The overlooked of Immigration Reform

photo from NYTimes

 http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/overlooked-us-immigration-overhaul-19061555
 
With the immigration reform bill evolving in the Senate it is difficult to see what type of restrictions they plan to institute. There are a few alternatives, many are opposed by Democrats. This includes a 13-year track to citizenship, but there must be a 3.4 billion dollar increase in border security first. Another requirement that isn't opposed by either side, is trying to control undocumented immigrants who have criminal backgrounds. The bill in the senate, permits someone to have 1 or 2 misdemeanors and 1 felony that cannot be related domestic violence, drug dealing, or DUI.

In this article, the writer shares a story about a few different undocumented immigrants who came here as infants and grew up as Americans. The first story is about Carlos, who lived in the United States for 29 years before he was deported during the first wave of deportations by the Obama Administration. The man lived here for 29 years, had a family and was culturally American, but he was still separated and deported to Tijuana much like other deportees.

GOOD! Some would say, an "illegal got deported". That is a major issue, especially with the way we handle post-deportation. These folks all end up in border towns where work is not available, therefore it impoverishes the entire community. This deportation put a relatively successful undocumented immigrant who was brought here as a child, back into poverty and away from his family. This creates the circumstances for an individual to sneak back into the United States, regardless of the consequences.

For Carlos, this deportation and overhaul of immigration reform is devastating. As an 18 year old Carlos, much like other 18 year old Americans, partied too hard and decided to drive home. He ended up getting a DUI, which automatically disqualifies him from gaining reentry into the United States. This makes me question what laws and histories we need to pay attention to as opposed to just a blanket law. I agree - we should keep out folks who have criminal offenses like domestic violence, etc. Although, determining the threat of someone who grew up in Urban America, who just got in trouble when he was 18 years old for driving under the influence is quite difficult. I don't think we should be deporting people that live here for 20+ years and as a child got in trouble. Although, it is difficult to say that this will be true for all offenders or if this is the outlier. This story puts me between a rock and a hard place for words.

Boston bombing and Immigration Reform - How are they connected?

http://news.yahoo.com/immigration-bill-debate-sidetracked-boston-terror-issues-181229014.html;_ylt=AwrTV.IpqXVRuTIA0QDNt.d_;_ylu=X3oDMTQ5c3FrYTFqBG1pdANBcnRpY2xlIFNlY3Rpb24gUG9saXRpY3MgMgRwa2cDYTc0ZGUzYjEtNzVmZC0zMDBjLThhOWEtOTllOGYwYmNhNWZlBHBvcwMxBHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnlfY29rZQR2ZXIDNWNiYTFhMDEtYWI4MC0xMWUyLWJlZjctYWViNDExMDMzOTcx;_ylg=X3oDMTNhYXBmM3U2BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDNWUyN2Q1YWItODI2MS0zOGYyLWExMTctMTAwNGIzMmFkZjBhBHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3x1LXMtZ292ZXJubWVudARwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=3

http://news.yahoo.com/tempers-flare-immigration-hearing-160230661--politics.html

In the wake of the Boston bombing, we are beginning to see some movement in Washington regarding Immigration Reform. The Gang of 8 recently released their blueprint immigration reform - focusing on security, but also creating a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. These two factors play a critical role for both Democrats and Republicans and you can see a progression of compromise in the Gang of 8 which will hopefully blossom into the Senate. The most serious question, is will The speaker of the house, John Boehnor of Ohio gain the votes he needs in the House of Representatives. This House has been very uncooperative and purposefully perpetuating certain social stigmas that negatively effect the immigrant community.

I am surprised to be using Rand Paul (R-KY) again in my blog for immigration. Recently Rand Paul had created an actual filibuster situation in the Senate, against the legal argument the Executive Branch has for Drone attacks on U.S. soil. This was an obvious hyper-politicizing filibuster by Rand Paul, but more importantly, Rand Paul is now coming out after the Boston Bombings in support of slowing down immigration reform legislation.

This move by Rand Paul is not a one man show, but there is support from extremists within the Senate, but also even from moderates. Marco Rubio (R-FL) used the Boston Bombing to emphasize the point of border security. I find this interesting because neither of the suspected terrorists are Latino, nor are their origins in the Western Hemisphere. The suspected bombers are actually Chechnya, one was a  naturalized citizen who did follow the legal procedure and the other was in the application process. I don't believe this bomb situation has any reflection on our immigration system. I believe this has more to do with the political forces within the Senate as opposed to something systematic.  

Although, this does not seem to be gaining support in the House of Representatives. John Boehnor, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has come out against these arguments for slowing down immigration reform. He is actually cited in the second article, saying that he can see the benefits of reform, the most important ones are: who are they, why are they here, and what's the legal status? These questions can be answered, but we need to ensure that reform is based in reform of the system, not punishment of those who break the current system. I don't know if these measures of reformation are actually going to be adopted, or if we will end up spilling more money into a fence that will inevitably be jumped or tunneled underneath.

Brazil: Facing its own "Illegal Immigration" debate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22106284

As the immigration debate heats up in the United States, there is conflict arising around the same issues in Brazil. The Brazilian state of Acre has seen a huge influx of illegal immigrants from Paraguay, Haiti, Senegal, Pakistan, from almost every corner of the globe. However, in the last two weeks there has been a flow of up to almost 2,000 people entering the state illegally. Normally these folks are headed towards bigger urban cities like Rio De Janeiro or Sao Paulo but much like undocumented immigrants in the United States, get caught up doing anything for a living. This influx has cost the State an estimated $1.5 million dollars on housing and feeding these new immigrants.

This influx is not economically focused like the wave of immigration in the United States, these influxes are related to natural disaster. Natural disasters can cause folk migrations much like an economic force, however unlike an economic force, these disasters may not reoccur. This huge migration may not happen again or it could begin to reoccur as Brazil becomes an important player on the international stage. 

However, much like the United States these "illegal immigrants" are working within the economy, for less than the average citizen. The article references a raid that occurred recently in Sao Paulo and Brasila, looking for undocumented workers in sweatshops. The raid found that these undocumented workers are working in horrible conditions, for almost no pay. This form of exploitation can be associated with the migrant agriculturalists who travel seasonally to and from the United States.

Seeing this article helped me realize that these problems are not just an American issue, but possibly a negative side effect created by living within the bounds of a state system.

The Associated Press makes a social move for comprehensive Immigration Reform

This week, the Associated Press released that they will no longer use the term "Illegal" to describe a person, but rather an action. This is important because most journalist use the "AP's style, when producing articles. The Associated Press wanted to clarify how the term will be used, therefore they released this statement: "Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant".

What does this mean?
This provides some insight to how journalism will begin to change the social construction of legal and illegal immigration. This, I would argue, is related to the movement in Washington by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This has been argued for by many civil rights organizations who focus on immigration, but also by immigrant supporters. This change will allow the social perspective on the individuals and families who are here, often documented but no longer authorized to stay because their VISA expired. This change in style is met with opposition, some what to call them Infiltrators and others believe that "illegal" is the best description for these folks. Ultimately, I believe this is a step forward for the culture around immigration, so we can begin to humanize these families and individuals again.

Making the distinction between an illegal act and person is critical for us to move forward on how to view immigration in the United States. With a global world, we will forever encounter immigration, therefore we need to set up a system that can accommodate the movement of people across borders, especially with our neighbors. Our economies (USA, Canada, Mexico) are so intertwined that we need to embrace our cultural differences to create a better and more diverse economy. This distinction to not call someone Illegal, will allow some of the more Egalitarians to accept these immigrants. Until now, many arguments against a pathway to citizenship was blocked by this social construction and application of "Illegal" in the media. Now that we are aiming to remove this term, we can only hope that we will progress further with true immigration reform.