We are witnessing the most robust debate in more than a generation on how to reform our antiquated immigration laws to meet the demands of our twenty-first century economic and security needs. In coming up with a broad framework for this comprehensive legislation, we must stand firm against ideologies that do not serve our national interests.
To provide true reform, there must not only be a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented, but such a pathway must be free of any unnecessary obstacles, such as getting stuck in a newly created “status” for undocumented individuals before being eligible to receive legal permanent status which is counterproductive. Clearly our government must be able to conduct background checks to weed out criminals, but once that is done, the next logical step is permanent residency which in turn must give way to full citizenship. Under current law, this waiting period is usually five years. Anything short of this will result in failure.
We have already experimented with laws that provide less than full citizenship to foreign workers. The “bracero” program of the late ‘50s recruited a record number of laborers from Mexico. Just through El Paso alone, over 80,000 braceros arrived in Texas on an annual basis. Within a few short years however, the program failed. By 1964, there had been numerous reports of underpaid, overworked, harassed workers which led the officials at the U.S. Department of Labor to refer to the program as “legalized slavery.”
Another example of such failed policy occurred in “post-war” Germany. According to the Berlin Institute for Population and Development, approximately 3 million Turkish immigrants living in Germany who were unable to achieve full German citizenship are now less effectively integrated than other immigrant groups, and thus are more likely to be poorly educated, underpaid, and unemployed. In contrast, according to Sara Silvestri, a social scientist at the University of Cambridge, in the U.K. where full citizenship was granted to all qualified immigrants, Turks adapted to the British lifestyle, became fluent in English, and became involved in civil society.
The Germans learned from their mistake and over a decade ago reformed their immigration laws and provided full citizenship to their qualified migrant workers. I pray that our politicians also learn from past missteps and avoid marginalizing over 10 million individuals by only offering them an effectively permanent second class status in America.
Full citizenship is an honor and a tradition that must not be denied to any qualified immigrant in our country. Qualifications for becoming a citizen must be rooted in our heritage as a nation of immigrants and not in some newly designed artificial scheme being concocted by the restrictionists. Specifically, applicants must be able to pass a civics and history test, as well as show proficiency in English and show good moral character. Learning about our nation’s history and form of government is a vitally important way to encourage them to participate in our democracy, not a means for punishment.
As President Obama said in his State of the Union address: “We are citizens. It’s a word that doesn’t just describe our nationality or legal status. It describes the way we’re made. It describes what we believe.”
Written by Ally Bolour, Member, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee
The notion that a pathway to citizenship must be part of the amnesty for the 11 to 20 million illegal aliens in the country is nonsense. What they want, and what will usher in all of the “good things” associated with amnesty is a “legal status in order to live and work in the USA without fear of removal” and citizenship is not required in order to achieve those good things.
Throughout our country’s immigration history, we have created many types of immigration options that do not lead to citizenship. Even long time permanent residents (Greencard holders) who immigrated legally to the USA are not required to become citizens and a great percentage of them never feel the need to do so as they are able to be fully functioning members of American society without being citizens.
After listening to the President’s speech, I also assume that you understand the only difference between the eligibility criteria the President proposes and the eligibility criteria already imposed on lawful immigrants is the imposition of an additional filing fee. Saying “They must take responsibility for their actions” sounds good, but in reality there is no significant difference and a pathway to citizenship sends the wrong message.
In reality, there is really not that much more we can add when it comes to the eligibility criteria for illegal immigrant applicants (when compared to the eligibility criteria for lawful immigrants). Instead, the only real difference and the only real opportunity to send a message is to instead adjust the benefit received…. To differentiate it from the benefits available to those who didn’t violate immigration law.
The message is simple: Follow the immigration laws and you will have the opportunity to become a U.S. citizen one day if you choose to do so. Break the immigration laws by entering illegally and you don’t have the option to become a U.S. citizen.
I believe the chance for agreement between those in favor of amnesty and those opposed to amnesty will be increased with a pathway to legal status that does not lead to citizenship. This should help with the concerns of those who don’t want to see one political party get a windfall of new voters, and who understand how unfair it is to reward lawbreakers with the same status as those who have waited patiently in line for years to immigrate legally to the USA.
The reality is that no matter how the amnesty is designed, there will always be those who do not qualify and they will just illegally enter the USA so we are sure to face this same problem again one day. In the late 80s we gave amnesty to 3+ million illegal aliens and they were replaced with 11 to 20 million more. Keeping citizenship off the table is really the only sensible message to send to the millions who may contemplate illegal entry into the USA at some future date.