Print
Share
Is Your Citizenship Worth $1 Million? An Alternative to Obama’s Proposal on Immigration
July 2, 2010
President Obama spoke yesterday on overhauling U.S. immigration. He went straight to the thorniest issue, what to do about the millions of unauthorized migrants already here. Obama wants a third path between the extremes of blanket amnesty and mass deportation.
That compromise approach, he goes on to sketch, would be a combination of sending troops to the border, cracking down on employers, and obliging unauthorized immigrants to:
“admit that they broke the law, … register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, … learn English [and] get in line and earn their citizenship.”
Will this be enough to cause compromise?
President Obama delivering a speech on immigration, July 2, 2010
Political analyst Jim Kessler has a useful thought exercise: He often asks American audiences if they would accept $1 million in return for giving up their U.S. citizenship. He gets few takers. That is, most Americans consider their citizenship to be an extremely valuable asset. Giving that asset away for free to people who broke laws appears to dilute the value of the asset. Diluting one of people’s most valuable assets without consulting them is the kind of thing that will make them upset.
What Obama’s compromise ultimately seeks is to allay those fears by making the asset more costly to unauthorized immigrants—raising its value rather than diluting it. But many things aren’t clear: Will opponents of reform be satisfied that the cost of the asset is sufficiently raised by this formula of “register/tax/fine/English/get-in-line” (hey, it rhymes)? And will new enforcement procedures be enough to make all immigrants follow the rules this time?
There are other routes to political compromise, other ways to avoid the perception of diluting the value of citizenship: offer some immigrants something other than citizenship. There is no fundamental reason why the bundle of obligations and privileges we call U.S. citizenship—jury duty, military service in time of draft, access to federal government services, access to many jobs, and so on—must always and exclusively be conferred to other people as an unchangeable bundle. Different elements of the bundle can be conferred to different people. Granting some of today’s unauthorized immigrants a status that is legal but is not citizenship is another, different way to avoid the perception that amnesty cheapens citizenship.
This is far from radical. It has been the norm in past regularizations of migrants. Amanda Levinson of the Migration Policy Institute lists 24 different regularizations in the U.S. and other countries over the past three decades. These have offered a range of different permits—that is, a range of different bundles of obligations and privileges. I’ve seen thoughtful discussions of how citizenship is defined by Alex Aleinikoff, Kerry Howley, and CGD’s Lant Pritchett, and there are many others. All of them point out in different ways that there have always been different bundles of obligations and privileges given to people living in the same place, and it is up to societies to choose how many bundles there are, what’s in each bundle, and who gets them.
So why is it that in the Obama speech, the only alternative offered to mass deportation or blanket amnesty was that of a universal-but-costly path to full citizenship? Certainly not everyone who wants to come work in the U.S. for a substantial period wants to become a U.S. citizen. And if offering something other than a path to citizenship for some of today’s unauthorized immigrants turned out to be the key to achieving compromise—and moving past the train wreck we have now—then it would be better than the alternative.
To be specific, suppose that some of today’s irregular migrants were offered a temporary visa, for a period of a few years? It would allow them to emerge from the shadows, making it harder for them to bid down wages for all workers by working below minimum wage in secret. Many irregular migrants working here now don’t want to stay forever and would gladly take the chance. There would be less perceived dilution of the value of U.S. citizenship, because what’s being given to those workers would not be citizenship. In other words, this could be a win-win for some migrants and for many U.S. citizens.
I’ve heard at least three objections to such a proposal:
- First, it might not be seen to be compatible with American traditions of permanent immigration. But there was actually a large degree of circular migration in U.S. history; notably, roughly 40% of Italians who came in the early 20th century later returned to Italy.
- Second, many people fear creating an “underclass” of “second-class citizens”—but unfortunately that’s not hypothetical, that’s what we have now, in the form of people who are completely outside the legal system. Granting a form of regular status to some of those people in a politically feasible way would be an improvement, not a step down a dark path.
- Third, I’ve heard people say that temporary status isn’t what migrants want. But many countries offer temporary work opportunities with essentially zero path to citizenship—like the South Asians who built the world’s tallest building in Dubai—and those opportunities are vastly oversubscribed. My research suggests that temporary work in a rich country can be the opportunity of a lifetime for many migrants, and it’s an odd leap to look those people in the eye and tell them that “we” know what’s good for them better than they do.
Share 
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
14 Responses to “Is Your Citizenship Worth $1 Million? An Alternative to Obama’s Proposal on Immigration”
Post a Comment
We value frank and constructive exchanges and encourage you to use your real name in your comments.
July 5th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
It is the situation in large part of Europe. The general critique is that integration becomes optional, and so getto’s are near permanent. As they never even try to be part of “us”, racism is a danger. It is not good for the cohesion.
July 5th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
@Sam Gardner: Thanks for your thoughtful comment. It is reasonable to ask, however, what the alternative is. If mass regularization for *permanent* stay is not politically acceptable, then the realistic alternative to *some* form of regularization is continued mass irregular migration — which surely harms “cohesion” and contributes to racism.
The experience of the United Kingdom with Polish immigrants is useful here. Just a few years ago, most Poles could only work in the UK on an irregular basis. Suddenly, in 2004, most Poles who wished to work temporarily in the UK could do so with complete legality. British society did not disintegrate, no big Polish underclass ghettos formed, Poles did not make undue use of British public services. The Poles did not get UK citizenship; they got a bundle of obligations and privileges that was quite different from citizenship, and the result was a huge benefit to migrants and a benefit to both the UK and Polish economies.
In just a few years, as intra-EU labor mobility increases, the poorest rural Bulgarians will be able to work anywhere in France, as long as they like, but again almost none of them will have a path to French citizenship. Will this increase in labor mobility, without much of a path to citizenship, result in the disintegration of French society? We can all watch and see. As you can tell, I doubt that it will.
July 13th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
I am not sure that I have a particular solution to the political problem of domestic disagreement concerning how to or if to proceed to try to fix illegal immigration if indeed it is a fundamental problem. Of course, in the past, periodic political actions to incorporate past illegals have occurred and it may not be unreasonable to expect that they may happen in the future despite the deadlock of the moment. That said, I think a little intellectual exploration would be valuable concerning the assertion that citizenship is an “asset”–like a car, a house, or a piece of art–that is owned and is sellable. Have you tried to sell yours? Do you know anyone who has? What was the result? If caught, how many years in jail would the result be and/or how big a fine would occur? Would the buyer have actually obtained anything useful as opposed to dangerous and potentially costly?–I assume illegally purchased citizenship can get you jail time and fines as well. The fact that one values one’s citizenship doesn’t mean that it has cash value per se. I think Socrates would have a field day with this kind of thinking.
The immigration arrangements within the EU countries as those countries attempt to consolidate into a larger political entity is not so analogous to the US illegal immigration situation.
I would tend to agree with Sam Gardner that the problems created by formalized immigration systems in some European countries, particularly as they relate to large groups of individuals who are sometimes culturally, religiously and/or racially dissimilar to the population base, and which has in some cases resulted in long term residencies of non-citizens who cannot hope to become citizens but who over time loose their affinity for their country of origin has caused many social and cultural problems. The multiplicity of these problems dosn’t suggest to me that the US would be well served by duplicating these systems.
July 13th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Though, I agree with much of what you say, actually pretty much all of it. I just want to point out a minor thing, don’t use Dubai’s workers as an example. They were treated just as bad if not worse than many legal and illegal workers who are exploited here in the US. They weren’t allowed to form unions, strike, often their passports were taken from them and their living conditions were horrific. It gave them pay for their families back home so they kept coming back, but most of them didn’t want to. I realize you were just giving an example of temporary visas, but Dubai should be used to demonstrate how the policy should not be implemented. They used the opportunity of having temporary workers as a round about way of legally abusing their rights, it simply helped them to get more people to treat poorly by advertising the work to as many people in dire situations as possible.
I could easily see this happening in the US, because as the previous comment suggests, racism is racism, and people will want to use the flexible boundary of responsibilities and rights of “temporary citizens” as a way to argue that if they want to be here so much then they should take what we offer and not ask for more (ie. unions, representatives, health care , etc).
July 14th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Evidently, the idea comes from someone who, even if prospective citizens have to follow a very explicit path to citizenship, does not want to give the same opportunity to apply for citizenship to the current kind of immigrants. Racism and sheer disguised discrimination is practiced upon millions of citizens every second of the day in this country anyway. So why propose another perfect opportunity to increase such practice with potential citizens? Legal residents have to follow a path to citizenship that, in most cases, requires that they reside permanently in the U.S. for five years, pay taxes and abide by the rule of law. This has been the procedure for many decades, going back more than half a century. It is not only a cultural tradition of this Untied States formed by immigrants but a judicial process. Yet it seems that Clemens does not want today’s immigrants to be treated equally, in the same way his ancestors were. To be sure he is not for equal opportunity. Moreover, if after a few years, many potential legal residents decide to return to their country of origin, or if they decide to stay but remain only legal permanent residents, that is their prerogative. In summary, Clemens proposal is another preposterous idea, less harsh, but with the same intention and mean spirit as the measure that some extremists in Arizona are trying to impose on legal immigrants to deny them a path to legality. The same attitude that has prevailed for the last two decades to deny to millions of illegal immigrants a path towards legalisation. The same attitude that has forced them to live in the shadows for years, not because they want to but because they are still waiting for a path to legality. Finally, if the citizens of this country really want to address the issue comprehensively, the first think they need to ask is why are immigrants leaving their countries and ask as well if the “externalities” generated by the way global capitalism, –with U.S. corporations at the forefront– undemocratically imposed on these countries, have a lot to do with people being forced out of their land because their right to a dignified life has been appropriated by institutional investors, their corporations and the oligarchic partners in these countries? Why does a worker working for Ford in Mexico earn $2.50/hour and the equivalent worker in Dearborn, Michigan earn $25/hour for doing exactly the same job, when the cost of living in Mexico is almost 70% the cost of living in the U.S. Unfortunately, to ask the kind of questions that really address the issue is considered a politically incorrect behaviour. The prevailing attitude is to live in denial so that half truths and many lies can be used as arguments to expel from this country the “externalities” of free marketeering. And so, hypocrisy prevails, because many of the benefits and much higher wages of this country are being subsidised by the plight of millions of people around the world. But the citizens of this country only care about the benefits and do not want to bear the costs of their own system. If you do not want immigrants here ask your corporations to start paying living wages in the developing world and ask your government to stop supporting and recognising corrupt governments, which in most instances are in power through a fraudulent process, but they are recognised because their real job is to act as agents of global Darwinian capitalism. Exercise a slight doses of honesty for a moment!
July 14th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
This is an excellent discussion and one I would like to see us continue to explore. I think that CGDEV working in partnership from a broad variety of immigrant groups could hopefully help us to get the conversation from the current polarized overheated state and to one that looks at current economic and social realities facing AMERICA and the rest of the world especially the AMERICAS from which so many of the undocumented aliens come.
I am looking forward to a continuing conversation that allows for us all to be better informed as we face these tough questions.
July 15th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Some of the research we have done in Mexico with migrants supports the idea that no all illegal immigrants are pursuing citizenship in the US. Obviously if that is the only alternative they have in order to be treated fairly and with dignity, then yes, that is what most of them will pursue. The decision to migrate in such conditions is determined mainly by returns to labor and not necessarily by the whole “bundle”. My sense is that a significant proportion of them would be happy to migrate seasonally, work, send money back home and eventually go back home to their families.
Another piece of information that supports this idea is that the explosion of illegal, Hispanic population in the US observed over the past years, especially during the Bush administration coincides with tougher measures in the border to stop illegal immigration: more police and military and a fence. The result is that it makes more difficult to cross the border in both ways, not only to the US. Many people who would eventually return to Mexico knowing that if they need to they can go back to the US, now don’t want to take the chance, because it is more and more difficult, expensive and dangerous to try to cross the border, so they prefer to stay in the US.
Finally, an alternative that initially offers a temporary status that allows to legally work in the US, does not have to be exclusive from a clear pathway to obtain full citizenship eventually, for those who want to.
Mexico shares a huge border with the US. Both countries benefit from migration and both could benefit from an agreement that sets the grounds for a more flexible labor market for Mexicans in the US, just as there is a free market for US Citizens to buy houses along the Mexican Pacific Ocean, for example.
July 15th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
@Bill Schuerch: Thanks very much for this thoughtful comment. I think it’s absolutely reasonable to be concerned about potential drawbacks of conferring alternative bundles of rights, different than the full citizenship bundle. My point is that all of the alternatives have drawbacks, but we should consider the full range of alternatives.
Certainly giving full citizenship, costlessly, to the current unauthorized population would have a massive political drawback: Large numbers of U.S. voters wold strenuously object. And giving no additional rights to the current unauthorized population would have massive drawbacks too, because that would mean either continuing with the status quo, or forcibly deporting 11+ million people and tearing apart many families, both of which would also be objected to by very large numbers of voters.
All I’m saying is that full-citizenship or no-citizenship are not the only options that should be on the table. You’re pointing out that all options have drawbacks, which is certainly correct. But even in that case, a compromise approach could still be superior.
July 15th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
@Rebecca Lorenz: I appreciate this comment and this is clearly a legitimate concern. What I want to urge is that we ponder the alternatives. There have been millions of unauthorized workers in the U.S. for many years now. For several years, congressional efforts to change this situation have died in political gridlock.
So if nothing comes along that can spark compromise, we are going to continue in the current situation. And it is much easier to exploit unauthorized migrants than it is to exploit people who have some kind of legal status.
Another alternative often discussed, of course, is mass deportation of 11+ million people. This is not just hypothetical. I attended a hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee yesterday, and I was stunned to see that mass deportation of this kind is under serious consideration by several congressional representatives who spoke there. This is shameful, but it is not impossible that they could succeed in making that happen, thereby ripping apart hundreds of thousands of families and severely damaging the U.S. economy. So that is another alternative to the kind of compromise I advocated in this blog post, but it is certainly much more exploitative and damaging.
My point is that I appreciate and respect your concern about the exploitation of foreign workers. But I think we should consider the possibility that many alternatives to what I’m proposing could be enormously more exploitative.
July 15th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
@Alvaro de Regil: What you wrote is incorrect, and your statements about what I believe are based on ignorance. If you are interested in learning what I believe, I refer to you to my writings such as this piece. I believe that all people from all countries deserve exactly the same opportunities that my ancestors and I have had, and I am proud to be one of the few people writing on migration who consistently supports that view.
What I am discussing in this piece is what kind of policy might have some hope of creating political compromise to improve on the awful status quo, given the current extremely difficult political situation in the United States. I am not discussing what would be the ideal policy in an ideal world. Please inform yourself before making public accusations against people whose beliefs you do not understand.
July 15th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
@Claire Nelson: Thank you very much for your inspiring comment.
July 15th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
@Sergio Bautista-Arredondo: Thank you very much for your comment, which is obviously based on a profound knowledge of the current situation. Would you mind posting a follow-up comment that includes a web-link to some of the research of yours that you mentioned?
August 6th, 2010 at 7:15 am
My grandparents came to this country as lawful-entry immigrants. It is because of the bravery of leaving their country and wanting to start a new life in America that me and the rest of family and relatives have been able to prosper in this country. Immigration is a very tough subject to address and it will continue to be controversial. Coming to this country and staying here illegally dilutes the value of citizenship. What does it also say of the “rule of law?” I empathize with people who want to escape poverty and the lawlessness of other countries. What is missing in the media are the real results of just anyone entering the country illegally. Where is the empathy for the victims of aliens who’ve committed crimes? However, those who commit crimes against American citizens should not represent those who want to be good American citizens. BUT the first responsibility is to come to American legally. There has to be a balanced message.
August 9th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
@Frank Plateroti: Thanks for your comment. Upholding the rule of law is indeed essential, as is upholding the U.S. constitution. When my grandfather was a young man, the act of sipping a beer made him an accessory to massive violation of the U.S. constitution, which prohibited the sale of that beer by the person he bought it from.
There were many possible responses to that crazy situation. One of them would have been to deploy a vast military operation to crush the alcohol trade in the country; another would have been to remove the alcohol ban from the constitution. Both of those options would have increased the rule of law. The country chose the latter. That is, the country chose in that instance to uphold the rule of law by making the law more closely reflect reality, rather than an at-all-costs militarization of the country to uphold the rule of law.
In my experience, people who seek reform of immigration law today are interested in upholding the rule of law just as much as those who focus on enforcing the law and punishing lawbreakers. They want our immigration law to more closely reflect the reality that in the 21st century, people will move and U.S. employers will continue to demand their labor. The surest way to damage the rule of law is to continue the current situation, in which the law is too inflexible to accommodate reality. What I’m discussing in this blog post is one of many possible ways to do that.