Dream Act in Lame-Duck Session is Recipe for Disaster

 

WASHINGTON (By Stewart J. Lawrence, U.S. Catholic Conference, the Inter-American Institute on Migration and Labor and the American Immigration Law Foundation) November 24, 2010 — Immigration is still the nation's thorniest policy issue. And both parties, with an eye to 2012, seem more inclined to retrench than accommodate.

Yet both stand to lose: Democrats, with mainstream voters, who overwhelmingly support the GOP's strategy of “enforcement first;” Republicans, with Hispanics, who rightly demand an end to race-baiting and nativism.

As an alternative, some Democrats are pushing a partial legalization plan, the DREAM Act, in the lame-duck session. It's true that some Republicans once supported the measure, just as they did a sweeping legalization program. But pushing it now is a recipe for disaster.

If Democrats somehow eke out a win on this, they can kiss comprehensive immigration reform goodbye. Circumventing the new Congress — and, by extension, the will of the voters who elected them — could poison the well with the GOP for years.

President Barack Obama has a choice. He can side with liberal Democrats, further fanning the partisan flames. Or, like Bill Clinton in 1994, he can tack to the center and push a broader compromise acceptable to moderates in both parties.

Here's how:

First, Obama could formally “de-couple” amnesty from the rest of immigration reform. We've taken a critical national economic issue like immigration and in effect, turned it into a civil rights cause. It's not — unless we overstep our current laws.

Admittedly, some local police departments may have. And when they do, we need to rein them in.

In the meantime, however, the administration should focus on its stepped-up deportations of “criminal” undocumented immigrants — both serious felons and repeat offenders.

Obama should also keep expanding the Secure Communities program, which targets undocumented immigrants booked in local jails. It has already shrunk the current undocumented immigrant pool by a good 10 percent.

This program is active in just 26 states and one-third of the nation's jails. As it moves nationwide, more crime-prone undocumented immigrants, who might never qualify for legalization, are likely to be deported. As long as due process is upheld, and the potential harm to undocumented children is dealt with humanely, that process should continue.

But the White House should also push both parties to address the nation's unfinished enforcement agenda — above all, workplace enforcement. It's the United States’ attraction as a job magnet, after all, that actually drives undocumented immigration.

Yet despite several bipartisan commissions addressing the matter, there’s still little agreement on how to proceed.

Democrats, led by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), want to create a tamperproof Social Security card that all U.S. residents would be required to use when applying for a new job. That's anathema to privacy groups, who talk with fear about Big Brother.

Many conservatives, who fear Big Government, don't support the national ID card, either. They talk about an expansion of the pilot "E-Verify" system, which critics say is still too prone to error. Still, 11 states, including Arizona, have already mandated it for local use.

Consider the irony: Republicans are pushing a workplace enforcement system that Democrats say is porous and ineffective. But Democrats arepromoting one that conservatives insist is too sweeping and draconian.

It's as if the two parties have switched sides.

Obama might exploit the GOP's endorsement of "E-Verify" to realign conservative and independent voter sensibilities. But it would require him to stand up to his party's liberal wing and demand patience on legalization.

Which brings us to “visa reform.” That's shorthand for the confusing and often counterproductive ways that our nation tries to regulate the entry of foreign workers, both skilled and unskilled, into our labor market. Without reform, no amount of expanded enforcement, even at the workplace, can help permanently reduce undocumented flows.

But there’s still no agreement about whether we should abandon, or modify, the current family-based visa system, create more skilled worker visas or institute a national guest-worker program.

Pro-immigration advocates and even many family-values conservatives generally support the current family-based visa system.

Other conservatives want to see a vastly expanded contract labor system. Still others — the “restrictionists” — want to see overall foreign labor levels reduced. As do many labor unions — which fear for their jobs and wages.

Given these cross-cutting complications, it's amazing that anyone ever thought that a single sweeping “comprehensive” reform bill made sense.

It might have in the past, when policy elites controlled the immigration debate. There was less need for congressional hearings and extended public debate on the various elements of the reform package. But after health care reform and the tea party movement, does anyone think that a “let's pass-this-bill and-read-it-later” approach makes sense now?


The best way forward is for Congress to proceed, slowly, in stages, without preconditions. Let's devote 2011 to enforcement, and 2012 to visa reform.

Only then should we turn our attention to the thorny issue of amnesty.
A variety of amnesty options should be on the table. When the Senate last passed a comprehensive reform bill, in 2006, few thought that all resident undocumented immigrants were entitled to a green card.

We should be prepared to screen candidates based on length of residency, marital status, income level and language fluency. If our legal immigration system requires a careful selection process, why shouldn't a legalization program?

It's not a seller's market. Even less so when you jumped ahead of others who waited patiently in line.

Meanwhile, there is one aspect of immigration where both parties could — and should — find common cause: how to encourage a higher percentage of legal immigrants to become naturalized U.S. citizens, rather than remaining on the margins of civic culture.

Both parties have a big stake in naturalization. That’s because, once naturalized, immigrants can vote — though it's not obvious which party they might vote for. So let's join hands.

Naturalization points us to the end vision of immigration: assimilation and national unity. It’s the perfect bridge — and sweetener — to keep the two warring parties, and our increasingly fractious country, focused on “e pluribus unum.”

It's the language of our Founding Fathers. Even the tea party should approve.

For Obama needs to step up with a bold new vision — and timetable — for resolving the immigration deadlock.

As a nation, we need to admit that we are fighting over a problem — undocumented immigration — that is largely a symptom, and a legacy, of our past systemic failures.

We've already reduced the number and flow of undocumented immigrants, a trend that will continue if we just keep current enforcement policies in place.

But while we have this window, and before an economic upturn creates a new demand for undocumented labor, let's not waste the next two years with more politically motivated deadlock. Obama should ask Congress and the country to address the systemic problems — workplace enforcement, visa reform and naturalization.

By 2013, there may be a lot less left to argue over.

Stewart J. Lawrence has worked as an immigration policy analyst with the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Inter-American Institute on Migration and Labor and the American Immigration Law Foundation.