Debating Amnesty and Immigration Policy

Yesterday I had an exchange with my CFR colleague, Ed Husain (who has a fantastic blog, "The Arab Street,"), about my last post on Mitt Romney’s "self-deportation" plan. I wanted to post it here, to add to the lively debate on the issue of amnesty, and immigration reform more generally, and he graciously agreed. Below is our conversation:

From: Ed Husain

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:19 PM

To: Shannon O’Neil

Very bold stance in your blog yesterday on undocumented immigrants and how they are, essentially, part of the U.S. social fabric.

From: Shannon O’Neil

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:20 PM

To: Ed Husain

Thanks - I guess bold is good. And it is true: millions are parents, spouses, or siblings of U.S. citizens. They are not going to leave even if it is hard to get a job...

From: Ed Husain

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:27 PM

To: Shannon O’Neil

I prefer bold any day over ’weighing options’ -- taking a stance is more compelling to this reader rather than presenting alternate arguments.

My hunch is to agree with you: it’s a very humane and morally obliging argument. Not to mention economically more viable.

I struggle with its logical conclusion, though: an amnesty for illegal immigrants, and thereby encouraging others to break the law and migrate in the hope of future amnesties.

From: Shannon O’Neil

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:36 PM

To: Ed Husain

The difference is this. Especially for Mexican migrants, given the combination of absolute number caps on legal visas combined with the large number of Mexican family members here, parents, kids, and siblings have to make the choice of growing up (for years potentially) apart waiting for a legal family visas, or coming illegally. So do you want to wait and do the paper work and hope you get to see your 4 year old when he/she is 8-9 years old? Or do you bring them illegally? That is an inhumane law, and should be changed. If you can bring your kid within months, then I think people would wait.

Same with parents that are illegal. Do you send them back, meaning they won’t see their kids for 10 years (at least), at least here in the United States? Yes they are illegal, but in part because of the dysfunction of current laws. So laws in my view need to be changed to reflect realities.

From: Ed Husain

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:54 PM

To: Shannon O’Neil

Not much of a choice between obeying the law and parting from one’s family for an indefinite amount of time. Thanks for explaining. I come to this with a European bias where we have a mess with consequences of legal and illegal immigration and no ’solution’ in sight. The US seems better suited to absorb immigrants (legal or otherwise). In Europe, we’re wrestling intensely with identity, race, multiculturalism, and what it means to be ‘European’. In contrast, immigrants here integrate into the United States and adopt the U.S. Constitution and history as their own.

Any other readers who would like to weigh in should feel free to do so in the comments section. I look forward to your feedback.