Anti-Immigrant Legislation Continued

In addition to providing a militaristic framework in which to handle immigration, Joaquín Bustelo has noted that HR 4437 also provides the “legal framework for a pogrom” against Latinos.  Recent crackdowns on undocumented workers suggest that his claim is on-target, although it is worth noting that other, important anti-immigrant bills appeared before the passage of HR 4437.

On May 12, 2005, Senators John McCain (R-UT) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced S 1033 and HR 2330, the “Secure America and Order Immigration Act,” or Kennedy-McCain for short. This bicameral, bipartisan bill includes a lengthy process whereby immigrants could eventually petition the government for permanent residency. It would also require undocumented immigrants to pay back taxes and $2,000 in fines, learn English and civics, and pass security and background checks.

Many misguidedly view Kennedy-McCain as a pro-immigrant bill. Although it is less abrasive than HR 4437, its provisions are grossly inadequate for handling current immigration rates and, despite several claims to the contrary, it does not guarantee a path to citizenship. Furthermore, Kennedy-McCain legalizes the presence of undocumented immigrants for a period of up to six years by granting them ‘H5-B non-immigrant’ status. As Suvrat Raju notes, it is evident that “this is a recipe for creating second-class citizens who would live in constant fear of losing their status.”  For these reasons, immigrant rights supporters should reject the provisions of Kennedy-McCain as representing a fair solution.

At the far right, Tom Tancredo (R-CO), organizer of an extreme anti-immigrant caucus in the House, introduced the REAL GUEST Act of 2005 (HR 3333) on July 19, 2005. HR 3333 includes internal and border crackdowns in addition to provisions requiring expulsion of all undocumented immigrants, a large no-rights guest worker program, increased employer sanctions, and denial of citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. This proposal is simply atrocious. On July 20, the day following introduction of HR 3333, Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and John Kyl (R-AZ) introduced S 1438, which includes big crackdowns and a guest worker program reminiscent of the Bracero program. For obvious reasons, it should be rejected as well.

Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) introduced the more respectable HR 2092 in the House on May 4, 2005. It included a more generous legalization path, no guest worker program, and vocational training programs for black and other poor and minority workers possibly displaced by immigration. Many members of the Congressional Black Caucus supported HR 2092, but no Senator was willing to sponsor it.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S 2611)

Much recent debate has surrounded S 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA), introduced by Arlen Specter (R-PA) on Apr. 7, 2006 and passed by the Senate on May 25, 2006. Generally regarded as the Senate’s “compromise bill,” CIRA is the Senate’s parallel to HR 4437. But unlike HR 4437, it includes a citizenship path and a guest worker program.

This bill represents a three-tiered approach to handling immigration. Under CIRA, undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for five years or more can apply for citizenship by paying fines and back taxes; immigrants who have been in the country for two to five years would be forced to leave and then reapply at the border; and those in the country for under two years would be required to return to their original countries. The bill also allows employers to bring foreign workers into the country with a “blue card”, permitting a stay of six years after which the employee would return to their country of origin for one year, calls for constructing 370 miles of border fencing (rather than 700), and increases the number of H-1B visas issued for skilled foreign workers.

Predictably, anti-immigrant Republicans and organizations denounced CIRA for being too soft. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, for instance, a nativist organization known for giving grants to anti-Mexican conspiracy theorists, unreasonably estimates that CIRA “would send the U.S. population skyrocketing towards a billion people by the close of the century,” with the U.S. unprepared to handle the effects (emphasis added).

The problem with CIRA, however, is not that it’s too soft; rather, it does not go far enough towards securing basic rights for immigrants and their families. When demonstrators took to the streets between March 10 and May 1, it wasn’t to militarize the border, promote crackdowns, and institutionalize a status system to divide the immigrant population. Instead, it was to demand basic rights and affirm human dignity. Any bill that calls for financially bleeding people, militarizing the border, and casting millions into a second-class status rather than fair treatment for every person—illegal or not—is simply another obstacle to overcome later.

As the AFL-CIO’s Ana Avendaño points out, the policy of allowing employers to recruit workers outside the country on temporary visas “turns jobs which are now held by permanent employees with rights and benefits into jobs filled by temporary, contract employees. It basically takes the jobs of millions of people out of the protections of the New Deal, won by workers decades ago.” Furthermore, as David Bacon writes, “if currently undocumented workers and new immigrants were given permanent residence status instead of temporary visas, they would be able to exercise their rights as workers and community residents.”

Unsurprisingly, President Bush supports CIRA and its guest worker provisions. One reason he supports CIRA is because months before 9/11 made sweeping immigration reform unthinkable, Mexican President Vicente Fox persuaded Bush to explore the possibilities for such reform in the United States. In particular, Fox challenged Bush to pursue amnesty for undocumented Mexican nationals and a guest worker program, both steps that would “deepen” NAFTA along the lines of the European Union.

Another reason Bush supports CIRA is because the U.S. government has long pursued a policy of keeping legal immigration from Latin American countries low while turning its head when U.S. employers not only hire undocumented immigrants, but actively promote illegal immigration. If this weren’t true, the Justice Department would pursue more criminal charges against employers who hire illegal immigrants. Between 1999 and 2003 – after Bush came into office, that is – work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal data. Although Bush has never favored “amnesty” – itself a loaded term, since it implies wrongdoing – he and other right-wingers realize that millions of cheap, exploitable laborers are a boon to U.S. corporations, since they drive down wages for other workers and guarantee job insecurity.

The committed capitalists of the right wing aren’t alone in their support for CIRA, either. Many of CIRA’s main provisions were lifted from the Kennedy-McCain bill, and the Democrats, the leaders of some of the more mainstream immigrant rights groups, and the officials of unions such as SEIU and UNITE-HERE have all supported CIRA as well, calling it a major step forward. However, if the immigrant rights movement compromises on basic demands with a weak bill, it will have missed a window of opportunity to implement a viable, fair resolution. Once a bill has been passed and the “problem” has been “solved,” then the political climate for supporting serious changes will simply evaporate.

On June 20, Republican leaders in the House of Representatives announced that they would hold new hearings on CIRA before Congress, in a move to prevent the legislation from being passed before the 2006 elections. This is because House Leaders, seeking reelection in November 2006 on a “tough on immigration” platform, have vowed to oppose any bill that grants “amnesty” to undocumented immigrants. Unfortunately, House Republicans will undoubtedly use the intervening months to chip away at CIRA in order to bring it more in line with the even more terrible HR 4437. Passing no bill is better than passing CIRA, but if the House Republicans get their way, then whatever Congress eventually passes will be even worse.