Immigration reform is an issue that is guaranteed to bring out some of the worst contradictions in American society. Emma Lazarus' words on the base of the Statue of Liberty symbolize the open-door policy that is supposedly an American tradition: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." The earnest, hopeful immigrant is a central figure in the long-held image of the United States as a land of refuge, freedom, and opportunity for all who come here willing to work for it.
But the flip side of that vision is a reality as corroded as Miss Liberty's torch, which is now under repair. It is the story of people who were brought here involuntarily and of people who were and are exploited as cheap labor and strikebreakers on farms and in sweatshops, mines, and factories. It is the reality of quotas, nativism, and various forms of persecution, of would-be immigrants turned back at our ports or locked up in prison camps.
Much of the current debate over immigration reform reflects this sordid history. Ominous words and phrases are being used to discuss the "problem" of growing numbers of people entering the United States without official approval. These people are referred to by a dehumanizing label: "illegal aliens." And xenophobia, fear of foreigners, has taken hold in some quarters. News reports speak of "besieged borders," an "inexorable flood" of illegal immigration, and Border Patrol officers who wage an "epic battle to contain the invasion."
President Reagan characterized the situation as a matter of national survival. "The simple truth is that we've lost control of our borders," he said, "and no nation can do that and survive." Although this drastic assessment is far from the simple truth, people of varying political persuasions have concluded that something must be done about U.S. immigration policies.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1983—also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli bill because of its sponsors, Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming) and Rep. Romano Mazzoli (D-Kentucky)—has emerged as Congress' answer to the consensus for reform of U.S. immigration laws.
The Senate and the House have passed different versions of the controversial legislation. As of this writing, however, no compromise has been made, and it seems unlikely that any version of the bill will be acceptable to both the full Congress and the president. But no matter what its eventual fate is, the Simpson-Mazzoli legislation brings to light important questions and assumptions about not only U.S. immigration policy, but also U.S. social, economic, and foreign policies.
The bill itself is a complex effort that contains some contradictory and disturbing provisions. As Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colorado) noted, it closely fits the definition of reform set forth by 19th-century Speaker of the House Thomas Reed: "an indefinable something to be done, in a way nobody knows how, at a time nobody knows when, that will accomplish no one knows what."
It is clear, however, that a number of the measures in the Simpson-Mazzoli bill are focused only on specific groups of undocumented immigrants, are likely to be ineffective, and will create unfair and discriminatory working conditions. Furthermore, the bill does not address the larger issues of where immigrants come from and why, and it does not take into account the real economic and cultural contributions they make to the United States.
The major components of the bill are penalties against employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers, a truncated system for processing political asylum applications, provisions for legalizing undocumented immigrants, and, in the House version, a drastically enlarged "guest worker" program.
Many people are legitimately concerned that undocumented workers depress wages and take jobs from U.S. citizens, especially from black youths and others who suffer high unemployment rates. Sanctions against employers who hire undocumented workers are seen as a solution to this perceived problem.
But it is not clear that unemployment is exacerbated by illegal immigration. Immigrants also create and save jobs. Some start businesses or help to provide a labor force for businesses and industries that would otherwise shut down or move abroad. The U.S. economy also benefits because many undocumented immigrants pay taxes—although they seldom file for a refund—and spend money on goods and services here.
On the other hand, it is true that undocumented workers can be used as cheaper labor than their citizen counterparts. If labor and wage laws were strictly enforced, raising standards for all marginal laborers, and if these workers—who contribute to society—were legalized, they would not be as ripe for exploitation.
Discrimination is a serious probable consequence of the bill's employer penalties. Employers will be reluctant to hire U.S. citizens who seem foreign, particularly Hispanics, who most closely resemble the majority of the immigrants against whom the sanctions are directed.
The H-2, or "guest worker," provisions of the House version of the bill directly contradict the professed concern over protecting citizens' jobs. The H-2 program was expanded at the insistence of fruit and vegetable growers who foresaw the loss of an easily exploited work force because of the bill's legalization provisions. The program will allow farmers to import temporarily perhaps as many as 500,000 foreign workers to harvest their crops.
Guest worker programs have proven to be little better than organized slavery. The H-2 workers are paid very low wages, work and live in poor, sometimes dangerous, conditions, and are denied even the most basic labor protections, such as compensation for on-the-job injuries and the right to organize. Furthermore, H-2 workers are already being used to displace domestic agricultural workers.
The Simpson-Mazzoli bill also provides for a streamlined method for processing applications for political asylum by constricting the right to appeal to the courts once the INS and the attorney general have ruled against the applicant. The bill also institutes a "summary exclusion" policy that will mean that refugees and other would-be immigrants may be turned back at the border without being informed, as present laws require, of their right to receive a deportation hearing and to apply for political asylum.
The legalization section of the bill is touted as its most humane component. Both versions of the bill allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal resident status. But people who have spent years hiding their presence in this country will be expected to show documents proving that they have lived here "continuously" for several years, and will also have to demonstrate that they are studying U.S. history and English. Those who come forward will be deported if their proof is deemed unacceptable. As a result, few people are likely to be willing to apply for legalization.
One of the biggest flaws of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill—and of much of the debate over immigration—is that the question is treated in isolation from U.S. foreign, economic, and social policies. Social policy enters into the considerations about just who is permitted to immigrate. Much of the present furor focuses on people who come from Mexico and Central America, but half of all undocumented foreigners in the United States are people from all over the globe who have overstayed their visas.
Immigrants are viewed as somehow threatening the American way of life. Evidence for this irony is found in a section of the Senate version of the immigration bill, which affirms that the "English language ... and no language other than the English language is the official language of the United States."
Vigilance at the border is not the solution for people who come here fleeing repressive regimes and economic hardship. More just foreign policies and more humane international economic initiatives would enable many people to remain in their homelands. Cutting off military aid to repressive governments would be a good start, but it won't be enough as long as some segments of our economy depend on exploited undocumented or H-2 workers as a labor force.
Some Christians are already involved in immigration policy in ways that affirm a distinctly different set of priorities. The sanctuary movement has taken steps toward implementing the gospel imperative of hospitality. But Christian concern must extend to welcoming the stranger without regard to the distinctions some people make between "political" and "economic" refugees. And we must call into question the idolization of national borders and of papers that determine whether or not people are "legal." For we, too, are strangers in the land, called first to be citizens of the kingdom of God.
Liane Rozzell was an editorial assistant of Sojourners magazine when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!