This commentary was first delivered as a speech before the World Affairs Council in New Orleans on Saturday, December 7, 2019
Mayor Cantrell, distinguished guests, ladies, and gentlemen. Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to share some thoughts about the impact of our current immigration policy toward Mexico. I believe a new paradigm is urgently needed.
The paradigm currently governing the American—Mexican immigration relationship has been in effect for more than 70 years. When the core of the latest Mexican immigration policy was formulated, there were no two countries in the world that bordered each other that were more economically disparate than Mexico and the United States; as a consequence, we exerted a tremendous pulling influence on citizens of Mexico.
In those days, many Mexican citizens saw themselves in a survival mode, and the United States was viewed as a land of “unrestrained opportunity.” They were willing to endure almost any hardship for an opportunity to provide for their families by working here, with or without government authorization.
Today, this is no longer the case. Over the last 70 years, conditions in Mexico have improved dramatically. Immigration to the US from Mexico is a net-zero. This means more Mexicans are leaving the US than are entering. By some accounts, Mexico is now the world’s 13th largest economy and without a doubt, they are our 3rd largest trading partner, yet our view of Mexico remains locked in the 1950s. I believe our immigration policy is out of step with the contemporary Mexican reality.
If our relationship with Mexico is to serve the best interests of both nations, it cannot continue to be viewed in such a self-serving manner. Mexico is no longer coming to the table with “sombrero” in hand. It is past time to retire the old paradigm.
Our relationship with Mexico must be responsive to the current reality which begs for deeper integration, not more isolation and “get tough” immigration legislation. As we begin to think about the development of a new paradigm, we need to be mindful of several semantic problems that have hobbled our current immigration policy for decades. We need to propose exact meanings to words and phrases which have been confusing our political leaders and leaving us confused, agitated, and divided on what to do about immigration.
One fundamental problem Congress has stems directly from their inability to clearly define the problem they are trying to solve. If you can’t name it, how can you fix it? This has led many legislators to conclude that specific words have many possible meanings. For example, Congress is unable to distinguish between the terms migrant and immigrant. All too often, they use the terms synonymously. I know this sounds mundane, but the problem has profound implications. Here is what I mean.
According to The American Heritage dictionary, a migrant is an individual who moves from one place to another to reside temporarily. This is clear enough. An immigrant is a person who moves from one country to another to reside permanently. This is also clear enough, but for the US government, the definition of immigrant wasn’t clear enough. For reasons of national security, they felt compelled to be more definitive about the meaning of the word.
The Department of Homeland Security has defined an immigrant as someone who has applied for and been granted the privilege of legally residing in the United States permanently. In other words, they have been granted Lawful Permanent Resident status, or as it is euphemistically called: a Green Card. Incidentally, the “Green Card” has not been green for more than 50 years.
The subtle, but the clear message from Homeland Security is that if you have not been “lawfully” accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States, you are not and cannot be an immigrant. There are many words available to describe these individuals, but an immigrant is not one of them. Yet, Homeland Security has no qualms about making regular references to illegal immigrants and illegal immigration. The use of these political oxymorons is confusing. Worse yet, not only are the terms incorrect but over the years they have become pejorative lightning rods that vilify and criminalize immigrants. Now, hardly a day passes when the President, Members of Congress, and the immigration elite aren’t peppering the airwaves with daily references to the evils of illegal immigrants, illegal immigration, criminal immigrants, the criminal element, rapists, narco-terrorists, murderers, invaders, and slave traders. No wonder much of the country’s immigration mood is a mix of anger, fear, and frustration. As long as our lawmakers insist on referring to non-immigrated residents in such pejorative terms, immigrants and immigration can never be favorably known to us.
Our immigration leadership has become so confused by their own imprecision that they have made up terms like illegal immigration and illegal immigrants to help us understand what they are talking about. If we are ever going to be able to solve the problem of spontaneous migration, we need to be able to correctly define who we are talking about and then we need to stick to the definition. The fix for this problem calls for the creation of a term that accurately depicts the population grouping we are referring to and it must be one that is neutral in value shading. Here is how I see it.
80% of the 10.5 million individuals and families residing here without an immigration status have been living here for more than 20 years. They are not a new population. Over 50% of them have children who are US citizens. Without a doubt, these folks are residents of the United States. They are living here like immigrants, but they have never applied for or been granted Lawful Permanent Resident status, so they cannot be immigrants. Therefore, the term I use to describe them is non-immigrated residents. This ends the confusion. It clearly defines them, it is neutral in value shading, and we know exactly who we are talking about.
Continued use of incorrect terminology only worsens the problem and creates the false impression that reforming our immigration system is somehow going to stop people from migrating and living here unlawfully. This is wishful thinking. Our immigration system works fine for immigrants. 100% of the people who have been granted immigrant status used the immigration system and it worked for them. It may not be managed in the best and most efficient way possible but it does work. The families and individuals here without an immigration status never used our immigration program. They simply moved here, so reforming that program will not solve our vexing spontaneous migration problem!
You know, I seriously doubt, for the families residing here without immigration status, that the decision to leave their home country could have been easy. To believe that your best option is to uproot your family, to leave everything you own behind, except what you can carry, to walk hundreds and hundreds of miles subjecting your family to potential robbery, rape, murder, and ridicule to come to a foreign land where your family will be incarcerated and split up for indefinite periods of time seems to me like a true “Hobson’s Choice.” You must choose between the lesser of two evils. I wonder if I would have the strength of character, courage, perseverance, and love of family to struggle on. The sad truth about this whole mess is that for 90% of the individuals and families who choose migration, it won’t provide the relief they desperately need. The rules for qualifying for immigrant status are very rigid. Less than 10% of all applications are approved.
One of the things which will help to solve the problem is the creation of jobs in the sending countries. We have more than 6,000 miles of border with Canada and we don’t have a single inch of wall between us. Imagine that. Yet, Canadians are not keen to immigrate to America even though they can just walk into the country. This comes about because Canadians believe they have economic parity with the US. This leads them to conclude that their economic opportunities are as good or better in Canada. Therefore, they seek their future there. That is good news for Canada. It is also good news for Mexico as they are well on the way to achieving economic parity with us. This is part of the reason why Mexican migration, which at one time accounted for 90% of the spontaneous migration we were encountering on the southern border, is now a net-zero. For the first time in immigration history, more individuals from Central America than Mexico were detained attempting surreptitious entry.
If Homeland Security can resist the temptation to use pejorative and incorrect terms, to refer to non-immigrated residents and if they can come up with a more precise and neutral definition for non-immigrants, they will have moved in the right direction. However, in and of itself, a more precise definition will not be enough. While a new definition must pass legal muster, to be useful in shaping immigration policy, the definition must incorporate an understanding of the mindsets of immigrants and migrants. Here is why mindset matters.
As Americans, we are justifiably proud of our immigrant stock. We proudly proclaim that much of the credit for what is good about America today belongs to those hardy souls who committed their brains, brawn, and bravery to the development of this great nation. But, let us not forget, that when our forefathers immigrated to this country, they arrived not only physically, but they also arrived psychologically.
In other words, they not only came here to reside permanently but more importantly, they came here to become Americans. They were immigrants – not migrants. Migrants are here physically, but psychologically they remain wedded to the sending countries. Although our immigration policy has never taken cognizance of this point, we should never lose sight of this fact.
The decision to become an immigrant, to want to burrow into the fabric of America, to become American, embodies the principal characteristic, which distinguishes immigrants from migrants. Is it any wonder that assimilation doesn’t appeal to migrants? What this should be telling our lawmakers is that not everyone here without immigration status is clamoring to be an immigrant, so let’s stop acting like they are. And better yet, let’s stop wasting time and money by passing laws, which expect migrants to display the same patriotic zeal as immigrants. They won’t. That expectation is doomed to frustration along with all legislative efforts, which mistakenly cleaves to this misguided notion.
In immigration history, today’s non-immigrated residents are unique. They have set roots here and developed equities. Some of the parents have spent their entire adult lives here and the children, with the exception of birth, have spent their entire lives here. They know no other home; they are as American as any of us. In all likelihood, if they entered with any type of mindset, it was a migrant mindset. Survival and the desire to care for their families, the noblest of all ideals, was the precipitating force that brought them here, not the desire to become Americans.
I believe they anticipated their stay would be brief. They were here to meet the survival needs of their families. Once they were certain those needs were met and could be sustained, they had every intention of returning home. However, along the way life happened and the migrant mindset morphed into a yearning to be American. They want to become Americans and I, for one, would like them to be Americans. I am not alone in my desire. Over the last 10 years, 85% of Americans polled have consistently believed a path to lawful status, including citizenship, should be open to qualified applicants. Now, we are waiting for a bitterly divided Congress to coalesce around all-encompassing immigration benefit legislation that will extend eligibility to the maximum number of qualified non-immigrated residents. I hope our legislators will find a way to form a consensus around this proposition.
Here is another point that sticks in my craw. Politicians are often quoted as saying “We are a nation of laws; illegal immigrants are criminals who must be rounded up and deported.” These law and order notions have supporters as well as detractors. Here’s what you need to know about being in the country without immigration status. Under immigration law, it’s a civil violation for a non-citizen to enter or attempt to enter the United States at any time or place other than through ports of entry designated by the Department of Homeland Security. The punishment, under federal law, for first time Improper Entry, is a minimum $50 fine.
I want to be clear about this point. Improper Entry is not now and has never been a criminal offense. To refer to individuals as criminals simply because they entered without inspection is wrong. Leaders, from both sides of the aisle, know it is wrong, but they do it. They are trying to curry political favor by casting non-immigrated residents in the worst possible light and it seems to be working. Most of the individuals I discuss this issue with are adamant that non-immigrated residents are criminals. Without exception, they believe they must be incarcerated and deported for the good of the nation. “After all,” they say, “we are a nation of laws.” Frank Zappa is quoted as saying, “We are a nation of laws poorly written and randomly enforced.” There is truth to what Mr. Zappa is saying.
As long as our lawmakers insist on referring to non-immigrated residents as criminals, we will remain confused. No wonder much of the country is in a quandary about immigration. No one likes crime. Criminalizing immigrants might be acceptable if the claims were true, but they are not. To make matters worse, our political leaders have now started attributing all border crime to immigration. Cross border crime, in all its manifestations, and immigration are two totally distinct events. The two should never be conflated. Immigrants move here to start new lives. Criminal activity is never their goal. Cross border crime and all the other crimes being ascribed to immigration are strictly acts of cross border crime. The farthest thing from the minds of these criminal perpetrators is immigration.
We would never refer to a person who received a traffic citation for a moving violation as a criminal. We know it is a civil infraction, not a criminal offense. Yet, we do it with non-immigrated residents. If a 10-year delinquent speeding violation was uncovered during a routine traffic stop, we would not expect the individual to immediately be hauled off to jail until he could be brought before an administrative law judge. Yet, we do it with non-immigrated residents. We routinely jail non-immigrated residents until they come before an immigration judge. In many cases, they could be in custody for years. Many Americans believe this is the proper way to deal with immigrants, but I believe the punishment for any crime should never be worse than the crime itself. There must be proportionality in our system of justice. What we are doing now is like using a shotgun to kill a mosquito. It gets the job done, but the collateral damage is far worse than the precipitating event.
Americans are a good and strong people. In my experience, when the truth about immigrants and immigration is accurately portrayed, we tend to be favorably disposed toward immigration. Just think how much richer America would be if we could re-discover our heritage of nourishing liberty and opening our hearts to those seeking the same legacy.
Many citizens assume that all non-immigrated residents simply walked into the country across our southern border. For this reason, many citizens believe spending billions of dollars building a 2,000-mile wall between Mexico and the United States is a proper response to spontaneous migration. This simply isn’t the case. Most of the non-immigrated residents here today entered on valid visas and then failed to exit when their visas expired. They never crossed the southern border. Think about this for a minute. If most of the folks here without an immigration status were properly admitted, if more Mexicans are leaving than are arriving and if apprehensions across our southern border are at 40-year lows, why are we building the wall?
A strong belief in the words offered to us by our leaders strongly influences how average Americans view immigration in general and more particularly since Mexico was our largest source of immigration and migration, how they view our relationship with Mexico. I say “Mexico was our largest source of immigration” because this is no longer the case. The largest countries of immigration to the US are now China and India, in that order. The largest population of visa overstays are Canadians.
To fully understand the American—Mexican relationship, we must be aware of a lesser-known story that is seldom reported: How Americans view immigration has changed substantially over the last few decades. So what do these changes portend for our immigration policy? Here are some of my thoughts.
Prior to 9/11, immigration from Mexico was viewed principally as an economic threat. The major threat was that during hard times Mexicans, along with other immigrants, take jobs from needy Americans.
The attacks of 9/11 prompted a profound realignment of our immigration policies, practices, and priorities. Before 9/11, talk about “the border” conjured up thoughts of migration from Mexico. Now, under our Homeland Security alignment, immigration has been linked to every type of crime committed at the border—drug smuggling, cartel violence, money laundering, gun-running, prostitution, people smuggling, and white slavery, to name a few.
Thanks to our political leaders, each of these cross border crimes are now viewed by most Americans as part and parcel of the immigration problem. This creates the perception that immigration has worsened, not improved.
Linking immigration to national security, terrorism, and violent crime may serve to make political points but it arouses fear and serves to keep Americans agitated, confused, and divided on what to do about immigration generally and our relationship with Mexico specifically. It needs to stop. The last thing on a criminal’s mind is a home in the suburbs with a white picket fence and the sound of children playing in the front yard. They are here to commit crimes, not to become immigrants. The farthest thing from an immigrant’s mind is committing a crime. They are here to make America their home. Improper Entry needs to be decoupled from border crime. Crime and immigration are as different as apples and oranges and should never be conflated.
As Americans, we need to fully understand and appreciate the importance and value of the American—Mexican relationship. After all, Mexico is our 3rd largest trading partner and they are the world’s 13th largest economy. We buy 10 % of our oil from Mexico and export 15% of our petroleum products to them. Most importantly, in my mind, is the fact that we are next-door neighbors.
I believe we continue to see Mexico through an antiquated and distorted prism. If my analysis is correct, our Mexican immigration policy is out of sync with the current state of the Mexican economy. Here are questions about the American-Mexican relationship we, as a nation, urgently need to answer.
- How much has Mexico itself changed? Do we still exert such a strong pulling effect on Mexican citizens?
- If Mexico has changed, what does this portend for the future of our relationship with Mexico?
- What changes to our immigration policy would be most beneficial to both countries?
Answers to these questions will help with the formulation of immigration policies that better serve the immigration and migration needs of our two countries.
The continued incapacity of both nations to communicate effectively remains the most difficult challenge and the key to more useful management of the relationship.
The question is: Will the current administration seize this opportunity to re-frame our immigration policy and reconsider how we view migration from Mexico?
Or will the dysfunctional politics that swirl around immigration policy prevent us once again from doing what’s in our national interest
The time for a new paradigm is now!
Thank you very much. I will be glad to entertain questions.
Ricardo Inzunza is a native of San Diego, California. After serving 8 years in the administration of President Ronald Reagan he was appointed Deputy Commissioner of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) by George H. W. Bush. During his 4-year tenure, his office was the central source for the development, implementation, and oversight of all immigration service policies and practices. Now as CEO of RIA International, Ltd, Ricardo is often asked to serve as a business consultant to clients such as the World Bank and the Peoples Republic of China. He can be reached at 662 694 2650 or 202 664 3274 or riatria@aol.com