Toward A Comprehensive Immigration Policy

This is the first of two IRC discussion papers written by IRC policy director Tom Barry that aim to contribute to a constructive discussion of these pressing questions. We invite your criticisms and comments.

There exist wide divides on the policy proposals to address immigration
problems, but over the past several years, particularly since Sept. 11th,
there is a growing political consensus among Democrats and Republicans that
immigration reform should include the following measures:

– Greatly increased border security, including more agents and
surveillance equipment.
– Some system of verifiable electronic identification cards to ensure
that only citizens and authorized residents can obtain employment.

While there is broad consensus on the need for more effective border
security and for a national worker identification system, there is a
narrower range of bipartisan consensus on the issues of "earned
legalization" and guest-worker programs. The hard-line restrictionists focus
almost exclusively on punitive law enforcement measures and stricter border
control. They refute all proposals for legalization, arguing that we can’t
have an immigration policy based on rewarding those who have broken the law
by either entering the country illegally or allowing their temporary visas
to expire.

This hard-line, enforcement-first approach to resolving the immigration
issue is embodied in the "Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal
Control Act of 2005, which was shepherded through the House of
Representative by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). In the Senate, majority
leader Bill Frist (R-TN) introduced a reform bill that also takes the
hard-line, enforcement-first approach that immigration restrictionists
favor.

Since 1985 funding for border enforcement has quintupled and the number of
Border Patrol Agents have increased tenfold, but illegal border crossings
have dramatically increased-with an estimated 9 million immigrants having
successfully albeit illegally immigrated since 1990. Nonetheless, there is
widespread agreement, even among some immigrant advocacy groups, that the
United States needs more Border Patrol agents and increased electronic
surveillance, although bipartisan consensus on border control does not
include agreement on the various proposals to wall off large sections or the
entire U.S.-Mexico border.

Both proponents and opponents of legalization largely agree that the time
has come for a worker identification system tied into a national database.
Legalization opponents regard an ID system as a way to separate citizens
from unauthorized immigrant workers, while legalization proponents argue
that it would elevate immigrant workers from their underground status,
reduce employer exploitation, and discourage new illegal immigration.

There is also broad support for a variety of guest-worker programs as part
of a comprehensive immigration bill. Outside the policy community, the
AFL-CIO and many progressive immigrant advocates oppose the introduction of
new guest-worker or temporary worker programs because they contend that they
will be used by business to undermine prevailing wage rates, obstruct union
organizing, and deny workers their rights.

The comprehensive immigration reform measures outlined by President Bush,
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), Senators John Kyl (R-AZ) and John Cornyn
(R-TX), and Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ), while all
echoing the call for increased border security, also address the central
immigration issue of the continuing demand for labor by proposing different
types of guest-worker programs. Under the Bush and the Kennedy-McCain bills
guest-workers could apply for legal residency and eventually citizenship.

In the Kennedy-McCain bill, the guest-worker program is described as a way
to address the need for new labor above and beyond the labor already
provided by the existing illegal workforce-which would be eligible for
"earned legalization" upon payment of fees, English language skills, and at
least six years of work history. While the president also supports earned
legalization, immigrants would only be eligible under his plan if they first
registered as guest-workers-which constitutes a major disincentive for
unauthorized workers who already have jobs and homes.

The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, sponsored by Senators
Kennedy and McCain, has received the backing of many pro-immigration groups,
liberals, and moderates. President Bush’s proposal has been endorsed by a
coalition of corporations called Americans for Border Security and Economic
Security, led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) and former
Rep. Cal Dooley (D-CA). But the president’s proposals and most of those
introduced in the Senate have been rejected by restrictionists as
unacceptable because they provide legal pathways for immigration.

A clear signal that the Republican Party leadership is moving to embrace the
restrictionist resurgence was the introduction in mid-March of a new
immigration proposal by Majority Leader Frist. "Our country needs security
at our borders in order to slow the flow of illegal immigration and make
America safer from foreign criminals and terrorists," said Frist, mimicking
the national security language of House restrictionists and such groups as
the vigilante Minuteman Project. Weeks before Frist introduced his
enforcement bill, a new Republican Party group called the Volunteer
Political Action Committee had launched a public relations campaign
featuring Frist that reached out to the right-wing blogs and websites with
the messaged: "Help Me Secure the Borders".

Recognizing the rising political clout of the restrictionists, Frist and the
Republican Party leadership are no longer dismissing the hard-line
restrictionists but rather raising the level of fear-mongering and
xenophobia themselves. Describing immigration as a "dangerous national
security threat," Frist warns that the "scariest part" of illegal
immigration is that "we have absolutely no idea what they’ll do tomorrow on
U.S. soil." The Frist proposal signaled that the Senate and the House may be
able to agree on a new immigration bill that focuses exclusively on
security-including increasing the number of Border Patrol agents, expedited
deportation of all unauthorized immigrants (including from countries other
than Mexico), and extended border fencing. Although policies addressing
earned legalization and temporary worker programs are clearly needed for any
comprehensive immigration reform, they are increasingly being regarded as
too politically costly by both parties.

Immigration policy packaged as a national security imperative and as a nod
to the respect for the rule of law will prove an easier political
sell-despite falling far short of being comprehensive and solving none of
the deep-seated problems associated with immigration as a labor-market
issue, a human rights concern, and a source for an expanding underclass in
U.S. society.

Other areas where the consensus breaks down include the following divisive
issues:

– The proposal to extend the border wall in the short-term to 700 miles
and eventually along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.
– The continuation or expansion of family reunification measures.

Backlash Measures Will Increase Tensions

As discussion continues in Washington over the various reform bills, several
measures under debate will clearly have a negative impact on U.S.-Latin
America relations and increase racial tensions within the United States
without having any countervailing benefits to U.S. society and economy. As
such, the following policy reforms should be rejected:

– Deportation of Illegal Immigrants: While the U.S. government certainly
has the right to deport foreigners residing in the country illegally (either
entering without permission or overstaying their visas), such an initiative
is neither practical nor ethical. By having tacitly accepted that 12 million
"illegal aliens" constitute an integral part of U.S. workforce and society,
the U.S. government has signaled that there is room in the United States for
"illegal" residents. Rounding up and deporting massive numbers of immigrants
is not practical, and would lead to human rights violations and an upsurge
in anti-U.S. sentiment within neighboring countries. Not only would such a
policy initiative-advocated by the restrictionists in the Republican
Party-wreak havoc in U.S. communities, it would also severely debilitate the
already fragile economies of sending nations by abruptly ending the flow of
remittances and dangerously expanding the sectors of the unemployed and
homeless.

– Criminalization of Immigrants: The proposal that those crossing into
the country without visas be regarded as felons would constitute an
egregious violation of international human rights norms. Not only would such
a measure, actually approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, prove
costly to U.S. taxpayers, it would constitute another blow against the U.S.
reputation and make U.S. citizens traveling abroad vulnerable to in-kind
retribution. What’s more, those advocating that illegal border-crossers be
regarded and treated as criminals also would criminalize the act of
sheltering or otherwise assisting these millions of unauthorized immigrants.
As part of this criminalization of unauthorized immigrants, restrictionists
in Congress and at the state and local levels also advocate that local law
enforcement officials and other government employees turn over unauthorized
immigrants to federal immigration authorities for prosecution and
deportation.

– Barricading U.S. Borders: Formerly high-trafficked sections of the
U.S.-Mexican border are already largely impenetrable because of previous
decisions to erect imposing walls or fences. These barriers have proved
highly effective in reducing illegal crossings at formerly favored immigrant
crossing locations. However, they have not succeeded in decreasing
immigration flows since would-be immigrants have sought new points of entry.
Presumably, barricading the entire U.S.-Mexico border would dramatically
decrease illegal immigrant traffic, but at an extremely high cost to U.S.
international standing. As the United States has stepped up border control,
including walls along parts of the border, many immigrants have decided to
make the United States their permanent home because of the increased
difficulty of returning for seasonal, temporary, or steady jobs. Further
barricading the border would accentuate this trend.

– Denial of Basic Services: Contrary to the declarations of the
anti-immigration forces, immigrants come to the United States to work, not
to avail themselves of the country’s quickly shrinking safety net of social
services. Measures that would deny immigrants and their children emergency
and basic medical services and education are inhumane and would further
stratify U.S. society, aggravate the public health crisis, and contribute to
delinquency and crime. Such proposed initiatives would violate basic human
rights. Contrary to the misinformation disseminated by anti-immigration
groups, immigrants who receive basic social services are not getting a free
lunch since they are taxpayers-paying their fair share of income, payroll,
and sales taxes. But it should also be acknowledged that many communities,
especially in the borderlands, are finding that their budgets are being
depleted by the increasing immigrant-related services, and the federal and
state governments should step in to ensure that these are adequately
compensated.

Two Poles of Thinking on Immigration Reform

There are two opposite poles of thinking about how to deal with needed
immigration reform.

For the hard-line restrictionists, any reform to address the immigration
crisis must fundamentally be a new commitment to enforce existing laws and
to create new measures to penalize unauthorized immigrants and those who
support them. It should include provisions that would effectively rid U.S.
society of immigrants living and working here illegally, while also
attempting to implement strict border control. Even hard-line
restrictionists like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) suggest that guest-worker and
temporary worker programs may be needed to maintain a vibrant U.S. economy,
although immigrant workers under such programs would not be eligible for
citizenship and would be immediately returned to their country of origin if
they lose the jobs for which they were contracted.

The other pole of thinking includes, to varying degrees, measures to
legalize the established immigrant population and future immigration flows
through guest-worker programs, legalization, and worker identification
cards. Some liberal immigration reform groups include provisions for
increased border security measures in their proposed reform packages. In
marked contrast with the hard-line restrictionists, immigrant advocates and
some liberal reform proposals call for more expansive family reunification
measures and quicker processing of visas and immigration requests. In the
current political climate, it is highly unlikely that Congress would approve
the kind of expansive immigration reforms that are backed mostly by
immigrant advocates and business groups.

A long-running problem of immigration reform proposals is that they are
neither directly tied to foreign policy reform nor to national economic
policy. As such, no matter how broad in terms of enforcement, employer
sanctions, worker identification, temporary worker programs, or immigrant
rights, they fall short of being "comprehensive." While the lack of
connectivity is true of many policies, it is a problem that is especially
acute when it involves immigration reform because of the overlap with
foreign policy, economic and labor issues, and state-federal relations.

At its core, our immigration policy should be primarily a policy that
reflects broadly defined U.S. national interests-economic, security, social,
political-and in doing so would benefit from widespread public support. To
respond to and respect broad U.S. national interest in providing for the
common welfare and security of its citizens, immigration policy should not
be held hostage to special interest groups, whether they be business,
immigrant advocacy groups, or the increasingly vocal anti-immigrant and
anti-immigration forces. Immigration is too important an issue-one that has
defined our past and will be a key in defining the future of our nation-to
be left to the kind of political opportunism that is now rife in Washington
and in state capitols as politicians position themselves to play on the
emotions of voters.

A New Approach to Comprehensive Immigration Reform

A truly comprehensive immigration reform would complement reforms in U.S.
foreign policy designed to reduce the "push" factors that contribute to
immigration flows to the United States, taking into account that its
economic policies abroad currently contribute to the large number of
"economic refugees" seeking to enter the country to escape poverty. It would
also recognize the moral and legal responsibility of the United States to
provide refuge for those fleeing wars and repression at home.

A comprehensive immigration reform bill would also be formulated within the
context of a domestic policy commitment by government to full employment at
livable wages and working conditions. An immigration policy, then, would be
designed to supply workers-either permanent or temporary-to meet the labor
needs of businesses and individuals, primarily by having policies that make
employment available to citizens and other authorized workers, and
secondarily fill business demands through the employment of foreign workers
(first with ones already living in the country, and secondarily through
strictly limited guest-worker and temporary worker programs).

While comprehensive immigration reform should be primarily forward-looking,
it must also fairly address the presence millions of immigrant families who
have established roots in U.S. society even though they lack proper
documentation. Clearly, a massive deportation of illegal immigrants is
neither feasible nor ethical. It is simplistic to argue, as the hard-line
restrictionists do, that because millions of immigrants are in the country
illegally, they should be treated as criminals and denied basic rights and
social services. By making jobs available and giving low priority to
workplace enforcement of immigration laws, our society and economy have been
complicit in the "illegality" of millions of immigrants. What’s more, the
increased emphasis on border security over the past two decades has been a
major factor in reversing traditional migration patterns in which Mexican
workers regularly traveled back and forth across the border for seasonal and
other temporary work.

A new immigration reform package should address the failures and
shortcomings of previous immigration reform bills, particularly the 1986
reform package that included enforcement, employer sanctions, legalization,
and aid to facilitate immigrant integration into U.S. society. In
retrospect, the problems commonly identified with that bill are the
following:

– Weak employer sanctions that were difficult to enforce and in effect
used mainly to intimidate workers.
– Lack of secure way to ensure that existing or prospective employees
were actually citizens or legal residents.
– Continuation of broad family reunification guidelines that sparked a
vast "chain migration" of members of the extended family of legalized
immigrants.
– Insufficient government support to assist immigrant integration into
U.S. society.
– Increased emphasis on border security but failure of new border
control funding to stem flow of unauthorized immigrant labor.
– Failure to underscore the ethical and humanitarian objectives of U.S.
immigration policy by giving priority to refugees fleeing repression.

A comprehensive immigration reform bill that responds to broad national
interests while respecting the human rights of immigrants should contain the
following main elements:

– Creation of an "earned legalization" program for unauthorized
immigrants who have established roots in U.S. society and economy that would
require payment of fees and attending language and other courses to
facilitate full integration into U.S. society and eventual citizenship.
– The institution of a non-duplicable electronic worker identification
document would be used only for seeking employment by citizen, resident, and
newly legalized workers.
– New family reunification laws that limit residence visas to the
immigrant’s spouse and children, and include mechanisms for return visits.
– No guest-worker or temporary worker programs, skilled or unskilled,
until such time that the legalization, full-employment, and livable wage
programs become fully implemented, and then only under the strictest of
conditions and monitoring-to protect both resident and foreign workers.
– High penalties for businesses that employ illegal workers after the
implementation of a worker ID system.
– Give priority to refugees fleeing persecution and repression, and turn
back measures that make it increasingly difficult for refugees to obtain
asylum in the United States .
– The above measures would discourage new illegal immigration, and
thereby reduce the need for a border control system that focused on
immigrant traffic, allowing customs and border officials to focus on
smuggling of illegal or regulated drugs.

The issuance of worker identification cards, whether in the form of
verifiable Social Security forms or the creation of a special worker
identity card would have many benefits, including the reduced need for
border controls, fewer immigrant deaths, reduced citizen/resident-immigrant
resentment and backlash, increased opportunity for effective labor
organizing, and more readily enforceable means to penalize employers.

There would also be risks and costs-including increased government (and
potentially business) information gathering on individuals, greatly reduced
opportunities for undocumented workers, and the loss of jobs and likely
deportation (or voluntary return) of workers and family members who cannot
meet the eligibility standards for earned legalization. Yet another cost-a
grave one for sending countries and communities-is the likely gradual
reduction of immigrant remittances as the numbers of immigrants working in
the United States diminishes.

A new comprehensive immigration reform bill would need to effectively block
new unauthorized immigrants from finding employment in the economy’s formal
sector and set prohibitively high penalties for those employing illegal
immigrants in the informal sector, such as in construction or household
services. The aim of a comprehensive immigration reform bill would be to
effectively discourage all unauthorized immigration while working to ensure
an adequate supply of labor to all sectors of the economy primarily through
a combination of citizens and legal immigrant residents. If, after the
worker ID system is implemented and the government institutes policies to
encourage full employment (at living wages and decent conditions), the
supply of workers is exhausted, then the U.S. government should initiate
temporary or guest-worker programs that protect the rights of both native
and foreign workers. Such programs should give workers a path to legal
residency and citizenship.

Full Employment and Livable Wages

What’s needed is a comprehensive immigration reform package that includes
legalization of unauthorized immigrants who have established economic and
social roots in the United States together with employment measures that
would obstruct future unauthorized immigrants from obtaining jobs. This
would establish the foundation for new standards to assess what would
constitute sustainable immigration flows into the United States , whether
through immigrant visas, guest-worker, or temporary worker programs.

However, without an associated government commitment to domestic economic
policies whose objectives would include full employment and livable wages,
it’s likely that many of the concerns the country now faces-growing numbers
of unauthorized residents, increased pressure to barricade our borders
against job seekers, and ability of restrictionists to tap feelings of
resentment, fear, and vulnerability to create anti-immigrant backlash
campaigns-would again surface.

Not since the end of World War II, when Congress passed the Employment Act
of 1946, has the U.S. government been committed to an economic policy that
provides full employment. In the past five decades, U.S. economic policy has
become increasingly less concerned about creating the conditions for full
employment.

Rather, our economic policy has measured economic progress more by such
standards as increased trade, high corporate profits, high productivity, and
low inflation-all assumed to be the product of a downward pressure on union
organizing, a large surplus workforce (unemployed, women, migrants),
deregulation of government oversight of business, government subsidies and
tax breaks to business, and decreased wages and benefits. Economic
globalization in the past couple of decades has accelerated these
worker-unfriendly trends, leading to increased income inequality, unlivable
wage rates, decline of unionization, and harsher working conditions.

A commitment to full employment implies a reversal of all these adverse
trends. Instead, governments at the national, state, and local levels would
recommit themselves to the objectives of full employment, livable wages, and
an efficient social safety net for those unable to work. A small beginning
of this reversal of priorities is the establishment of livable wage laws by
some towns such as Cambridge and Santa Fe . An underlying assumption is that
all workers, no matter what the industrial or service sector, would be paid
a livable wage to ensure that all families have basic needs covered.
Government regulation would ensure that all business sectors employ best
practices so that no job would be considered undesirable by
citizen/authorized resident workers because of demeaning working conditions
or non-livable wages.

Through increased social services, such as universal medical insurance, the
government would supplement the income for the working poor and middle
classes. A full employment policy would not assume, as our society now does,
that both father and mother need to work to ensure that the needs of
themselves and children are met. Other elements of a full employment program
might include job programs by the government to meet the real needs of
communities. Such a package of programs would increase the domestic market
by raising wages for those now receiving unlivable wages, while at the same
time, if done properly, would increase productivity as a result of a more
contented workforce.

Absent a national commitment to providing existing residents with jobs that
can support themselves and their families, the immigration reform debate is
subject to manipulation-on one side by Corporate America that benefits from
a ready supply of cheap labor, and on the other side by right-wing populists
who, by scapegoating immigrants, deflect popular attention from the real
causes for economic insecurity and the fraying of the country’s social
fabric.

Despite the history of abuses and exploitation associated with guest-worker
and temporary worker programs, such programs should remain a component of
immigration policy, but not, as has been proposed, a permanent feature.
Limited worker visas are a necessary part of doing international business
with foreign firms, many of whom have substantial investment in the United
States .

However, company requests for guest-workers or temporary workers-whether
skilled or unskilled-should be immediately put on hold to give time to
evaluate the impact of the legalization of undocumented residents and the
impact of the range of full-employment and livable-wage policies. The U.S.
government can begin to revert the downward pressure on wage levels by
legislating that employers offer wages and benefits (such as minimum or
livable wage laws) necessary to attract the vast numbers of unemployed and
underemployed in our own country, and no longer assume they can run their
businesses relying on cheap labor working in substandard conditions.

Similarly, the United States should reduce-rather than expand, as has been
the trend-the current temporary worker programs for skilled workers, which
not only are sidelining resident workers but are also depleting sending
countries of their most skilled and educated citizens. As is, the U.S.
practice of attracting professional, technical, and health workers, for
example, undermines the human resource base of developing nations.

Hammering out a comprehensive immigration reform bill that gains public and
bipartisan support will be difficult enough without insisting that it be
tied to changes in U.S. economic policy, drug policy, and foreign policy.
Over the medium and long terms, however, effective immigration policy will
need to work in tandem with other policies that are directly or indirectly
related to immigration flows into the United States.

It is unlikely that the U.S. Congress will approve a comprehensive
immigration reform bill in the coming year-an election year when incumbents,
especially moderates and liberals from both parties, will be reluctant to
make themselves targets of restrictionist criticism. More likely in the
short term is bipartisan approval at the national and local levels for
measures that aim to increase border security, increase the authority of
local police and other government officials to aid in the enforcement of
immigration laws, and add new punitive measures that further restrict the
integration of unauthorized immigrants into U.S. society.
Summary

One of the main problems in organizing support for a fair, comprehensive,
and effective immigration reform policy has been the lack of a conceptual
framework to help policymakers evaluate the problems and benefits of
immigration while at the same time linking immigration policy to both
domestic economic and foreign policy. To summarize, a comprehensive overhaul
of our immigration system would include these components:

– Occurs in the context of a national economic policy that encourages
full-employment at livable wages and with respect for basic rights to
organize.
– Prioritizes the entry of political refugees.
– Legalizes the presence of the large sector of unauthorized immigrants
that have established roots in U.S. society and economy.
– Leaves open the possibility for guest-worker programs that do not
endanger the jobs of legal U.S. residents and guarantees respect for the
rights of these temporary workers.
– Determines a sustainable level of legal immigration that benefits U.S.
society and economy.
– Reduces immigration visas for family reunification to ensure that any
earned legalization program does not lead to large increases in legal
immigration flows.
– Deemphasizes border security, and instead places the emphasis of
controlling illegal immigration on institution of a worker ID system.
– Reforms U.S. foreign policy in ways that promote broad development and
job creation in "sending" countries.
– Protects the human rights (with special attention to labor rights and
conditions) of all U.S. residents-whether legal or not.

Global Good Neighbor Ethics and Immigration

In mid-2005, the IRC identified a similar problem in addressing foreign
policy issues. The country needs a new framework for evaluating and shaping
foreign policy-one that would ensure that our foreign policy really serves
U.S. national interests and truly makes us more secure. We observed that the
Good Neighbor policy launched by President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s
could serve as an animating vision for what we call "A Global Good Neighbor
Ethic for International Relations." Although we recognize that the FDR
administration did not always abide by its own Good Neighbor principles, we
concluded that its social democratic programs at home and emphasis of
respect in international relations were a legacy that contrasted sharply
with the pre-FDR era and with current policies and could serve as a starting
point for a new foreign policy framework for the 21 st century.

We outlined seven principles as the core of a "global good neighbor ethic,"
three of which are relevant to the challenge of forging a comprehensive
immigration policy.

"Our nation’s foreign policy agenda must be tied to broad national
interests. To be effective and win public support, a new foreign policy must
work in tandem with domestic policy reforms to improve security, quality of
life, and basic rights in our own country".

Replacing "foreign policy" with immigration would make this principle work
as a guideline for comprehensive and effective immigration reform.
Responding to the broad national interests in immigration policy would mean
addressing the concerns of citizen workers facing an increased supply of
cheap, unorganized labor while at the same time recognizing that the U.S.
economy has traditionally depended on immigrant workers and that immigrants
will likely still be needed to keep the U.S. economy competitive and
dynamic. If the U.S. public could be assured that its own needs for good
jobs and social services were being met, then it would be more likely to
support an immigration policy that legalized immigrants and created more
legal channels for immigration.

"The U.S. government should support sustainable development, first at home
and then abroad, through its macroeconomic, trade, investment, and aid
policies."

As is, the U.S. government has steadily moved away from a commitment to
sustainable development either at home or abroad. Just as FDR committed the
U.S. government to providing a "New Deal" for U.S. society through better
government regulation of business and banks, support for community
development, and innovative and productive job programs, the U.S. government
must again commit itself to a domestic economic policy that ensures broad
development at home rather than simply tending to the interests of big
business. Similarly, the aim of its foreign economic policy has focused
largely on furthering the interests of U.S. investors and exporters, with
the sad result of increasing economic polarization and poverty in developing
countries-the outcome being that the poor seek employment in the United
States. The first obligation of the U.S. government is to ensure that there
is equitable development at home, but it also has an ethical obligation (and
a self-interest) to terminate macroeconomic, trade, investment, and aid
policies that increase the push factors to emigrate. This would include a
commitment to use its considerable influence in such financial organizations
as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to support policies that
alleviate poverty and foster broad development in contrast to the neoliberal
policies it has long promoted. Similarly, the U.S. government could foster
sustainable development at home and abroad by leading the way toward the
formulation of more equitable trade and investment rules both at the World
Trade Organization and in bilateral and regional agreements.

"Our first step toward being a good neighbor is to stop being a bad
neighbor."

We live in an increasingly interdependent world. If the U.S. government
expects cooperation from other nations-in drug control, global public
health, counterterrorism, etc.-then it should first seek cooperative
solutions to common problems. Yes, the United States needs to control its
borders and needs to establish the official requisites for residency and
work. But as the U.S. society, both at the national and local levels, moves
to establish new immigration policies, it should remember that immigrants
have helped create this country, and are continuing to do so. The agenda of
the hard-line restrictionists-barricading our borders, making immigrants
felons, and calling for mass deportations of hard-working members of our
communities-is a bad neighbor policy that will aggravate tensions at home
and in international relations, especially with Mexico . The first step in
shaping a good neighbor immigration policy is stopping this vindictive bad
neighbor agenda.