out” and “Help Wanted” to the immigrant workers upon whom large sectors of the U.S. economy depend.
The primacy of economics in driving immigration highlights another, often overlooked, aspect of the debate over security. From a broader perspective, security in the context of immigration implies more than just safeguarding the nation from attacks by foreign terrorists. It also suggests economic security in the sense of policies that enhance the long-term health and global competitiveness of the U.S. economy. At a time when the native-born workforce is growing older, the U.S. economy is creating large numbers of jobs at both ends of the educational spectrum. With international competition for skilled workers growing, immigration is an increasingly vital economic resource. Attempting to impose arbitrary limits on immigration without regard for the needs of the U.S. labor market is economically self-destructive.
In the wake of the November 2006 mid-term elections, the political environment may once again be conducive to the enactment of some sort of immigration reform. Before 9/11, considerable momentum had gathered behind the proposals of a wide range of business associations, labor unions, ethnic and religious groups, and politicians to “regularize” the flow of foreign workers into the United States, particularly from Mexico. The proposals were based on the common-sense recognition that immigrants have become indispensable to the U.S. economy, especially in the service sector, and that in the absence of adequate legal channels to enter the United States, large numbers of these workers resort to more dangerous illegal routes. The essence of the proposals put forward was to create opportunities for these workers to enter legally and to provide a pathway to legal status for those already living and working in the country. However, these proposals were derailed by the 9/11 attacks as the U.S. government turned its attention to security concerns and immigration reform dropped off the political radar screen. As a result, the Bush administration was left with failed and costly border-enforcement policies from the 1990s that have increased deaths at the border without reducing undocumented immigration or enhancing national security, while playing into the hands of immigrant smugglers.
Lawmakers must now re-focus their attention on bringing U.S. immigration policy in line with U.S. economic reality by expanding both temporary and permanent avenues for immigration to the United States and by creating a mechanism through which undocumented immigrants can acquire legal status once they have been screened to identify any individuals who might pose a risk to national security or public safety. In contrast to the claims of anti-immigration advocates, this sort of comprehensive immigration reform would enhance national security far more than the current border-enforcement strategy by bringing undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and allowing the U.S. government to keep better track of who is actually in the country. Moreover, industries that are characterized by large numbers of less-skilled jobs would no longer be reliant upon an underground labor market to supply the workers they need.
|
