Compassionate immigration reform.

• Author: Bender, Steven W.

ABSTRACT

Ideals of comprehensive immigration reform have been co-opted by advocates of border and internal security and enforcement, leaving behind our aspirations as a compassionate nation of immigrants. Mindful of the tension between blind adherence to the rule of law and the goal of empathetic immigration policy, I suggest a refraining of comprehensive immigration reform as compassionate reform and sketch the details of this transformative policymaking approach.

Focusing on the life-threatening journey of undocumented immigrants and the perils they and their families face once inside the United States, I argue for a time-out on deaths at the border and on workplace immigration raids that split families apart. While supporting the expanded pathways to citizenship fostered by the federal DREAM and AgJOB Act proposals, ultimately I urge a return to the good neighbor Western Hemisphere exemption to immigration limits that existed until 1965. Realizing that the mood of the country has turned against immigrants, particularly those from Mexico, I conclude with suggestions as to how U.S. residents and policymakers might acquire empathy and thus the will to embrace compassionate immigration reform.

**********

To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. --Howard Zinn

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Introduction I. Compassion and the Rule of Immigration Law A. Immigrant Safety B. Welfare of Immigrant Families C. Rewarding Immigrant Initiative D. Honoring a Good Neighbor II. Restoring Compassion for Mexican Immigrants INTRODUCTION

The catchphrase "comprehensive immigration reform" has come to mean proposals that, among other goals, confront the status of undocumented immigrants presently in the United States, authorize additional temporary visas to address any labor needs that may arise, and better enforce our borders. Of these, in recent years border enforcement has gained the most traction in political circles. As evident in the 2008 presidential campaign, most hopefuls anchored any mention of comprehensive immigration reform in the bedrock of enforcement prerogatives, nearly always leading with rhetoric of "we've got to secure the borders first." (1) For example, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's website criticized then-president Bush for failing to allocate sufficient resources to protect the borders, while Barack Obama's campaign website urged sending "additional personnel, infrastructure and technology" to the borders. (2) Consistent with the prevailing enforcement emphasis, both Senators Clinton and Obama voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. (3) The main difference in immigration rhetoric among these politicians was that some Republican candidates, notably Tom Tancredo, offered so-called comprehensive immigration reform proposals rooted solely in enforcement. Because Tancredo remained "100% opposed to amnesty," (4) his answer to addressing the millions of undocumented workers in the United States apparently was mass deportation through vigorous internal enforcement. In essence, first we secure the borders, and then we secure them some more.

As discussion of immigration reform moved toward enforcement, that debate shifted to our southern border, leaving Mexican immigrants to represent the face of immigration. Arizona, the territory of Minutemen maneuvers, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and Senate Bill 1070, is the new epicenter for U.S. immigration policy. Given the dominant role of Mexican immigration in numbers (5) and perception in the immigration debate, I offer my suggested reforms with Mexican immigrants foremost in mind. Still, many of my proposals extend to and resonate with other immigrant groups.

As the expression goes, "[s]how me your friends and I'll tell you who you are." For immigration policy, show me your bias and I will tell you what "comprehensive" immigration reform means to you. An employer, for example, wants a ready and steady supply of low-wage workers. Although the employer's self interest is in hiring workers as vulnerable as possible, thus favoring undocumented or non-citizen documented workers, the potential disruption of immigration enforcement has led many employers to favor amnesty proposals that confer citizenship on a freshly minted workforce. Labor groups have evolved to support such citizenship opportunities despite the competition and downward pressure on wages these immigrant laborers can bring in an unregulated workplace. (6) In contrast, those groups fearing dilution of their Anglocentric vision of U.S. culture, as well as those motivated foremost by protecting against terrorist entry, tend to emphasize enforcement at any cost, and oppose expanding lawful immigration limits to address the current undocumented and workers who arrive later. (7)

Whether by design or compromise, proposals from these groups and politicians sensitive to their urgings might address enforcement at the borders and internally, the status of existing undocumented immigrants, and the prospects for entry of future immigrants. Despite this "comprehensive" sounding agenda, elsewhere I have detailed critical components missing from most recent reform proposals, (8) including economic aid by the United States to Mexico to address the devastation to rural economies wrought by NAFTA, (9) as well as labor reforms to enhance U.S. wages and job security. (10) Given the political infeasibility of most of these proposals, I have grounded them in interest convergence arguments and, typically, offered pragmatic rather than revolutionary suggestions. Here, I dare to dream. What would comprehensive immigration reform look like if policymakers, as well as the U.S. public, truly felt compassion and empathy (11) toward immigrants, particularly those from Mexico? My analysis asks what reform compassion would inspire and shape and concludes that restoring the pre-1965 good neighbor policy for Western Hemisphere immigration would best protect the welfare of immigrant workers and their families. To avoid a merely academic exercise, I offer some suggestions on how U.S. residents, often lacking that compassion while building in their antipathy toward immigrants, (12) might acquire empathy and thus the will to enact compassionate reform.

1. COMPASSION AND THE RULE OF IMMIGRATION LAW

   Swirling around the confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the debate over the compatibility of compassion with the rule of law. Politicians often contend they want judges to apply the law and adhere to the Constitution. At the same time, albeit often superficially, politicians value compassion and empathy. President Obama referred to Sotomayor's qualities and qualifications with seeming genuineness, saying she has "a sense of compassion." (13) Obama also spoke of the desirability of judges with "empathy." (14)

   A similar conflict underlies immigration policy. Blind adherence to the supposed rule of law leads some to call for border enforcement at any cost, even through use of lethal force to defend borders against weaponless immigrants. (15) At the same time, those driven foremost by empathy and compassion toward immigrants might understand their undocumented border passage and presence in the United States as a justifiable response for those seeking a better life for themselves and their families when lawful means of entry, particularly those for low-skilled laborers who are the most desperately situated of immigrants, are kept far below demand. (16) This tension is evident in the discussion below that balances the rule of law with compassion in the hands of compassionate policymakers. Still, as Bill Ong Hing states forcefully, there is not necessarily a conflict between compassion and the rule of law in immigration policy:

   The experiment that we call America is a test of our character and our willingness to believe that we can have a strong country that is caring and diverse. Showing compassion and fairness in our immigration policies is not a sign of weakness. Rather, those traits demonstrate a confidence in a rule of law and system of government that metes out punishment when necessary but understands that regulating the lives of those who seek to live within our borders must be done with the utmost compassion, dignity, and understanding. (17) The following discussion assumes a compassionate and empathetic policymaker and asks what immigration consequences follow. Readers reluctant to embrace this frame of mind might consider why many Latino/as seem so passionate in their appeal for immigrant justice. Recall the street protests in Los Angeles in March 2006 that drew between five hundred thousand and one million protesters, most of Mexican heritage, to rally for humane reform. (18) In large part this passion stems from the familial connectivity of most Latino/as in the United States with Mexican residents. Many U.S. citizen Latino/as immigrated themselves, or are only one generation removed from immigrants, so that many Latino/as have immediate family or other relatives in Mexico (or other Latin countries) for whom the current U.S. immigration laws weigh heavy. Readers might consider how they would reshape the current landscape of oppressive immigration laws if their family members in another country (or even another U.S. state) were struggling to find employment, and the reader knew of local work well suited to their talents and aspirations. Assume further that these family members have hungry children and are desperate for a solution that retains their dignity and protects their safety.

   1. Immigrant Safety

      As I have documented along with other scholars, (19) the stepped-up southern border enforcement campaign initiated during the Clinton administration, known in the San Diego area as Operation Gatekeeper, led to thousands of immigrant deaths. (20) Policymakers mistakenly assumed...