 |
continued from page 1...
Question: Frank, you wrote that the debate isn't between "open
borders" or "closed borders." Then does that mean
that the debate simply boils down to "how many"? How many
immigrants we'll allow into this country?
Frank: No. The arc of the immigration debate extends from where
immigrants depart from to where they settle. It connects conditions
beyond our borders that cause migration or the search for refuge
(economic deprivation and/or political instability) with the admissions
policies of our nation (who, how many, and for what purpose) to
the settlement and incorporation of newcomers in receiving communities
to the social and economic mobility of the children of immigrants.
In fact, it's time for us as a nation to move beyond a narrow formulation
of the debate with respect to "how many" to a more comprehensive
set of questions: What can be done, over time, to reduce migration
pressures and refugee crises? How can we match up our admissions
policies so that legal channels reflect our values and make sense
(for instance, in the U.S. our policies are designed to rescue refugees,
reunite families, and reward work) and at the same time have enough
visas to match willing workers with available jobs, bring families
together, and live up to our tradition of rescuing some of the world's
refugees who cannot go home? How can we help newcomers and the communities
they settle in make the process of settlement a successful one for
all concerned? And how can we make sure immigrant families become
fully integrated new Americans?
As these questions suggest, the immigration debate is so controversial
and complex because it is much more than a simple debate over numbers.
Question: Dan and Frank — if you were director of INS for
a day — would would the first thing you'd do?
Frank: This is a very interesting question, but it has been overtaken
by recent events. The legislation creating the Department of Homeland
Security abolishes the INS Commissioner's job and has the INS swallowed
up in pieces in the new agency. Regardless, the problems afflicting
the INS (or DHS) go beyond what the person in charge can accomplish
on their own.
In order to carry out its duel mission of enforcing immigration
laws on the one hand and providing citizenship, asylum, and immigration
status services to immigrants on the other, three things are needed:
1) a better structure that distinguishes these two functions but
unites them under a strong, accountable executive who can balance
and coordinate the enforcement and services functions (unfortunately
the new DHS structure does not do this); 2) better laws that establish
enforceable limits, reasonable legal channels, and better cooperation
with our neighbors at the borders; and 3) more efficient use of
appropriated money to reduce processing times at the INS, reduce
the infamous bureaucratic foul-ups, and create a much more secure,
user-friendly and efficient system.
Question: What's your feeling on mass T.P.S. (temporary protective
status) for immigrants already living here for many years? If memory
serves, the first President Bush gave it to the Salvadorans here,
and the second President Bush was going to give it to thousands
of undocumented Mexicans (before 9/11), though that idea kind of
fell off the radar after 9/11.
Frank: T.P.S., or Temporary Protected Status, is given to the people
in the United States from certain countries when a war or natural
disaster makes deporting people back to those countries impractical
or impossible. TPS was established by the Congress, but it is the
President that decides who will be granted TPS. The kinds of groups
that have been given TPS over the years include Bosnians who had
fled civil conflict, Somalis and Liberians who had fled civil wars,
Salvadorans who fled the civil wars of the 1980's, as well as more
recently arrived Salvadorans who were here following a series of
horrific earthquakes that devastated their country in 2000. TPS
is usually given in increments of 12 or 18 months, provides a work
permit to those eligible, and depending on country conditions is
either extended or terminated.
The policy the Bush Administration is considering for Mexicans,
and perhaps other immigrants without legal status, is different.
The idea is to couple an increase in work and family visas (so that
more of the people coming can do so legally), with greater cooperation
from Mexico to crack down on smuggling on both sides of the border,
with a program to allow certain long-term residents of the U.S.
to earn legal status over time, thereby reducing our numbers of
undocumented immigrants and allowing people to come out of the shadows.
Question: What's your opinion of the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot"
policy here in Florida? In light of the recent events regarding
the over-200 Haitians to land in Miami, do you think they should
be treated as the Cubans? Or as expressed in local newpaper editorials,
the Cubans should be treated as the Haitians? Finally, do you feel
this is reflecting the homeland security of protecting our borders
since we have so many rafters and boat people coming ashore? Do
you think our southern borders should be more heavily guarded to
prevent these illegal entries?
Frank: Under current law, Cubans are treated better than any other
group of asylum seekers if they reach shore. Almost without exception,
they are allowed to stay here permanently. Under current practice,
Haitians are treated worse than any other group of asylum seekers.
Upon arrival they are put into detention and kept in detention,
even after some are deemed likely to be approved for political asylum.
This is outrageous. At a minimum, Haitians should be treated the
same as other asylum seekers, and let out of detention once they
prove they have a credible fear of persecution if deported. As for
Cubans, the Cold War law that gives them special treatment will
not be repealed by Congress, at least not until Fidel Castro has
passed from the scene.
As for our nation's security, I honestly don't think we have anything
to fear from a few hundred Haitians and Cubans seeking freedom and
the chance to pursue the American Dream. However, we do need to
make sure we do a better job of patrolling our coasts and our borders.
Unfortunately, as we have seen over the last decade, the massive
build up of our air, sea, and land law enforcement to deter unauthorized
entry into the country hasn't worked as well as it might. It would
work better if we combined smart enforcement strategies with smart
policies that create legal channels for refugees, family members,
and workers who come to this nation of immigrants to make a contribution
and make our nation stronger.
|
|
|
