Students, experts discuss immigration reform policy
Panelists urged bipartisan compromise on immigration reform during Wednesday’s weekly Students Talk Back.
The discussion, moderated by Dornsife’s Jesse M. Unruh Director Dan Schnur and Daily Trojan News Editor Yasmeen Serhan, began with a broad immigration overview by panelists. The panel, held in The Forum at the Ronald Tutor Campus Center, was presented in partnership with the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics, the Tomás Rivera Policy Institute and the Bedrosian Center on Governance and Public Enterprise.
Compromise · Panelists Carrie Lopez (left to right), Shikhar Gupta, Michael Madrid and Giuseppe Robalino discuss the importance of bipartisan compromise on immigration reform Wednesday afternoon in The Forum. — Ralf Cheung | Daily Trojan
Grassroots Lab Principal Michael Madrid provided an economic perspective on reform to the discussion, noting that comprehensive reform was necessary for the nation’s economic health. Much to the appreciation of students in the audience, Madrid said all levels of the economy need an influx of individuals to replace a generation of workers.
“There is a desperate cry from corporate America and employers for comprehensive reform,” Madrid said. “From top to bottom, we need to have a workforce replacing the retiring baby-boomer generation.”
On the topic of a growing demand for professional jobs, USC College Democrats Director of Underclassmen Engagement Shikhar Gupta noted that comprehensive immigration reform could bring in a workforce from the science, technology, engineering and mathematical fields in to help the United States’ economic growth.
“There is actually a proposal to give green cards to students with advanced degrees in STEM fields,” Gupta said. “Green cards would give permanent residency to these individuals and would have the impact of attracting people that we need for a growing economy.”
Though USC College Republicans member Giuseppe Robalino agreed with the economic implications of immigration reform, he cautioned against overlooking the adverse effects of reform.
“There are very broad and deep implications once we start discussing the economic implications,” Robalino said. “I think this is yet to be measured and yet to be seen, but it is something that needs to be considered.”
Though economic considerations remained at the heart of the discussion, the panelists touched on the impact the polarization within Congress will have on immigration reform legislation moving forward.
Though many view immigration to be a largely democratic party cause, Hispanas Organizing for Political Equality Leadership Institute Chair Carrie Lopez said that this was not always the case.
“I want you to understand that no party owns this issue,” Lopez said. “When I was going to school, this was the issue of the day, and it was Ronald Reagan that led the front then. Fast-forwarding to 2007, all the solutions had elements from both sides of the aisle. Overall, the message is: Don’t stop questioning where the solution is going to come from.”
Robalino said the Republican Party needs to re-adjust its strategy in light of the low Latino support in last year’s presidential election.
“I do think the Republican Party is starting to re-examine itself and its policies,” Robalino said. “There are two things that are being said today — one is to take a more moderate stance and second is to say the same thing in ways that are less polarizing.”
Madrid said divided government would require sacrifices by both parties.
“Because of the redistricting, the Democrats can’t gain control of the House of Representatives for the foreseeable future in the same way the Republicans are not going to gain the White House in the foreseeable future,” Madrid said. “Both sides have to compromise.”
Though some members of the audience questioned the feasibility of passing pieces of the legislation one at a time, Gupta cautioned against this.
“If we were to piecemeal the legislation, it would cause attacks on each other’s legislation,” Gupta said. “The purpose of having this in one legislation is that it fosters compromise.”
Josh DeMilta, a senior majoring in political science, said the discussion made him more aware of the bipartisan support for the issue that isn’t always represented.
“It was interesting because I wasn’t quite aware of the bipartisan support for immigration reform,” DeMilta said. “I thought it would be more divided by political affiliation.”
Catherine Shieh, a junior majoring in political science and urban planning, cautioned against thinking narrowly about the groups impacted by immigration reform. Shieh also said the words used in the debate carry a negative connotation.
“Because [immigration reform] is such a broad issue, it’s difficult to discuss all aspects of it,” Shieh said. “It is important to respect the fact that though the Latino population is the largest population of immigrants, Asian-Americans are actually the fastest growing population of immigrants. Going forward, we’re going to define who holds the power in the discussion. The language is so tricky that sometimes we forget about it. When we say certain words, that is alluding to certain communities and carrying certain connotations.”
In general, I don’t believe in the premise itself, when the topic of “immigration reform” is discussed. The rarely-spoken truth is that the United States already has some of the most generous and welcoming immigration policy of any nation in the world. There can be no doubt when one looks at the vast numbers of people from around the world and from all economic backgrounds, who are naturalilzed as citizens every year. The reality is that the debate over immigration reform stems largely from an increasingly militant and politically-motivated force who believe that immigrants who are already here illegally, are somehow entitled to citizenship. Any honest and genuine debate on immigration reform must include a discussion of this reality.
Also lost in the discussion is the fundamental irony that the group most represented in the illegal-immigrant population… latinos and hispanics… is also the group most represented in the numbers of naturalized citizens each year. The debate over immigration reform inevitably focusses on latinos and hispanics because they make up the majority of our illegal population. Their message of a self-proclaimed right to citizenship is often stoked by marches and rallies where illegal immigrants and their supporters chant “Si Se Puede” and carry signs reading “Undocumented and Unafraid”. Hearing and reading messages like that, you would mistakenly think that latinos and hispanics aren’t allowed to become citizens. Was any of this discussed at Wednesday’s panel discussion?
There is no doubt that the United States needs to address the circumstance of our existing illegal immigrant population in a single and unified voice, particularly when you have states like Arizona that are trying to make some headway while states like California are content to do nothing at all. Compromise will be essentialin addressing the chaos, but I think few people at Wednesday’s panel discussion (let alone across the country) understand that allowing existing illegal immigrants to stay in the country at all, is itself, compromise.
Let me be clear. The only true compromise can be “permanent residency” (the so-called “green card”). There can be no “path to citizenship” for existing illegals as a part of any fair immigration reform. Offering permanent residency to illegals currently in the country will grant them legal status, and the right to work. That’s a very generous offer to someone who is already here illegally. In fact, permanent residency grants almost all the rights and responsibilites of citizenship, except the right to vote in our elections. Again, this is a very fair and generous offer to someone who came here illegally. Just ask me: I am a legal immigrant who was naturalized, who in fact attended USC legally, with permanent residency, prior to becoming a citizen.
If illegal immigrants want amnesty and legalization, then permanent residency is the answer. As mentioned earlier, the United States already offers a path to citizenship, and they refused to take advantage of it. This is no time to reward their bad and illegal behaviour. Any illegal immigrant currently here who wishes to gain full-fledged citizenship must first leave the country, and then apply like everyone else does… including the thousands of latinos, hispanics and others from around the world, who do so every year. It’s time to end the lies and disingenuous rhetoric that too-often dominates the debate over immigration reform. It’s wholly unfair to the millions of Americans… like myself… who have literally paid their dues and followed the fair and open process necessary to become citizens of this great country.