A Way Forward on Immigration
Mary Catherine Scarlett
Since the mid-nineties, the disparity between Republican and Democratic immigration opinion has grown remarkably. The vast majority (90%) of Democrats in 2020 supported the statement that “immigrants strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents.” In contrast, less than half (40%) of Republicans supported this statement. Polarization around immigration has heightened even as new waves of migrants and asylum-seekers are flooding our southern border. How should we respond?
Immigration law and policy is a vastly complex topic—more complicated than the U.S. tax code. Thus, it would be foolish to claim the ASP or anyone else has a cure-all for our broken system. However, there are solutions that could uphold the dignity of undocumented people while maintaining border security and American economic interests.
The American Solidarity Party recognizes that our duty towards the nation in immigration policy is twofold: protect our citizens and welcome the stranger. We must be prudent in our admission of immigrants out of a concern for the distribution of limited resources such as social services, education, and medical care. But we cannot buy into the blatantly false rhetoric of fear that immigrants import crime, for example. In fact, importing immigrants could potentially lead to an overall decrease in the U.S. crime rate because undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes than U.S. citizens and legal residents. Further, contrary to the former president’s misinformed statements, well over half of immigrants pay income taxes—without the benefits of social services or tax credits. Honesty about the tradeoffs involved in immigration policy is a precondition for raising the quality of the debate and achieving more just outcomes.
The ASP’s platform on immigration strives to negotiate “equitable trade agreements that will help to make immigration a choice, rather than a necessity.” President Joe Biden's current immigration plan proposes to achieve a similar goal. It involves the allocation of $4 billion to Honduras, El Salvador, and Honduras (the Northern Triangle) “to address factors driving migration from Central America.” These dollars are certainly put to better use addressing migration issues at their source rather than merely detaining asylum-seekers.
However, we need to work to make sure that the Biden administration follows through on its promises. Without accountability, U.S. funds to the Northern Triangle could easily be mismanaged. With high concentrations of governmental corruption and organized crime in the Northern Triangle, it is possible that the funds intended to curtail graft in those countries could end up furthering it. Further, Vice President Kamala Harris’ remarks in Guatemala indicate that the U.S. is simply not prepared to take in more immigrants. It seems that Biden’s plan focuses primarily on reversing some of former President Trump’s draconian immigration policies and fixing the underlying causes of flight from Central America. An immigration policy for the future will address the underlying illness of a broken system, not simply its symptoms.
We can start by fixing the errors of the past. The current policy on immigration is a piecemeal combination of compromise after compromise made under both Democratic and Republican presidents, and this piecemeal approach to policy has often resulted in unintended consequences.
A case in point is the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996, which established lengthy waiting periods to return after deportation. IIRAIRA required that undocumented persons who stayed 180-365 days in the U.S. would be disallowed from returning for three years unless pardoned; if a person stayed 365 days or more, the waiting period jumped to 10 years. Keep in mind that immigration falls under civil law, so being an “illegal alien” is not actually a criminal offense. Additionally, instead of merely proving that one would not become a public charge, IIRAIRA required family sponsorships with signed affidavits for financial support between 125-200% above federal poverty guidelines, depending on the circumstances and relationship. Those financial requirements naturally disproportionately affected low-income individuals.
IIRAIRA essentially accomplished the opposite of its intended effect because fewer seasonal workers were willing to risk a border-crossing. Further, these higher restrictions succeeded in creating an environment of evasion of—rather than compliance with—law enforcement. IIRAIRA disproportionately affects Central American immigrants because over half of illegal immigrants cross the border on land and enter the country without a visa or border crossing card. Thus, similar to other discriminatory immigration policies of the past, IIRAIRA has mainly barred Mexicans from becoming legal permanent residents and citizens for nearly three decades. It has not, of course, stopped unauthorized migration. There are more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, many of them longtime residents and the vast majority of whom are contributing members of society. Mass deportation of this group is both impractical and unjust.
In terms of practical solutions, a good first step is to reverse IIRAIRA and grant pardons to those affected by it. The next steps would be to streamline the application process, especially for people who are in danger of separation from their families. The complexity, length, and bureaucratic nightmare that faces migrants seeking a better life poses an undue burden upon individuals and families. When it takes 22 years to obtain a green card for people from Mexico who are already married to the child of a U.S. citizen, for example, it is easy to understand why people would give up on the process entirely. On top of the wait times, the financial burden and language requirements leave Mexicans the least likely of any immigrant group to become citizens. As the IIRAIRA’s history shows, an overly-severe approach actually undermines the rule of law rather than strengthening it.
As the name implies, this party upholds solidarity. I see no better way to practice what we preach as an organization than by championing immigration policy that truly reforms the system, rather than merely slapping a Band-Aid on a broken bone. Standing on a platform of companionship with and support for our immigrant brothers and sisters, granting grace for exceptional circumstances, and seeking solutions that benefit both newcomers and current citizens offers a way out of the polarized stasis that has marked US immigration policy for too long.
Mary Catherine Scarlett is a 2021 Chesterton-Kuyper Fellow for the American Solidarity Party. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official stances of the ASP or those of the party as a whole.
