Immigration is an area where ideology and political power plays overshadow real pragmatic discussion of what needs to happen. – Yale’s Professor Alicia Schmidt-Camacho, the Director of Undergraduate Studies for Ethnicity, Race, and Migration.
As the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States reaches unprecedented levels and hyper-partisanship halting Congress, immigration reform is an issue that has become a debate of nationwide politics rather than a conversation about comprehensive action.
On November 20th, 2014, President Obama issued a controversial executive action that would bypass Congress and grant a three-year temporary legal reprieve from deportation and working papers to undocumented parents of U.S. children or permanent residents that have lived in the U.S. for at least five years. Additionally, it would extend the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that gives deportation deferral for immigrants arriving before the age of 16, by extending the age of those that can apply.
The “Immigration Accountability” executive action, scheduled to go into effect on February 18th, 2015, was dealt a major setback, when Brownsville, Texas District Judge Andrew S. Hanen ruled against the executive action, claiming illegal immigration would surge and put a major strain on state budgets. The result was a preliminary injunction that would halt the roll-out of the action, only a day before hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants were scheduled to apply for temporary legal reprieve and working permits.
But not all communities reject the action and what it seeks to do for the immigrant population. New Haven, for instance, is exemplary for its welcoming attitude towards the immigrant community and policies that seek to incorporate migrants into the realm of society. New Haven is committed to respecting the privacy of the immigration status of those arrested or with past encounters with the police by not sharing that information with immigration authorities. This fosters a greater sense of trust between immigrant communities and the police. Many local government officials, including Mayor Harp, are consistent proponents of generating measures to integrate immigrants and resources for families going through this process. New Haven manages to see how communities can operate by incorporating rather than criminalizing migrants, meanwhile protecting shared interests.
Many New Haven immigrants look forward to the additional benefits that the immigration action would provide. New Haven already has a program that grants identification cards to undocumented immigrants as a way to identify who is present in the community and allow access to basic public services. This action would extend this New Haven measure, by issuing working permits to those that qualify, which may help curtail instances of wage theft and abuse by employers. From past experience with this community, it is estimated that the new policy should provide more incentives to pay taxes, to report crime, to create business, and to overall participate, creating an actual net gain from their ability to assume the responsibilities of membership as full civic actors.
Although certainly a solid step forward, this action it is not as far-reaching as many had hoped. By definition, the action is only a temporary relief, as it comes as an executive action, rather than Congressional legislation, and can be easily repealed by future administrations. Congressional gridlock has allowed the undocumented population to reach unprecedented numbers of about 15 million. Since the late 1990s, policymakers have delayed immigration reform, creating a punitive immigration policy and constricting undocumented access to a pathway of citizenship. The criminalization of immigrants has prevented the option for any legal relief.
The action then is now perceived by many as a minimum for addressing the enormous problems created by that period of delay and inaction. Yale’s Professor Alicia Schmidt-Camacho, the Director of Undergraduate Studies for Ethnicity, Race, and Migration, is among the many who support full comprehensive immigration reform:
“How much potential is there in initiative for addressing the accumulated wrongs of this period of time? How can the U.S. having invested in an infrastructure that’s based on detention and deportation and militarized enforcement begin to dial back and start to address the root causes of migration and think practically about what migrants and migration represents in a much more realistic way?”
Some fear that the temporary relief provided by the immigration action will hinder progress towards more comprehensive reform. Contrary to many conservative critics, this action in no way provides a path to citizenship or grants any kind of amnesty. Instead, policies like this are now viewed as makeshift responses that are only dealing with one small issue at a time. Even the President’s party continues to argue for full border and preventative enforcement, leaving much of the current policy intact. The policy chooses a select few that the government deems worthy of temporary protected status, and immigration activists are simply left to be satisfied with the same framework that stands upon the concept that undocumented migration is a threat to law. It may cause a most dangerous complacency among Americans and immigrants alike that is feared may distract from the greater purpose of pushing for full review.
Meanwhile, more conservative critics demand an immediate repeal of the action. They claim that the President is overstepping constitutional authority by dramatically changing the immigration status of hundreds of thousands of immigrants without consulting Congress. Others claim that the action would create incentives for undocumented immigrants to arrive illegally in the future. In response to the immigration action, TX Governor-elect Greg Abbott, remarked:
“The president’s proposed executive decree violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law, circumvents the will of the American people and is an affront to the families and individuals who follow our laws to legally immigrate to the United States.”
Currently, 26 states have open lawsuits against the federal government in an effort to repeal the action. Federal District Judge Hanen claimed a preliminary injunction was necessary to prevent the costly effects that roll-out would have on state budgets and demanded further review of the action’s constitutionality.
With current progress put on halt, immigrants are left vulnerable to misinformation and exploitation. In the last few months alone, there have been several cases of fraudulent businesses scamming immigrants out of legal fees by claiming to help file protections under the action, even though the action is currently not yet in effect. Communities must work to counter rumors, misinformation, and those unscrupulous enough to exploit the need for legal assistance.
In approaching comprehensive immigration reform, the immigration executive action opens up a serious dialogue about what exactly that reform should look like. As the 2016 election cycle approaches, there will undoubtedly be discourse about the future of immigration reform and the policies the nation will ultimately adopt. Whether or not policymakers will be able to overcome partisanship and pass sensible reform is crucial in determining the fate of about 15 million undocumented immigrants currently in the nation, as well as that of the state and local communities in which they reside.