Laura Carlsen is the director of the IRC Americas Program.
In recent weeks, newspapers featured variations of a stern-visaged soldier standing guard on the U.S.-Mexico border. The Bush administration’s decision to begin deployment of thousands of National Guard members on the border sparked protests in both countries.
Combined with the raids on undocumented workers in mid-June, it also belied the benevolence of the current immigration reform that some had heralded as progress.
As the so-called security measures move full steam ahead, House leaders recently announced that they will hold public hearings over the summer before discussing a joint House-Senate immigration bill. Comprehensive reform has fallen off the fast track, and with the November elections complicating the political stage will likely not be taken up until next year.
Given the current political climate, that might be just as well. There is no doubt that immigration reform is an urgent national priority. Twelve million people living and working without citizenship, legal security or labor rights not only hurts them but erodes the democratic base of society, divides communities and foments racism and discrimination. A labor market that encourages cheap immigrant labor while failing to offer legal status sends mixed messages to society about the role of its workers.
These profound contradictions must be resolved. However, the proposals on the board do little to really resolve them. The House law myopically interprets immigration as solely a problem of crime and punishment while the Senate version—closely following the proposals laid out by President Bush—attempts to reconcile labor needs with calls for “border security.”
There is no logical or practical way to reconcile the portrayal of immigrants as security threats with their day-to-day role in the labor market and their communities. Imposing a security paradigm on the immigration debate has obscured the real issues and opened up dangerous tendencies within society.
Illegal immigration is a national problem, but it is not a national security threat. National security threats like drug trafficking and terrorism have not been linked to illegal immigration except in anecdotal cases.
Nor are immigration flows a crime wave to be combated. Unlike murder or theft, immigration itself is not a universally condemned criminal act. Under U.S. law it continues to be a civil violation and the history of immigration law shows that the law changes to conform to political and economic realities. Sometimes it lags significantly behind. Like now.
Since 9/11, many Americans have valid fears of outside attacks. But immigration is not a plot against the peace and security of the United States. It is a problem of labor flows. These stem from deep economic roots that include the economies of the immigrants’ home countries, U.S. trade policies and the interplay between the two.
Bundling immigration reform with national security issues has confounded the debate and unleashed deep insecurities in society. Despite massive immigrant rights rallies that expressed the desire of the undocumented to become part of U.S. society—not attack it—mainstream media, vigilante groups, politicians and others continue to make the spurious link between immigrants, terrorists and even a fictitious attempt of Mexican nationalists to “re-conquer” the Southwest.
The conflation of immigration and security issues has painted an entire population—not just of undocumented workers but increasingly of Latinos in general—as criminals and threats to society. That kind of broad-brush approach is the perfect cover for extremist tendencies.
A recent report by the Anti-Defamation League documents a sharp rise in anti-immigrant rallies and hate crimes indiscriminately committed against Latinos in the United States. The report notes that "extremists have become increasingly emboldened by, and fixated on, the controversy over immigration policy, encouraging their supporters to capitalize on the issue by encouraging anti-immigrant activism, and even violence against all Hispanics.” It warns that these groups now view immigration as a “wedge issue” to promote white supremacist agendas, with particular success in Southern communities.
A militarized border—and there is no doubt that sending troops in, whether permanent or temporary, is militarization—leads invariably to conflicts and rising human rights violations. Slated increases in National Guard and border patrol officers will double the current number of law enforcement agents on the border, and there are plans to train state and local officials to take on the task. Many local officials in border states have said they do not want to be involved in this kind of work, arguing that given limited resources, seeking out illegal immigrants is not a law-enforcement priority and undermines neighborhood crime prevention programs.
Straddling irreconcilable positions is the opposite of taking a firm stand. The only real comprehensive immigration reform is one that accepts the right of immigrants--who go to work every day, who form part of their communities, who educate their children, and who add immeasurably to the wealth and diversity of our society--to obtain their rightful place as members of the nation. By creating legal channels for workers, we remove immigration from border security issues and free up resources to pursue drug traffickers, terrorists, and criminals who pose real threats to security.
As long as a punitive and military perspective persists as the dominant model for interpreting immigration reform, no progress can be made. In that case, it might be better for everyone, rights activists and legislators, to return to their communities and work to build a strong national consensus that would make the priorities peaceful co-existence, human and labor rights, and a rational immigration system.
