Are Immigration Laws and Enforcement Anti-Immigrant?

By Peggy Sands Orchowski

To listen to advocates for illegal immigrants lately you might conclude that they believe that any efforts to limit, enforce and even change immigration law is to be anti-immigrant. 

That's not true of course.  But emotional, passionate advocacy for DREAMERS, DACA recipients and Comprehensive Immigration Reform proposals - that focus on the legalization of almost all the 11 plus million immigrants living in the country illegally -- miss the basic paradox of immigration. That is that while it s a human right to leave one's country – as codified in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 13 – it is not a human nor a civil right of anyone to just settle in any country they want to without permission and to demand the rights of citizenship and permanent residency. That permission is the sole right of the sovereign nation state. 

Every nation state decides who can stay, work and become a citizen through immigration laws. In large democratic nation the laws are negotiated through the political representation process. For the most part they are positive – defining who can come in with an immigration Permanent Legal Residency visa, aka "green card" and other permits.  The U.S. grants new green cards to over 1.2 million people a year, more than any country in the world; over 2 million individuals receive temporary non-immigration visas a year.

I have been covering the sausage factory of immigration law-making – the U.S. Congress – for the past ten years as a credentialed (that mean non-advocacy press) Senior Correspondent for the Hispanic Outlook magazine. I have written two books about how immigration politics and laws have evolved and constantly change over time. The basics behind immigration laws is clear: No country can sustain itself with open borders. 

But immigration-- who can immigrate, who cannot and how that choice is to be enforced -- is one of the most difficult decision any nation has to make. Citizens have widely different views about immigration and immigration laws. Some think that anyone who makes it over the border – with visas or not, legally or not – should be allowed to stay. Others think that the Immigration and Nationality Act passed in 1965 and amended so many times that it now consists of thousands of pages of regulations should be strictly enforced. The tension between those positions – and whether they should be in a comprehensive or a piecemeal package -- is what makes up all the noise about immigration in Congress, in think tanks and among American citizens and immigrants. 

Making and enforcing immigration laws is complicated and emotional.  But it's not anti-immigrant.

Basically immigration laws have three roles, all in contention with one another. One is to bring in immigrants who will enrich and add to the prosperity of the country through their work skills, by building strong families and their entrepreneurialism. 

Second, immigration laws must protect U.S, jobs and working conditions of citizens and legal immigrants who work here already.  Massive illegal immigration can undermine not only immigration laws but also U.S. labor laws, labor opportunities, wages and conditions, cultural norms and the rule of law itself.

The third role of immigration laws is humanitarian.  The U.S. was one of the first to commit to the United Nations to take in refugees fleeing eminent and mortal danger. But like every nation who made that commitment, the U.S, gets to choose exactly who and how many refugees we take (unlike most countries, we give them legal permanent status and a pathway to citizenship ie: a green card). All of that is embedded, negotiated and constantly being tweeked in immigration laws and by executive orders.

For those struggling with the idea of immigration laws and internal enforcement (there is little argument about border enforcement except how much) consider the United States and other popular host countries to be like a popular University where tens of thousands of qualified eager students want to be admitted. They  would do well there and would contribute much  But the University cannot take all the diverse and highly qualified students that apply.   They have to choose. So universities have admissions policies developed by their college trustees. The policies specify and limit who can get in and who can't. They change over time.  Students get to apply.  The university gets to choose.  When students' applications are rejected, they don't get to storm the dorms, take the classes and demand a degree. They have to go elsewhere – have a plan B. Make another dream.

So it is with national immigration laws.

# # # # #

"We can't know where we're going if we don't know where we've been". Vice President of the Brookings Institution Darrell West wrote in recommending Peggy Sands Orchowski's book  "The Law That Changed The Face of America: The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965" and  "Immigration and the American Dream: Battling the Political Hype and Hysteria" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2015 and 2008 respectively).  Peggy is available for interviews, article assignments and speaking engagements about immigration   porchowski@hotmail.com