Representatives Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Gary Miller (R-CA) would like the public to think that they have the same concerns as most Americans today, releasing a joint statement expressing anxiety over the 15 million Americans currently without work. On its face, their statement—“we must enforce our current immigration laws to ensure illegals do not take away jobs that rightfully belong to American and legal workers”— makes sense. In a vacuum, if our economy provided only a set number of jobs available for American workers, Messrs. Smith and Miller would be correct. However, this is just not the case.

The notion that unemployed natives could simply be “swapped” for employed unauthorized immigrants is not valid economically. In reality, native workers and immigrants workers are not easily interchangeable. It is unrealistic to expect unemployed native workers to travel across the country or take jobs for which they are overqualified. Worse, removing millions of workers (at an enormous cost) from our economy would further reduce tax revenues and consumer spending, resulting in even more job loss.

In short, a better way to create jobs for Americans would be to legalize many of the unauthorized through comprehensive immigration reform, which would allow them to pay even more taxes and spend even more to stimulate our economy. These contributions would provide more jobs for American workers. The facts, not the talking points, show that immigrants who legalize improve their education, improve their wages, move out of poverty, buy homes, and become invested in their communities.

Particularly troubling is Miller’s statement about his home state: “At home in California, almost weekly I hear from my constituents that illegal immigration is exacerbating the unemployment crisis.” Yet, as the Immigration Policy Center, the University of Southern California and more recently, the California Immigration Policy Center have reported, immigrants are vital to California’s flailing economy and without them, California’s dire budget situation might even worsen. California’s immigrants comprise more than a third of California’s labor force, and pay more Social Security taxes on average than U.S. born households. If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from California, the state would lose $164.2 billion in expenditures, 72.9 billion in economic output, and approximately 717,000 jobs.

Everyone is looking for someone to blame for today’s economy, but we would do well not to blame those may be able to help us out of the crisis.

Photo by ryanjreilly.

This week a police chief and two of his officers were charged with obstruction of justice in connection with their investigation of the beating death of Luis Ramirez, a 25-year-old undocumented Mexican immigrant, in Shenandoah, PA, last year. The two teenagers acquitted of his murder were also indicted on federal hate crime charges. While some measure of justice may eventually be served in the Ramirez case, this tragedy should serve as a cautionary tale as we move into 2010 and gear up for a new round of immigration reform debates. Policy makers and the media must understand that when the debate devolves from reasoned, fact-based discussions into fear and hate-mongering the consequences can be dire.

John Amaya, formerly of MALDEF, explains the charges:

Three federal indictments that include commission of a hate crime, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, official misconduct, and extortion have been recently handed down by a federal grand jury in the case of the fatal beating of Luis Ramirez. On July 12, 2008, Ramirez was beaten to death when his alleged assailants attacked him in the street on their way home from a town festival, kicking and hitting him while members of the group yelled racial slurs. Ramirez died from the injuries he sustained in that hateful attack, leaving behind his partner and their two children.

The potential impact on Latino communities of a hate-filled debate is particularly sobering. In its 2009 hate crimes report, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights identified an eerie trend:

The increase in hate crimes directed against Hispanics for the fourth consecutive year is particularly noteworthy and worrisome because the number of hate crimes committed against other racial, ethnic, and religious groups has over the same period shown either no increase or a decrease.

and:

The increase in violence against Hispanics correlates closely with the increasingly heated debate over Comprehensive Immigration Reform and an escalation in the level of anti-immigrant vitriol on radio, television, and the Internet. While reasonable people can and will disagree about the parameters of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, in some instances, the commentary about immigration reform has not been reasonable; it has been inflammatory. Warned an April 2009 assessment from the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), “in some cases, anti-Immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

So far, there are already signs that the debate will, once again, be divisive as commentators, anti-immigrant groups and some Members of Congress have begun using the nation’s unemployment numbers as a way to pit native-born workers against immigrants despite evidence to the contrary.

While pushing back on immigration reform by discussing joblessness may sound like a more rational way to debate the issue, in fact it is not since immigrants do not compete for most jobs held by the native-born. The concept that immigrants steal jobs is simply not supported by data and again pits native-born workers against their foreign-born counterparts in way that fuels the same kind of anti-immigrant sentiment that has characterized past debates.

We can do better than this. There is room for negotiation and compromise, but there is no room for intentionally misleading the public and fueling hatred that leads to tragedy.

Photo by Rik_C.

Today the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) held an event aimed at dispelling some of the most common myths about illegal immigrants and the U.S. economy and making the case that enforcement-only policies are not cost effective. MPI also released The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States, written by Gordon Hanson, a professor of economics at UC-San Diego.

In his paper and in his remarks, Hanson found that:

• Unauthorized immigrants are a large part of the low-skilled U.S. labor force. While the number of U.S. born working-age adults without a high school diploma has dropped dramatically since 1960, there are currently about 8.3 million unauthorized immigrants in the labor force, and about half have less than a high school degree. They account for 20% of working-age adults with less than a high-school degree in the U.S. They have a significant presence is some industries, such as farming, construction, and food preparation. According to Hanson, “An enforcement-only strategy that did not facilitate legal labor inflows but which sought to cut low-skilled immigration drastically would hurt these industries.”

• Illegal immigration responds to market conditions in ways that legal immigration does not. Unlike the number of green cards and temporary work visas which are set by Congress, the number of unauthorized workers is responsive to the labor market. The best evidence is that the number of undocumented immigrants entering the U.S. has decreased in recent months due to the lack of available jobs.

• The overall impact of illegal immigration on the U.S. economy is small. According to Hanson, “Illegal immigration produces a tiny net gain to the U.S. economy after subtracting U.S.-born workers’ losses from U.S. employers’ gains. And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose, the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash.”

• Enforcement against illegal immigration is expensive. The U.S. spends approximately $15 billion annually enforcing immigration laws. A simple cost-benefit analysis indicates that the high level of spending on enforcement is not justified.

In their remarks, MPI policy analyst Marc Rosenblum and Jeanne Butterfield of the National Immigration Forum largely agreed with Hanson, but took the argument a step further, making a strong case for legalization and comprehensive immigration reform. Rosenblum pointed out that the net fiscal impact of illegal immigrants improves over time—immigrants are not only workers, but consumers, entrepreneurs, and investors, and their contributions improve over time. Furthermore, the cost of removing illegal workers from the U.S. goes beyond the enforcement budget. Other studies have pointed out that more enforcement could result in fewer jobs for U.S. citizens and less tax revenues for the government.

Butterfield added that there are additional hidden costs of the status quo—a broken immigration system. Employers pay for complying with harsh enforcement strategies, illegal immigrants endure exploitation because of their lack of legal status, and state and local governments disproportionately bear the burden of any related fiscal costs.

Today’s report and discussion are examples of the thoughtful, reasonable, analysis and conversation that is so needed in the current climate surrounding the national immigration debate. This complex issue cannot and should not be whittled down to simplistic anti-immigrant versus pro-amnesty labels. We hope that Members of Congress read the reports that are emerging and hold equally thought-provoking conversations.

Photo by Môsieur J. [version 3.0a].

Lou Dobbs, CNN anchor and self-dubbed “Mr. Independent” signed off from his nightly post on the network Wednesday night. Ending a nearly 30-year career with CNN and a long history of spreading misinformation about immigration and immigrants, his departure marks an interesting opportunity for immigration reformers to stand up for a fair and honest debate of immigration policy.

While Dobbs may have believed he was standing up for the best interests of American workers, his style of divisive, truth-challenged reporting on immigrants and immigration has made it even more difficult to get accurate information into an already emotionally-charged debate. In fact, his brand of advocacy journalism has done a disservice to those American-workers who he claims to champion. Standing up for the status quo in immigration and pushing for a punitive, enforcement-only solution has done little to solve the problem and a lot to hurt those same American workers.

However, to assume Dobbs is leaving the debate altogether is probably wishful thinking. Although his future plans are unknown, it is likely that he will continue beating the anti-immigrant drum from any perch he eventually lands on citing immigration policy as “one of the major issues of our time” in his farewell speech. However, highlighting radical groups like the Minutemen and discussing conspiracy theories, like a reconquest of the Southwest by Mexico will be better suited to whatever space he carves out for himself in ideological radio, television or politics. He will likely use his anti-immigrant stance to further his career ambitions, but he would be wise to take a lesson from those who have used and failed with this approach in the past.

So while some may cheer at Dobbs departure from CNN, those who stand for common sense solutions to our nation’s most challenging problems should know that much harder work lies ahead. The challenge of promoting a respectful and honest debate that brings us towards solutions and that is in tune with our economic needs and core values is harder to sustain than a cheap, easy one that plays on public fear and makes good sound bites.

Photo by ccheykain.

Much has been made of CNN’s seemingly conflicted programming on immigration—on one hand is CNN host Lou Dobbs, unofficial Director of Demagoguery who broadcasts misinformed anti-immigrant rhetoric on a nightly basis; and on the other hand is CNN’s latest documentary, Latinos in America, a two-part series hosted by Soledad O’Brien which takes a closer look at “how Latinos are changing America and how America is changing Latinos.” While many immigration advocates argue CNN “can’t have it both ways,” senior executive producer and vice president of CNN’s documentary unit, Mark Nelson, is angry. He argues that his documentary, Latinos in America, is about Latinos, not Dobbs:

Just because Dobbs talks about the issue on his weeknight CNN show, it doesn’t mean that anyone else on the network who reports on immigration has to talk about Dobbs. If people feel that the topic has been avoided, they should do that documentary then. This is the documentary we did.

Nelson’s point is well taken, but how exactly does CNN intend its viewers to interpret CNN’s inherently contradictory message? CNN advertises Latinos in America (which airs in two parts October 21-22 at 9 p.m. EST) as a “documentary that discusses immigration and discrimination issues.” If CNN’s documentary discusses discrimination issues, shouldn’t it also discuss the role media plays in propagating discrimination against immigrants? It’s dishonest to suggest that Latinos in America, the majority of whom are first or second generation immigrants, are not adversely affected by viewers who support Lou Dobbs—whose inflammatory rhetoric is televised nationally on their own network.

The media has long shaped highly contentious debates in many issue areas. According to a Brookings Institute report, Democracy in the Age of New Media: A Report on the Media and the Immigration Debate:

The U.S. media have hindered effective policy-making on immigration for decades, and their impact has been increasing in recent years as a result of an ongoing evolution in the media industry. Changes in the media landscape—the advent of a 24-hour news cycle, the growing Latino media, and rise of conservative voices on cable TV news, are increasingly transforming the context of our nation’s political battles, and promoting stalemate on an issue that is inherently difficult to resolve.

CNN’s latest documentary proposes to address many different issues affecting Latinos in America today—their role in reshaping religion, Latinos in the U.S. education system, culture clashes, discrimination and illegal immigration. Hopefully, the documentary will also focus on one of the most pressing topics framing all of the above issues—our outdated and inefficient immigration system. Latinos now comprise 67.9 percent of all immigrants in the United States today and many of them are now or have been caught up in our broken immigration system which leaves them in legal, economic and social limbo.

The key to understanding what Latinos actually face in America is really a conflation of all of the above—Lou Dobbs and the people who support his myths, documentaries that paint a more sympathetic picture of Latinos’ daily lives, and a government that has continually let politics interfere with their ability to pass real immigration reform. If integration is the goal, Congress must pass an immigration reform bill that provides real solutions to real problems so that immigrants, Latino and otherwise, in America have access to citizenship and laws that protect them.

Photo by George Rex.

Nativist groups are pulling an old strategy out of their play book as they attack members of the clergy. This tired exercise includes identifying a constituency that is in support of solving our nation’s immigration problems (currently the religious community), coordinating with other like-minded groups to disseminate faulty arguments (this time using the bible to condemn immigrants), claiming to be acting in the name of someone other than your self (in this case the American worker), and finally going after them with all the fervor you can muster to convince them that the bible preaches against helping strangers, that leaving the status quo in place is good for American workers and see how many spiritual leaders you can peel off.

The fact of the matter is, these restrictionist groups will do and say just about anything to stop progress towards immigration reform—but their latest attempts to divide people do not stop at the parish door. Attempting to turn the religious community against immigrants is ironic given that communities of faith have been at the forefront of fighting for immigrants rights for many years. At a time when xenophobia and angry rhetoric aimed at immigrants has become rampant, Catholics, Lutherans, Evangelicals, Jews, and Muslims have and continue to stand up for immigrants—even when many other groups do not.

Another shortcoming with restrictionist strategy is the claim that they are standing up for the American worker. Number one, they have no track record of ever doing so. Number two, the commitment by labor unions like SEIU and AFL-CIO to work towards immigration reform shows that the real defenders of the American worker are already on board for change.

Despite their claims, the difficult economic and employment issues we face are not helped by mass deportation. We know that immigrants stimulate our economy and studies have shown that immigrants don’t actually compete with U.S. workers in the workforce. Immigrants have different skill sets and are a highly mobile part of the workforce. Researchers have found that where there are high levels of native unemployment there are low levels of immigration and vice versa.

A recent IPC report Untying the Knot: The Disparity Between Immigrant Workers and Unemployed Natives finds:

Even during a time of economic recession and high unemployment, most native-born workers do not compete with most immigrants for the same jobs. This is apparent even when we compare unemployed natives with employed “recent” immigrants who came to the United States within the past decade. Unemployed natives and employed recent immigrants tend to have different levels of education, to live in different parts of the country, to have experience in different occupations, and to have different amounts of work experience. As a result, they could not simply be “swapped” for one another.

Additionally, these restrictionist groups have long claimed that U.S. is importing more than a million workers a year, yet another dubious scare tactic that has no basis in reality.

There is no limit to where anti-immigrant groups will go to stop progress on reforming our broken immigration system. Rather the responsibility lies with us, to stand up and preach the truth about how the status quo is no longer acceptable.

Photo by Arguez.

Last week, the Senate Finance Committee completed its mark up of its health care reform bill. Amendments that would have further restricted legal immigrants’ access to health care and imposed burdensome new verification requirements on everyone failed in the committee. Now both the Senate and the House have their work cut out for them as they combine various bills into one and bring them to the floor for final votes. It’s likely that we will see additional attempts to save money by cutting health care to legal immigrants. It’s also likely that more political statements about denying benefits to illegal immigrants will arise.

This week the Migration Policy Institute released a new report, Immigrants and Health Care Reform: What’s Really at Stake? This groundbreaking report provides cold hard facts about the numbers of immigrants that would be affected by the various proposals in Congress. When analyzing the dangers of denying health care coverage to legal immigrants, MPI’s report examined Census data and discovered that:

• Of the 12 million legal permanent residents (LPRs or green card holders) in the U.S., approximately 4.2 million are uninsured. These are immigrants living lawfully and permanently in the U.S. and are paying their taxes and are subject to the same laws as U.S. citizens. Legal immigrants are not the main source of uninsured people in America. Uninsured LPRs account for only 9% of the overall uninsured population.

• LPRs are much more likely to be uninsured than citizens because of lower incomes, lower employer coverage, and bars on eligibility for public programs.

• Many of these LPRs are in the low- to moderate-income groups to whom health care reform purports to extend coverage. The 1996 welfare reform law left them ineligible to receive federal programs, including Medicaid, for the first 5 years they live in the U.S. Congressional proposals have not lifted the 5-year bar, so they’d still be ineligible for Medicaid, and many would be ineligible for the federal subsidies to purchase private insurance.

• MPI estimates that approximately 600,000 LPRs with incomes below 150% federal poverty level would be denied Medicaid due to the 5-year waiting period, if it’s not lifted.

• Despite high workforce participation rates, LPRs are less likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance than are U.S. citizens. Approximately ½ of LPRs currently have health coverage through their employers. 38% of LPRs work for small employers (with less than 25 employees) who would most likely be exempt from the employer mandates. Currently only 32% of LPRs employed by small firms are insured, compared to 71% of native born US citizens working in similarly-sized firms. Thus the absence of a coverage mandate for all employers would have a great impact on LPRs than on natives.

MPI finds that all the debate over excluding certain immigrants has limited value because “exclusion of recent LPRs, as well as unauthorized immigrants, from health insurance reform would leave large populations still dependent on emergency rooms, community health centers, and other public health facilities, and would discourage early detection and treatment of chronic conditions. Thus, some of the short-term cost savings from excluding some immigrants from health care reform would be lost through cost shifting to state and local providers.

In fact, a group of national and local providers—including the American Hospital Association, the National Association of Public Hospitals, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of Community Health Centers, US Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and the City of New York—wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to eliminate barriers to coverage in Medicaid, CHIP, and Medicare for legal immigrants.

These 5-year waiting periods leave vulnerable, low-income legal immigrants uninsured, requiring them to delay medical care until their condition worsens…The costs of paying for care for legal immigrants who cannot obtain Medicaid, CHIP, and Medicare fall to the states, counties, cities, and other local governments, as well as the hospitals, clinics and other safety-net providers. Hospitals will continue to incur large costs in uncompensated care. Clinics and other safety-net systems are burdened.

The MPI report is chalk full of additional facts and figures about immigrants and health insurance coverage. Unfortunately, the majority of the debate over immigration and health care reform has taken place in a “no fact zone.” Immigrant advocates know this place well—myths and misinformation are repeated and spread, while factual information that could aid good policy is largely ignored. With so many people’s health at stake, Congress can ill afford to ignore these facts.

Photo by Lab2112.

Photo by interplast.

Yesterday, the Sun Sentinel reported on what health experts have been saying throughout the factious health care debate: excluding immigrants from health care reform could jeopardize public health and leave costly gaps in insurance coverage. Health experts agree that preventative care, rather than costly emergency room visits—which cost, on average, about $1000 per visit—not only prevents the spread of infectious disease but also saves American taxpayers money in the long run.

“If I’m standing next to someone who has tuberculosis and who is uninsured, it doesn’t protect me if they aren’t treated,” said Fernando Trevino, dean of the School of Public Health at Florida International University. “To the degree that someone is not getting care, they are more likely to spread infectious diseases to the rest of the population.”

“People forget that we already provide inefficient and expensive care to undocumented residents,” said Dr. Olveen Carrasquillo, chief of general internal medicine at the University of Miami medical school. “They come into public hospitals and emergency rooms with advanced stages of an illness. Often they have medical conditions that are very expensive to treat but could have been prevented with primary care.”

So what exactly are Americans taxpayers really saving by excluding immigrants from any health care option—even from purchasing insurance with their own money? Peace of mind? The truth is that immigrants do not come to the U.S. for health care, do not try to game the system in order to receive federally funded health care options for which they aren’t even eligible (Medicaid and Medicare), and visit emergency rooms less frequently than U.S. citizens.

Even still, without preventive care, visits to the emergency room by the uninsured—both native and undocumented—end up costing American taxpayers more. Terry Glubka, Sutter Solano Medical Center Chief Executive, opened a clinic in Northern California last year to cut down on the exorbitant costs of treating the uninsured in local emergency rooms. Emergency room visits jumped 32% on the national level between 1996 and 2006. In Solano County, where Terry Glubka works, the total number of emergency room visits jumped 13.1% between 2000 and 2006—twice the state average. The hospital now refers 60 patients a month to the clinic which saves the hospital roughly “$30,000 in routine emergency visit charges” a month. The county health director, Patrick Duterte, is committed to keeping the cost-saving clinic up and running:

My position is that to have a healthy community we can’t have a subset of people who don’t have access to health care. It’s bad public-health policy.

Admittedly, I’m neither a doctor nor an economist, but it seems to me that good public health policy might include measures that save American taxpayers money and keep people healthy before they visit the emergency room. As the Senate Finance Committee continues to consider measures which exclude undocumented immigrants and restrict the participation of legal immigrants, it is important for every American to remember that investing in preventive care is not only cost-effective, it also results in healthier Americans. To quote a letter sent to House and Senate leadership, “Disease and illness do not discriminate based on immigration status, and neither should America’s health care policy.”

Photo by lauren victoria burke.

When President Obama hit the talk show circuit last weekend, he also included a visit to Al Punto, Univision’s weekend news program with anchor Jorge Ramos. Ramos questioned the President about undocumented immigrants, health care reform and his promise to reform the U.S. immigration system within the first year of his presidency.

A tiny soundbite from that interview circulated the media last week which focused on the timing of comprehensive immigration reform, but the real lesson from this interview is that people are watching the subtle shifts in language and wording the administration has been using to discuss immigration and whether those shifts represent a change in commitment. Mr. Ramos politely but firmly pressed the President to answer to his promises—“la promesa de Obama”—to the U.S. immigrant and Latino population. The answers show a president who remains committed to immigration reform but who is also facing a series of practical challenges that have consequences for his full political agenda.

A portion of the transcript as provided by Univision follows:

Jorge Ramos
Do you believe that undocumented immigrants should be required to buy insurance? Basically, what I would like to know is, could you clarify if they will have access to private insurance in the exchange?

President Obama
Right now, the plan that we’ve put forward, I want to be absolutely clear, should not include undocumented workers, because I think that as is true with SCHIP, as is true with all our various social insurance programs, you’ve gotta be an American citizen, or at least a legal resident in terms of access for those programs. Now, as I’ve said before, and as I did with SCHIP, I do think that children of legal residents, for example, should have access to care. That’s good for all of us. And that’s a principal that I will continue to fight for.

Jorge Ramos
But if an undocumented immigrant wants to buy private insurance…

President Obama
If they want to buy private insurance, then that’s between them and their private insurer, but they can’t do it through the exchange because the exchange is going to be part of an overall plan including subsidies and I don’t think it’s fair for American taxpayers to be including those subsidies. Particularly when there’s not gonna be a lot of money to go around.

Jorge Ramos
Then, there are going to be millions of people who are not going to be covered. So if undocumented immigrants can’t get either public or private insurance, then they’re going to keep on going to the emergency rooms of the hospitals, and this is too expensive. Isn’t that exactly what you wanted to avoid in the first place?

President Obama
Well look, the… Here’s what I’d like to deal with. I’d really like to solve our immigration problem, but I can’t solve every problem all at once. The immigration problem is one set of problems and a whole range of issues are raised through immigration. Healthcare is a problem that doesn’t just affect all Americans. It especially affects Hispanic Americans, who have the highest rate of uninsurance. Now I’m not talking about undocumented now.

Jorge Ramos
I have a specific problem and let me see how we can find a solution. There are four million children born in the United States who have at least one undocumented parent. What are they supposed to do?

President Obama
Well, if they are born in the United States, they are U.S. citizens. And we’re gonna make sure…

Jorge Ramos
Yes, but one of their parents…

President Obama
We’re gonna make sure that those children are covered, as we already have expanding coverage with respect to SCHIP. As I said, Jorge, we’re gonna have to solve the immigration problem. That’s a commitment that I have made.

Jorge Ramos
I’m interested to know what happened after Joe Wilson said you lied in Congress. Was that the moment in which you think undocumented immigrants got involved into these healthcare debates?

President Obama
No, no, no…

Jorge Ramos
What happened?

President Obama
Well, well… Keep in mind, first of all, I said that undocumented workers wouldn’t be covered before Joe Wilson shouted. So obviously, if there was any cause and effect, it wasn’t from what I said. It wasn’t me responding to him. But this is a position that I have said consistently during the campaign. There’s been no change in my approach.

Jorge Ramos
Now, in your speech to Congress you used the words “illegal immigrants.” However, and I remember very clearly, during the campaign you were very careful to use the words “undocumented immigrants”. Why the change? You said words matter. Now, why do you choose to use the language that is being used by…

President Obama
Well, keep in mind…

Jorge Ramos
…those who criticize immigrants.

President Obama
Well, keep in mind what I was addressing. I was addressing misinformation by the other side that was engaging in scare tactics. So I was essentially quoting them. I was saying, “for those of you who are saying that illegal immigrants are going to be covered under this plan,” I said that’s not true. Right? So I’m using their language because I was addressing the misinformation that they are providing. And I was speaking directly to an audience, the American people, who because of this misinformation, I think actually were very responding oftentimes in a negative way.

Jorge Ramos
OK, so. But what I wanted to ask you is about what Latino’s call, “la promesa de Obama - Obama’s promise.” On May 28th you told me, and I am quoting, “what I can guarantee is that we will have in the first year an immigration bill that I strongly support.” And then I asked again, “in the first year?” And you said, “Yes, in the first year.” This is your promise and the question that many of them have is, are you going to keep your promise. Can you do it before January 20th?

President Obama
Here’s what I’ve said. I have met with not just the Hispanic caucus, but leaders from both the House and the Senate, Republican and Democrat. I’ve said I want to get this done. I’ve put Secretary Janet Napolitano, of Homeland Security, in charge of first making a whole host of administrative changes and eliminating the most negative practices that we have been seeing. And then what I’ve said is, start working up legislation that we think can, over time, move through Congress. Now, whether that bill gets introduced on November 15th or December 15th or January 15th, that’s not really the issue. I mean, it would be easy for us to get a bill introduced. The challenge is getting the bill passed. And there I’ve been realistic. What I said is that this is going to be a tough fight and that we’re going to have to make sure that we are working as hard as we can to do it. I am not backing off one minute from getting this done, but let’s face it, I’ve had a few things to do. We had an economic crisis that almost…

Jorge Ramos
I understand.

President Obama
…saw a financial meltdown. Healthcare has taken longer than I would have liked, but it’s a big, tough issue. Immigration reform is gonna be tough as well, but I think we can get it done.

Photo by kentkb.

The myth that immigration is bad for U.S. workers has sullied the immigration debate for far too long. A new report by the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy (DMI), “Principles for an Immigration Policy to Strengthen and Expand the American Middle Class: 2009 Edition,” sets the record straight. In the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and in anticipation of a new round of legislative debates on comprehensive immigration reform, DMI’s report makes a rational, concise argument for why comprehensive immigration reform is needed to improve the conditions for middle class Americans.

DMI states that “good immigration policy should be good for every American,” and designs a two-part litmus test to evaluate immigration policies: 1) Immigration policy should bolster—not undermine—the critical contributions immigrants make to our economy as workers, entrepreneurs, taxpayers, and consumers; and 2) Immigration policy must strengthen the rights of immigrants in the workplace. Using these two guidelines, Congress can create and implement an immigration policy that is good for middle class Americans.

Bolstering Immigrant Contributions
DMI refutes the myth that our economy is a closed, zero-sum system. When immigrants are working in the U.S., many assume they simply take jobs away from Americans. The fact is that immigrants contribute to the growth of the economy as workers, taxpayers, and consumers. The middle class relies on the goods and services produced by immigrants, and benefits from the generalized economic growth immigrants stimulate. Immigrants spend money, thereby creating demand and jobs. Immigrants pay taxes, helping to shore up Social Security and other programs middle class workers depend upon.

Enforcement-only policies only undermine the contributions that immigrants make. Rather, immigration reform should harness the positive contributions of immigrants, thus improving the lives of middle class Americans.

Strengthening Rights in the Workplace
Under the current system, undocumented workers are vulnerable and exploitable, living at the mercy of their employers—to the detriment of both the immigrants and middle class Americans. The current recession increases employers’ incentive to cut costs by taking advantage of cheaper undocumented workers.

As long as a cheaper and more compliant pool of immigrant labor is available to employers who are willing to wield the threat of deportation against their workers, those same employers will be less willing to hire U.S.-born workers if they demand better wages and working conditions.

Ensuring that immigrant workers and native workers are on a level playing field—the same enforceable rights, the same ability to complain—makes for better conditions for everyone. If immigrants are empowered to exercise workplace rights, they can improve their own working conditions, making the jobs more desirable, and more jobs can become “middle class jobs.”

DMI concludes that comprehensive immigration reform, including permanent legal status for immigrant workers, is necessary. Perhaps Lou Dobbs, self-appointed champion of the American middle class worker, should read the fact included in DMI’s report and discover he’s got it wrong—immigration reform would be a boost for American workers he claims to speak for.