OP-ED: A bipartisan fix for immigration

Editor’s note: This is the first of two parts.
In the middle of a southern border immigration crisis and other diversions like the release of the Mueller Report, passing legislation to fix immigration in America is not on the radar of Congress. Many politicians seem to believe that this is not the time to address immigration reform because of the extreme partisan bickering. Republicans have labeled Democrats as supporters of open borders. Democrats claim that Republicans and the president are ignoring immigration law and creating a humanitarian crisis at the border for political advantage.
There is no better time than now to initiate a bipartisan fix of our immigration system. Moreover, there is a middle road that would require some compromise, but would address concerns raised by Democrats, Republicans and the president.
To understand the extent of the issues raised and to weigh possible solutions, one must first consider the three distinct streams of immigrants seeking to enter the country: economic, family and humanitarian. Elected officials must first determine a revised realistic number for admitting new immigrants. Then, judgments must be made on how to divide that number into these three groups.
First and most important is the economic calculation in a reformed immigration system. Few disagree that there is a need for new immigrants in agriculture, the food industry, health care, the hospitality industry and construction. There is also a need for professionals in the medical and scientific fields. The sensible way forward is to involve prospective employers in identifying the need. Then the government would conduct studies with local unions and business leaders to determine that the number and type of new immigrant were not putting pressure on local services or hurting domestic workers.
Most experts agree that the economic stream of immigrants should be the largest component of a reformed system. Anyone with a job and a clean background who fits into a category of needed workers should be given an uncomplicated path to work and a well-defined path to citizenship.
The second group to consider is the family stream. Because the benefits of immigrants moving to join family members are less tangible than those who move to fill needed work positions, a different set of criteria is necessary. The immediate dilemma for Congress is to define what is a family. The nuclear family – Does it include parents, adult children and siblings? It is difficult to argue that intact primary families are good for society.
Lastly is the humanitarian stream. In the past, refugees and asylum seekers were a small percentage of American immigrants. This was due to geography, as most of the world’s refugees live in camps near their respective third-world countries. An exception was the resettlement of thousands of Vietnamese following the Vietnam War.
The recent tide of immigrants from Central America seeking to enter the country has changed this reality. Deteriorating living conditions in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras have compelled many families with small children to risk the dangerous journey north to our border. In 2018, 162,000 Central Americans arrived at the U.S. border seeking legal admission. This year the number has increased dramatically, with 92,000 presenting themselves to the border in March.
The two legal pathways available for humanitarian immigrants are inadequate under existing law. There is a cap for refugee admissions from each region of the world. For Latin America the cap number is a paltry 1,500.
To apply for asylum, a migrant must only set foot anywhere on U.S. soil, either by legal or illegal entry. This has encouraged many Central Americans to cross the border illegally and skip the long lines at ports of entry. They then turn themselves in to authorities and claim asylum.
The present crisis at the border is simply the result of outdated and unworkable U.S. law and regulations. The recent words of acting Homeland Security Chief Kevin McAleenan summarize the problem: “Without action from Congress, criminals will continue to profit from human misery along our border. It is clear that all of our resources are being stretched thin. The system is full and we are beyond capacity. We don’t have the room to hold them, we don’t have the authority to remove them, and they are not likely to be able to remain in the country at the end of the immigration proceedings.”
The last issue to be resolved by Congress is illegal immigration. The illegal population in our country peaked in 2007. Billions have been spent to enforce the dysfunctional law with little improvement.
Prior to the most recent crisis involving Central American refugees, the overriding immigration issue in America was resolving the fate of young immigrants who had arrived illegally as children, now known as “DREAMers.” The back and forth political discussion over DREAMer deportation versus a path to citizenship has created a mountain of animosity and no solution.
Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.