Pres. Obama Speech on Comprehensive Immigration Reform (May 10, 2011 - El Paso, Texas)
Author: President Barack Obama
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
I’m the head/founder of Fairness.com LLC. We really hope you … (more)
I’m the head/founder of Fairness.com LLC. We really hope you … (more)
Fairness.com is exploring use of NowComment as a tool for public policy discussion; this was our first try. We invited a number of professors, researchers, and national organizations who all closely follow (and in some cases advocate for) various approaches to immigration reform to comment on this speech.
Those who graciously contributed comments are (in alphabetical order):
Prof. Allert Brown-Gort, Associate Director
Institute for Latino Studies (University of Notre Dame)
Michelle Mittelstadt, Director of Communications
Migration Policy Institute
Juan Pedroza, Research Associate
Urban Institute
Mark Silverman, Director of Immigrant Policy
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies
Center for Immigration Studies
Michele Waslin, Senior Policy Analyst
American Immigration Council
Julian Teixeira, Director of Communications for National Council of La Raza, also passed on his organization’s brief summarizing its position on immigration reform.
We ran into a number of logistical and coordination problems on this project, the most significant being choosing the period Thanksgiving through New Years to undertake it. Lessons learned, look for our next efforts soon!
Special thanks to Sheeva Nesva, our Fall 2011 intern, for researching the topic and helping coordinate the project.
It is striking that being in El Paso he mentions Ellis Island and Angel Island, but totally neglects to mention that El Paso was the gateway for Mexican migration to the U.S. (or to what would later become the U.S.) from the 17th century to the mid 20th century.
If we are speaking about the bulk of the undocumented immigrants, there is no line to which they can realistically subscribe. That is, there was until recently, a great deal of demand for their labor, but not really any ordered mechanism for them to enter and access the jobs. If we recognize this type of immigration to be responding to economic factors, then we must recognize that supply will come to balance with demand. If our immigration laws do not recognize (and so respond to) the fundamental nature of this proposition all other efforts are doomed to fail.
This soundbite is tempting and will continue to shape discussions of immigration into the forseeable future. We should not, however, describe the process of migration in such simplistic terms. After all, we’re not talking about a lunch line or a grocery story checkout. From my point of view, unauthorized migrants who come without a formal invitation (or overstay an intiial invitation) settle in communities that welcome their labor, time, and talents.
I agree. We need the president and others to state more clearly that there simply is no line for most unauthorized immigrants. We can’t have a constructive conversation about reforming the immigration system unless everyone understands the current system.
That’s a very important point. Another important point, and one that is often overlooked, is that the country needs to maximize the talents of the immigrants who have already come to the United States. There are more than 1.5 million college-educated legal immigrants in the United States who are underemployed or unemployed because they cannot obtain work at their skill level. The problem of ‘brain waste’ or lack of recognition of educational and professional credentials obtained abroad is a significant one. California, New York, and Illinois are among the states examining credential recognition; the focus, however, remains at a more ad hoc level.
I think it’s a positive step that the Administration has prioritized serious criminals. However, in practice, many of the “criminals” deported have been convicted of a traffic violation or some other minor offense. And many others have no criminal conviction at all. Programs like Secure Communities have identified these immigrants for ICE to deport. The Administration needs to re-visit Secure Communities and ensure that it is in line with its stated priorities and that it truly focuses on serious convicted criminals.
So this and the prior endorsement rings somewhat hollow. The Obama Administration needs to reduce not
increase the separation of families through deportation
The President would be hard pressed to find many people, especially in law enforcement, who agree that the border is secure and the law is being enforced. In fact, the GAO has reported that only 15% of the southwest border is fully controlled and only 44% is partially controlled. The rest is not controlled. In addition, the Obama administration has relaxed enforcement of immigration laws in the interior. For example, the number of deportations (or removals), which was rising steadily for the last decade, has leveled off, and the number of apprehensions by ICE in the interior has declined by 20% in recent years. Worksite arrests have dropped by 70%. And, the administration has announced that it intends to remove only those illegal aliens who commit other serious crimes, and has suspended enforcement action against tens of thousands of illegal aliens who have been apprehended through programs such as Secure Communities and 287g. Few observers would characterize the policies of the Obama administration as aggressive or tough.
In addition, businesses have to be held accountable if they knowingly hire illegal workers. The Obama administration’s worksite audit program has resulted mainly in fines for paperwork violations, with the majority of those who are found to have hired suspect workers getting off with warnings, even if they hired large numbers of illegal workers. And, since ICE do not pursue charges against illegal workers, they are free to stay and continue working. This harms job prospects for the millions of U.S. citizen and legal immigraant workers who are seeking work in those occupations.
General Document Comments 0
He misrepresents the policies and accomplishments of his immigration agencies and their leaders, in order to make it appear that they are tough on immigration enforcement, and to support his claim that it is time to enact the policies he supports, which include increases in legal immigration and an amnesty for illegal immigrants. However, the President clearly does not want to sound so tough as to alienate some of his core supporters who favor more lenient policies. He tries to pre-empt criticism of his administration¹s performance by accusing those skeptics of ³moving the goal posts² and making unreasonable demands. It should not be surprising that this speech fell flat, and failed to convince most Americans, either that illegal immigration is under control or that it would be a good time to increase immigration and legalize the huge population of illegal immigrants.
since it’s virtually impossible that Congress will enact any immigration reform or even the DREAM Act until 2013 at the very earliest. After the November, 2012 election we will probably know whether there is a realistic possibility of such reform before 2015.
In terms of understanding the current problems around immigration, the President’s speech was not very helpful, in that it was essentially a collection of platitudes that offered little in terms of ideas for really moving forward on this topic. He spoke in El Paso, so he was clearly trying to send a message to the Latino community, but his need to also demonstrate that the border has been strengthened meant that the message was mixed at best, and so it is not clear if it was even successful as a political act.
It is instructive that Mexico is not mentioned until paragraph 22. Perhaps the most disappointing is that President Obama relies in part on conflating “high value-added” immigration (i.e. the highly educated and/or those with significant monetary means) with the type of immigrants who form the bulk of the undocumented immigrants. While understandable if the object is to increase support for immigration, it is unfortunate because it takes away clarity from the possible solutions. For example, he only ever indirectly mentions demand in the US economy for these workers (paragraph 41), and to the extent that he mentions employers, the implicit assumption is that they are employing these immigrants because they are unscrupulous and wish to exploit their workers. While I have no doubt that this type of employers exist, we should be careful in thinking that this is the only reason businesses hire the undocumented.
THE CONTEXT
The nation’s immigration system is in urgent need of reform that restores dignity and the rule of law and rejects a status quo that does neither. Congressional failure to enact reform has led to piecemeal measures that are introducing greater chaos into an already broken system, particularly those enacted at the state and local levels, which lack jurisdiction over immigration. Alarmingly, such measures, combined with the toxic tone of the immigration debate, have also fomented an environment of intolerance against immigrants, regardless of immigration status, and against Hispanics in general, making this a defining civil rights issue for the Latino community.
The enactment of piecemeal laws that deal with immigration has been ineffective in reducing the size of the undocumented population. Now forced more deeply into the shadows, this population is more susceptible to exploitation by unscrupulous employers to the detriment of all workers. While dysfunctional legal immigration policies keep families apart and legal workers out, heavy handed enforcement operations have terrorized communities and led to the unlawful detention of legal immigrants and citizens.
It is time for the federal government to accept its responsibility and exercise leadership to fix these failed policies. The country needs real solutions that are aligned with America s best values and traditions.
THE SOLUTION
In reality, there is much consensus around solutions to the immigration issue. Poll after poll demonstrates that the American public is in a much more pragmatic place than Congress has been on this issue. This has been corroborated further in recent election cycles, which showed that voters rejected leading anti-immigrant candidates. Voters support a comprehensive overhaul of our broken system that restores the rule of law and includes legalization and smart enforcement.
NCLR (National Council of La Raza) supports a workable and humane immigration system that promotes legality, serves the national interest, and upholds the Constitution and our values. To achieve those goals, reform must:
* Restore the rule of law through a two-pronged approach that includes earned legalization and sensible enforcement. Neither of these measures alone can restore order to the system.
* Preserve the rule of law by creating workable legal immigration channels that uphold family unity and protect workers rights.
* Strengthen the fabric of America by adopting proactive measures that advance the successful integration of new immigrants.
The sense of urgency and possibility for real change in immigration are stronger than ever. A constructive debate and smart solutions are needed to move the country forward. For more information on NCLR s work on immigration, visit http://www.nclr.org/immigration .
Do restrictive measures at the local level repel immigrants from local communities, above and beyond the effects of the economy? This is a question where “pick and choose” anecdotes [and very little rigorous evidence] from disparate sides of immigration debates have dominated. NCLR’s position statement above goes a long way at revisiting claims that immigrants initiatively and automatically flee harsh political climates.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments