At the heart of this immigration debate is a real chance to develop policy that can impact, positively, domestically and nationally. Immigration is an issue which has no simple resolve, in particular becasue it is an issue that is intermestic (Rose, 2007, pp. 4). Rose states, "While politicians remain responsible to a national electorate for economic conditions, these conditions are increasingly influenced by the movement of goods, services, and money across national borders," (pp. 4). The Arizona legislature passed Senate Bill 1070, and recently there was its limited, by judicial review, implementation. Although Arizona has stepped up and created action, in my opinion did so hastily. More importantly,and at the center of the debate, the legislation was drafted without careful thought to the delivery, meaning, and implementation of its core initiatives. No one debates that immigration policy needs to be reformed, but it most be done so from a careful and studious policy directive inclusive of impacting factors. What I feel hurt this legislation the most was the application of knowledge (pp. 5). A faction of Arizona legislation, and Governor Brewer's administration marched forth quickly and with no regard to the people who this legislation would impact. The target, well described, by many dergrees of demographics, but this violates civil rights, not to mention human rights. No argument, illegal is illegal, but the legislation does not have any stipulation as to the families, children, and in general the socio-economic factors that exist within our society for these people. Lives and families would crumble at every turn, and how would we deal with that as it is happening? Thus this policy fails to take into account important policy criteria to make it succesful and deliver a true impact that does not de-stabilize civil and societal norms in the communities in Arizona.
What seems key to this issue is the demand for cheap labor, and its availability. The economic conditions in Mexico force the decison to make the sacrifice to illegally come to the U.S. Yet, we may only be speculating and seeing a singula rperspective. What needs to remedied is a decison across a National policy as to what immigration policy is defined as. Ther in the policy action that can be taken to enforce its purpose. This would be the first step needed before state's could develop their own policy stipulations. What would be key is to undertand what our current population of immigration needs and can we provide it to them by legal measures, and help them create legal opportunities domestically. From then we need to collaborate with forieng governments and design joint policy that enables and alleviates problems that create illegal immigration to and fro. Can we reform the process by which to apply for entry? what problems currently exist that do not address the purveyors and people who choose to immigrate illegally? Then we must consider case by case what circumstances exist to those already here, can we help, or are they creating additional problems? Then we can really develop an overly encompassing policy. It must be multi-faceted not all cases are equal or of similar circumstances, so our policy must be able to create flexibility.
Along with some of this recommendaton I would urge Gov. Brewer to keep pressuring the Federal legislature for immigration reform. At the same adopt a coalition of stateS that support reform to keep pressuring and jointly discuss develop, research, and draft alternatives to the current system. Develop smilar relationship with Mexico and foreign nations who have support to reform, or have an interest in the issue. The more alternatives that can be drafted, the more possibility of creating one that does addres the issue whole-heartedly. Although this issue is long standing, if we remember we must be prpeared for incremental changes over periods of time. This too Brewer did not take into account, a complete overhaul to immigration and a sweep of its violators can not work, it disrupts the status quo to abruptly and chaotically for legal and illegals. Minor changes, and analytical attention to those changes and helping improve the agenda, from a Federal mandate, will be key.
My final point and alternative would be to consider our different forms of immigration policy, in particular humanitarian. AIt has been suggested that illegal immigration limits citizenry access to our very own resources such as work and welfare. Well, we know that there illegal immigrants and we know where they are, why not instead of wasting financial and political resources on eliminating the problem, we use them to reform the problem, and create better relationships. We could develop policy that has postentry controls (Adolino & Blake. 2010, pp. 104). Seems less time consuming, and would lessen the burden on revamping an entire society to new socio-economic trends. why not reward the immigrants who are working towards a better life, seems that that is their goal. We could view their economic hardships in their home country as type of asylum or refugee clause, it is not imminently life threatening to them, but in the long term it could be if conditions do not improve, which it seems don't.
References:
Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press
Rose, R. (2007). Learning from Comparative Public Policy: A Practical Guide. New York:Routledge
In the second paragraph, you state that “The economic conditions in Mexico force the decision to make the sacrifice to illegally come to the U.S.” While the economic conditions in Mexico—and many other countries around the world-- may motivate people to want to seek better conditions in the United States, the causation you assume is not there: the agency remains with individuals and they make the conscious choice to break American law and enter the country without proper documentation. The U.S. policies that respond to the choice of crossing the border illegally are far more lenient then they are in other places around the world. While in the United States it is a misdemeanor to be caught without proper legal documentation and the punishment is deportation, even upon second offense. The Mexican policy on undocumented persons is not as lenient. Embedded in the country’s constitution, it mandates that:
ReplyDelete--Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
--Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
--Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
You suggest that “From then we need to collaborate with foreign governments and design joint policy that enables and alleviates problems that create illegal immigration to and fro” in paragraph two. Since Mexico is one of the nine countries that has filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of the federal suit against Arizona, perhaps we should be inspired by their policy and history of treating Nicaraguans and Hondurans, also escaping dire domestic economic conditions, this may not result the type of embracing humanitarian action that Mexico seems to be demanding from the U.S.
[1]Constitution of Mexico. Retrieved from: http://www.oas.org/juridico/MLA/en/mex/en_mex-int-text-const.pdf
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePolicymakers, when discussing immigration, ignore many well establish facts. By increasing competition in the marketplace for labor, immigrants raise wages for the average native – born worker. Additionally, because they generally work at a lower wage, they make commodities cheaper for us to purchase here. With more labor and greater variety in the kinds of labor, the economy grows. Greater variety in the things being produced means workers have more alternatives when purchasing. Increased purchases lead to an increase in the total number of jobs. This translates into increased taxable income; which in turn means the state has additional resources to provide social benefits to citizens and residents alike.
ReplyDeleteGiving immigrants more assistance with integration, socially and economically, into the U.S. would ensure their potentially lower labor costs, and willingness to forego complaints about safety regulations and work conditions, does not undercut demand for native workers. Amazingly, the people who should most support a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants i.e. the low – income workers, are most opposed to such plans. I wonder if Governor Jan Brewer has considered that Arizona workers might be better off if she figured out a way to take undocumented immigrants off the ‘black market’ and give them legal status.
Thanks!
Wendell