The Best Option for Immigration: Legalize Them All!

[Better Believe It]

The Best Option for Immigration: Legalize Them All!
By TANYA GOLASH-BOZA
Tanya Maria Golash-Boza is an Assistant Professor at the University of Kansas.
October 1, 2010

The United States currently faces a tremendous challenge with the presence of eleven million people who do not have the legal right to be here. Some of these eleven million undocumented migrants have been in this country for decades; many have U.S. citizen children, spouses, and parents. Many remember no home other than the United States. There are three general policy responses to this challenge: 1) Deport them all; 2) Attrition through enforcement; and 3) Legalization for all. Let’s briefly consider each of these.

Deport Them All

The first policy option of deporting all undocumented migrants carries an astronomical human and economic cost. The Center for American Progress estimated the cost $200 billion. This figure, which does not take into account the economic impact on U.S. businesses and the U.S. Treasury associated with the loss of productive labor and taxes, amounts to more than three times the annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security of $60 billion and eight times the annual budget of the Department of Justice of $24 billion. More shocking than the economic cost are the social costs. Mass deportation would require raiding schools, homes and worksites, would tear apart families, and would be yet another stain on the history of the United States.

Attrition Through Enforcement

This approach is not working. Instead of preventing undocumented migrants from working, more stringent systems lead to more criminal organizations becoming involved in the production of fake documents that migrants can use to work. Attrition through enforcement does not work in large part because there are too many people in the United States that do not want it to work. These people include employers who depend on undocumented migrants for their labor power, the family members of undocumented migrants, and advocates for immigrants that recognize the valuable contributions of immigrants to our society. Instead of leading to massive self-deportation, attrition through enforcement exacerbates human rights violations in the United States.

Legalization for All

Legalization for all is the approach advocated by immigrant rights groups throughout the United States. It is the most cost-effective approach: the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the legalization program proposed in 2006 would have cost $54 billion, yet would have generated $66 billion in revenue. More importantly, a path to legalization for all undocumented migrants would greatly reduce the human rights violations generated through the current policy of attrition through enforcement.

Legalization for all would improve wages and working conditions for everyone, as unscrupulous employers would not be able to take advantage of the undocumented status of migrants. Legalization for all would make the United States safer by allowing all undocumented migrants to come out of the shadows and obtain proper documentation to work, to drive vehicles, and to participate in U.S. society. Legalization for all would allow U.S. citizens to remain with their families and not to feel threatened by the possibility of deportation. Legalization for all would take us a long way towards fulfilling the human rights of migrants in the United States. Legalization for all is our best policy option.

Read the full article at:

http://stopdeportationsnow.blogspot.com/


-------------------------------------------


October 6, 2010

When They Call You "Illegal"
Words, Names and Meg Whitman
By ALISA VALDES-RODRIGUEZ

Republican strategist and communications expert Frank Luntz is the man who started the right-wing’s habit of controlling the message through a deliberate selection of emotionally evocative words, followed by their unrelenting repetition in the public sphere. You will perhaps recall that he wrote the 2007 bestseller called Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear.

One of the most brilliant strategies the Luntz camp has crafted in recent years is the linguistic attack upon undocumented immigrants, who have served as a perfect scapegoated distraction from the wrongdoing of bankers and mammoth corporations. Though the “crime” of being in the United States without proper documentation is technically a misdemeanor (buying prescription drugs from Canada is a stiffer crime, yet no one calls the denizens of retirement homes in Detroit “illegals”), undocumented migrants here are regularly called “illegals” by nearly everyone in the media, including progressive talk show hosts such as Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller whose moral compasses are generally otherwise excellent. It is maddening, and magnificent, the right-wing bit that goes unnoticed in our progressive mouths.

By referring repeatedly to an entire group of people as “illegals” day after day, we not only strip them of their basic humanity (just as is done in India with “untouchables”), we relegate them to a permanent second-class status and attach to their existence and faces a visceral emotional reaction of fear among the masses that they are dangerous criminals — even though nothing could be father from the truth. Studies show that in cities with large immigrant populations, crime goes down; immigrant children do better in school than their domestic-born peers, etc.

To rob someone of her name and to replace it with the unjustifiable mantle of “criminal alien” is to dehumanize her; to dehumanize a person, as history has well shown us time and time again, allows the rest of us to do unspeakably inhumane things to her.

Read the full article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/valdes10062010.html

[RZM]

1. Huh?

The author's conclusion requires a few leaps of logic. She claims that 'legalization would improve wages and working conditions for everyone' -- but this assumption apparently rests on the presumption that once all current undocumented immigrants are legalized/amnestied/whatever, people will all of a sudden stop coming illegally? I imagine a blanket legalization would encourage the opposite -- even more immigration.

[Better Believe It]

2. It would become far easier for immigrants to organize themselves and press for better conditions

[Edweird]

6. So... why didn't that happen with Reagan's amnesty then? It actually made things WORSE.

[Better Believe It]

9. At the time the labor movement didn't try to organize the immigrant workers.

Most labor unions and their top officials had a right-wing anti-immigrant worker attitude and policy.

That began to change about a decade ago and today most of organized labor support the struggle of immigrant workers and are tying to unionize them.

That is a total reversal of their policy from the Reagan era.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Nothing's going to happen until the illegal EMPLOYERS are punished

Right now the biggest employers of undocumented workers have nothing to fear. A small fine here, a slap on the wrist there, an occasional raid where some of your workers are deported but they are easily replaced. The agriculture, construction, meatpacking, and hospitality industries enjoy having a workforce that is scared, docile, and willing to tolerate poor wages and working conditions. What's the downside for their employers?

Wanna see comprehensive immigration reform happen real quick? Arrest some rich business owners.

[pampango]

4. Good point. The immigration proposal of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win makes that point.

http://www.seiu.org/2009/04/change-to-win-and-afl-cio-unveil-unified-immigration-reform-framework.php

2. Worker authorization mechanism

The current system of regulating the employment of unauthorized workers is defunct, ineffective and has failed to curtail illegal immigration. A secure and effective worker authorization mechanism is one that determines employment authorization accurately while providing maximum protection for workers, contains sufficient due process and privacy protections, and prevents discrimination. The verification process must be taken out of the hands of employers, and the mechanism must rely on secure identification methodology. Employers who fail to use the system properly must face strict liability including significant fines and penalties regardless of the immigration status of their workers.

Employers have to use an independent system to verify employees are eligible to work and face strict liability for not doing so.

The unions go on to address the importance of "legalization".

4. Adjustment of Status for the Current Undocumented Population

Immigration reform must include adjustment of status for the current undocumented population. Rounding up and deporting the 12 million or more immigrants who are unlawfully present in the U.S. may make for a good sound bite, but it is not a realistic solution. And if these immigrants are not given adequate incentive to "come out of the shadows" to adjust their status, we will continue to have a large pool of unauthorized workers whom employers will continue to exploit in order to drive down wages and other standards, to the detriment of all workers. Having access to a large undocumented workforce has allowed employers to create an underground economy, without the basic protections afforded to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, and where employers often misclassify workers as independent contractors, thus evading payroll taxes, which deprives federal, state, and local governments of additional revenue. An inclusive, practical and swift adjustment of status program will raise labor standards for all workers. The adjustment process must be rational, reasonable and accessible and it must be designed to ensure that it will not encourage future illegal immigration.

The unions' position is that "deport them all now" is never going to happen and "attrition through enforcement" leaves millions of exploitable workers here for many years. Small wonder that repubs oppose "amnesty" for this exploitable work force.

You're right. Sticking it to some "some rich business owners" might shake repubs up enough to get some movement on comprehensive reform.

[thereismore]

5. I hate borders. Ray-gun got it right for once. nt

[Edweird]

7. Seriously? You're going all anti-labor Reagan?

[pampango]

8. It's hardly anti-labor. It's part of labor's immigration reform proposal. See post 5. n/t