Today’s immigration policy debate reflects deep divides. For example, anti-immigrant forces centered in the Trump administration demand mass deportation of all undocumented people. Pro-immigrant advocates are determined to resist deportations and instead seek to legalize the status of most long-term unauthorized residents of the U.S. A compromise that simply splits the difference between the two sides seems impossible, since neither anti- nor pro-immigrant advocates will likely accept half-measures.
Still, there may be a third way forward: a policy innovation that achieves the interests of both factions. Four decades ago, architects of what later became the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) faced a similar dilemma. As described in my book, Immigration Reform: The Corpse That Will Not Die, immigration reform legislation had died twice in Congress. A major stumbling block the third time around was the question of agricultural workers, who even then were largely undocumented.
Growers, heavily represented in the GOP, demanded a program allowing foreign agricultural labor into the country, but only temporarily and with limited labor protections. Organized labor, highly influential among Democrats, opposed such “guestworker” programs mainly because foreign workers, lacking full labor rights, were subject to exploitation. Debates about the size and conditions of the program were endless, resulting in gridlock.
The standoff was broken by legendary farmworker advocate Dolores Huerta (Vice President of the United Farm Workers of America (UFW)), who proposed a special legalization program for existing agricultural workers. Similar ideas had been previously rejected by government commissions, think tanks, and advocates; this was a true policy innovation, hammered out over dozens of negotiating sessions between growers and the UFW. Grower interests were satisfied by having a reliable labor force. Because the newly-legalized laborers would have full labor protections, farmworker advocates were pleased. The so-called Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) program catalyzed enactment of IRCA, which finally passed in 1986. In the end, over 1.1 million undocumented farmworkers achieved legal status.
In an era of extreme polarization, might a similar kind of compromise be possible? Perhaps. The Migration Policy Institute has proposed a “Bridge Visa” program whereby foreign workers could enter temporarily but then earn a permanent green card over time. The idea could gain favor with the GOP, which prefers temporary workers, and with progressive advocates who favor permanent legal status.
The Trump administration inaccurately labels most undocumented immigrants “criminals,” a characterization resisted by progressives. But might the latter accede to parts of this “criminalization” framework if, in return, GOP lawmakers agree to a “statute of limitations” on immigration offenses? In the U.S. virtually every serious crime except murder has a statute of limitations of 10 years or less. A statute of limitations for immigration offenses of, say 5 years, would allow the vast majority of the undocumented to adjust to legal status, satisfying most pro-immigrant advocates. In turn, enforcement hawks could be assured of rapid arrest and removal of immigrants that commit serious crimes.
There are myriad possibilities out there, and most seem unlikely to bear fruit at a time of hyper-polarization. But perhaps it’s time to follow in Dolores Huerta’s footsteps to identify and test some “out of the box” ideas as a way to achieve sustainable immigration policy compromises.
Immigration Reform: The Corpse that Will Not Die 