Immigration Reform - What the left wants
June 21, 2010 11:07 AM Subscribe
(US based)
I think I have a good general idea of what the right is looking for in an immigration reform bill.
I am much less clear about what the ideal of an immigration reform bill would be from a left perspective.
What are the top policy goals of immigration reform as seen from a left / progressive perspective, and how would immigration reform as envisioned by the left answer some of the valid concerns and issues of those on the right?
What are the top policy goals of immigration reform as seen from a left / progressive perspective, and how would immigration reform as envisioned by the left answer some of the valid concerns and issues of those on the right?
One thing that might help: Searching for news editorials about "immigration reform." That could get you a quick birds-eye view of some of the suggestions. It should be easy to identify who's on what side.
If you zoom too far out or focus on political groups directly, you may end up with "help the economy" vs. "give the economy a boost," i.e. the tendency for opposing sides to match the other side's offer. Which will just muddy the waters for you.
posted by circular at 11:14 AM on June 21, 2010
If you zoom too far out or focus on political groups directly, you may end up with "help the economy" vs. "give the economy a boost," i.e. the tendency for opposing sides to match the other side's offer. Which will just muddy the waters for you.
posted by circular at 11:14 AM on June 21, 2010
You may want to keep in mind that this is not just a left vs. right issue.
On the left, people who identify with the plight of poor foreign workers who come to the United States in order to ensure economic survival for themselves and their families are pitted against labor and other groups who want to protect the livelihoods of the poorest American workers.
On the right, some cite national security and other concerns to support limiting immigration and strictly enforcing border controls, while others for whom free trade is a concern believe that allowing free movement of labor across borders is the best way to ensure peace and prosperity.
Each of the major parties in the US has proposals for reforming immigration, but beliefs about whether increased immigration is a net positive or a net negative don't split cleanly along party lines.
posted by decathecting at 11:30 AM on June 21, 2010 [2 favorites]
On the left, people who identify with the plight of poor foreign workers who come to the United States in order to ensure economic survival for themselves and their families are pitted against labor and other groups who want to protect the livelihoods of the poorest American workers.
On the right, some cite national security and other concerns to support limiting immigration and strictly enforcing border controls, while others for whom free trade is a concern believe that allowing free movement of labor across borders is the best way to ensure peace and prosperity.
Each of the major parties in the US has proposals for reforming immigration, but beliefs about whether increased immigration is a net positive or a net negative don't split cleanly along party lines.
posted by decathecting at 11:30 AM on June 21, 2010 [2 favorites]
There are many lefts and at least two rights with regard to this issue.
(The rights are the WSJ right who want cheap labor and don't much worry about increasing diversity and the nativist right who mistakenly believe that Latino immigration is bad for the economy and do worry about increasing diversity.)
On the left, there is the universalist left, who are pretty much for amnesty and for taking in as many immigrants as want to come and we can plausibly handle; the union/labor left, who are worried that immigrants will take jobs away from Americans (and, similarly to the nativist right, believe that the immigrants' boost to the economy, if any, won't compensate for the immediate effects); and the please-like-me left, which consists of Democratic presidents and others who care most about appearing to be fair-minded by compromising with the nativist right.
posted by callmejay at 11:39 AM on June 21, 2010 [3 favorites]
(The rights are the WSJ right who want cheap labor and don't much worry about increasing diversity and the nativist right who mistakenly believe that Latino immigration is bad for the economy and do worry about increasing diversity.)
On the left, there is the universalist left, who are pretty much for amnesty and for taking in as many immigrants as want to come and we can plausibly handle; the union/labor left, who are worried that immigrants will take jobs away from Americans (and, similarly to the nativist right, believe that the immigrants' boost to the economy, if any, won't compensate for the immediate effects); and the please-like-me left, which consists of Democratic presidents and others who care most about appearing to be fair-minded by compromising with the nativist right.
posted by callmejay at 11:39 AM on June 21, 2010 [3 favorites]
Leftist immigration reform would take inspiration from the Tea Party. That is, the real Tea Party: No Taxation Without Representation.
Many illegal immigrants pay taxes (sales taxes, taxes deducted from paychecks, etc.), but don't get anything in return. They should.
Furthermore, illegal immigrants don't have access to important things like police and hospitals due to the risk of deportation. This makes exploitation of undocumented workers very unlikely to be reported by the workers themselves. Therefore, illegal immigration should not be a deportable offense in and of itself.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:32 PM on June 21, 2010 [1 favorite]
Many illegal immigrants pay taxes (sales taxes, taxes deducted from paychecks, etc.), but don't get anything in return. They should.
Furthermore, illegal immigrants don't have access to important things like police and hospitals due to the risk of deportation. This makes exploitation of undocumented workers very unlikely to be reported by the workers themselves. Therefore, illegal immigration should not be a deportable offense in and of itself.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:32 PM on June 21, 2010 [1 favorite]
As a leftie in a farming area, I am pretty concerned about how immigration laws make it difficult for farmers to hire adequate farm labor, and how exploitable illlegals working in agriculture are. (And farms exploiting illegals are anecdatally more likely to be illegally handling pesticides, etc.) I both want to see sensible limits (they're too low) for migrant labor and easy border crossings and renewals for migrant labor who play by the rules (many migrants overstay their visas because getting a new one next year is too chancy, but would prefer to return to their homes and families in Mexico during the off season); and I want to see harsh punishment of US companies who hire illegals either knowingly or without doing clearly-specified due diligence.
Many righties in my rural area would basically agree with this approach, at least with respect to migrant agricultural labor.
But I think many lefties and righties in major urban areas would disagree and would pinpoint different aspects of immigration. So sometimes it's an issue of region and/or industry more than political beliefs.
(Here's what I'd do, since I know everyone's just dying to know: I'd up the cap on migrant labor, working with the states, and migrant laborers would get a drivers-license-looking "green card" that had a scanable bar code. This card would be good for five years. The scanners would be cheap, and farmers hiring migrants or border crossing agents would only have to zap the card with the scanner to check the status of that individual. All networked into the same computer, this would make it easier to spot fraud, since one person couldn't be working in Arizona and Michigan at the same time. Applicants would also be allowed to take a US driving test when applying for the visa, and use this card as a US license as well. Migrants who obeyed the rules of the program would get an automatic renewal every year for five years, and at the end of the five years, participants who had obeyed the rules and not had any criminal trouble would be at the top of the list for renewal of the migrant labor visa and/or they would get preference on the "permanent residency" list. Violations while on the program would lose your migrant visa AND would make you ineligible for permanent immigration for a period of X years (or forever, in case of serious violations). That incentivizes playing by the rules, makes it much easier for migrants to come and go across the border, and makes it easier for US employers to comply. And then I'd prosecute the crap out of American companies that hire illegals.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:44 PM on June 21, 2010
Many righties in my rural area would basically agree with this approach, at least with respect to migrant agricultural labor.
But I think many lefties and righties in major urban areas would disagree and would pinpoint different aspects of immigration. So sometimes it's an issue of region and/or industry more than political beliefs.
(Here's what I'd do, since I know everyone's just dying to know: I'd up the cap on migrant labor, working with the states, and migrant laborers would get a drivers-license-looking "green card" that had a scanable bar code. This card would be good for five years. The scanners would be cheap, and farmers hiring migrants or border crossing agents would only have to zap the card with the scanner to check the status of that individual. All networked into the same computer, this would make it easier to spot fraud, since one person couldn't be working in Arizona and Michigan at the same time. Applicants would also be allowed to take a US driving test when applying for the visa, and use this card as a US license as well. Migrants who obeyed the rules of the program would get an automatic renewal every year for five years, and at the end of the five years, participants who had obeyed the rules and not had any criminal trouble would be at the top of the list for renewal of the migrant labor visa and/or they would get preference on the "permanent residency" list. Violations while on the program would lose your migrant visa AND would make you ineligible for permanent immigration for a period of X years (or forever, in case of serious violations). That incentivizes playing by the rules, makes it much easier for migrants to come and go across the border, and makes it easier for US employers to comply. And then I'd prosecute the crap out of American companies that hire illegals.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:44 PM on June 21, 2010
My uncle Tom is an attorney who has practiced nothing but immigration law for 27 years, with a clientele that is about 70% Hispanic. Lately he's been doing a good bit of writing ( Tri-City Herald, Seattle Times, Seattle PI), and speaking on the subject. I taped one of his talks a few weeks ago and posted it to my Facebook page. Someone forwarded it to Crooks & Liars, who did a writeup on it. The entire talk is available on Vimeo.
As other posters have noted, this isn't black/white left/right issue. I think that Uncle Tom brings a lot of sanity to the discussion, shining light on the myths and highlighting the best possible path forward. He really gets into the solution during the second half of the talk. Self-link, I know, but I've been involved in a lot of discussions about this issue and never heard anyone drop the condensed wisdom like he does.
posted by Roach at 1:30 PM on June 21, 2010 [2 favorites]
As other posters have noted, this isn't black/white left/right issue. I think that Uncle Tom brings a lot of sanity to the discussion, shining light on the myths and highlighting the best possible path forward. He really gets into the solution during the second half of the talk. Self-link, I know, but I've been involved in a lot of discussions about this issue and never heard anyone drop the condensed wisdom like he does.
posted by Roach at 1:30 PM on June 21, 2010 [2 favorites]
Should of posted this in the initial message, but his shorthand version is (from the Tri-City Herald link):
The solution to our immigration dilemma will only come from comprehensive immigration reform. That reform must include four parts: 1) Secure the southern border, 2) Allow those here to apply for earned legalization, 3) Require all employers to verify the immigration status of their employees, and 4) Allow some flexible number of low-skill Green Cards in the future in light of the needs of the U.S. economy.
posted by Roach at 1:42 PM on June 21, 2010
The solution to our immigration dilemma will only come from comprehensive immigration reform. That reform must include four parts: 1) Secure the southern border, 2) Allow those here to apply for earned legalization, 3) Require all employers to verify the immigration status of their employees, and 4) Allow some flexible number of low-skill Green Cards in the future in light of the needs of the U.S. economy.
posted by Roach at 1:42 PM on June 21, 2010
I'm not sure where this fits in the left/right spectrum, but I believe that an advocate of free markets would point to the evidence that immigration is generally good for the economy. This article sums up what most economists (who, i think, tend to be very economically liberal) think. The thing is, I think neither Democrats nor Republicans in the US support an economically liberal approach to immigration since it's politically unfeasible.
posted by Geppp at 5:09 PM on June 21, 2010
posted by Geppp at 5:09 PM on June 21, 2010
I think this is a reasonable articulation of the general center-left/Democratic perspective on immigration issues within the US, featuring self-promotion, canned jokes, and a rambling Bill Richardson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgRmEhj0yIw
In all seriousness, though, I think the perception that organized labor is somehow anti-immigration is pretty ridiculous--rooted more in stereotype (of blue-collar white "silent majority" type union members) than in actual fact. Unions have been pretty vigorous in supporting immigration reform, because there are millions of potential union members working in the construction, agriculture, meatpacking, and service industries. It's no secret that Nevada was chosen as an early Democratic primary state because the potential electorate was both heavily Latino and heavily labor. Organized labor's future is dependent on the acceptance, integration, and unionization of foreign workers.
In other words, the "unions are anti-immigrant" thing is mostly BS.
posted by j1950 at 9:34 PM on June 21, 2010 [1 favorite]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgRmEhj0yIw
In all seriousness, though, I think the perception that organized labor is somehow anti-immigration is pretty ridiculous--rooted more in stereotype (of blue-collar white "silent majority" type union members) than in actual fact. Unions have been pretty vigorous in supporting immigration reform, because there are millions of potential union members working in the construction, agriculture, meatpacking, and service industries. It's no secret that Nevada was chosen as an early Democratic primary state because the potential electorate was both heavily Latino and heavily labor. Organized labor's future is dependent on the acceptance, integration, and unionization of foreign workers.
In other words, the "unions are anti-immigrant" thing is mostly BS.
posted by j1950 at 9:34 PM on June 21, 2010 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Thank you all, there's some excellent pointers to sources for me to explore further and good advice regarding my framing of the question. All answers appreciated!
posted by bonsai forest at 9:38 AM on June 22, 2010
posted by bonsai forest at 9:38 AM on June 22, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by dfriedman at 11:11 AM on June 21, 2010