Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution (2 page)

In my eyes, Irma was beautiful and even exotic. Shortly after she and Jerry married, my father died, and my mother, sister, and I moved for a year to the Bay Area, where we were immersed in Irma’s family. In contrast to our own white-bread family, her family was huge, boisterous, matriarchal, passionate, emotional, and demonstrative. To this sheltered and impressionable eleven-year-old from New Jersey, the food seemed as sumptuous as it was strange. The experience was, for me, an epiphany.

While I attended law school at the University of California at Davis, I worked nights at a convenience store, many of whose customers were Mexican migrant farm workers who worked locally. I recognized in their weathered, callused hands the same dirt-caked fingernails I had seen on my father’s hands. He had been a welder with only an eighth-grade education. I remembered how hard my dad worked so that we could afford to live in a middle-class neighborhood with good schools. And I understood that these men were doing exactly the same thing as my father: working hard to make an opportunity for their families.

My views on immigration were imprinted indelibly from that experience: I came to believe that we should not be looking for
ways to keep people like those farmworkers out of our country. We should be looking for ways to bring them in.

My mother became my sparring partner on the issue. She and I were both solidly conservative and agreed on nearly everything—except immigration. In my mother’s mind, immigrants exploited American generosity, committing crimes, inflating the welfare rolls, and stubbornly refusing to shed their language or culture when they moved here. All of them, that is, except for the immigrants she personally knew, who were all fine, hardworking people whom she would be happy to welcome into the American family. Over time I discovered that my mother’s attitude toward immigration was widespread among conservatives. And throughout my career in public policy, I frequently have parted company with many of my fellow conservatives over immigration issues.

Over more than three decades as a constitutional lawyer, I have repeatedly had the good fortune to represent immigrants from Mexico, Asia, and Africa, particularly on two issues: school choice and freedom of enterprise. I have defended school voucher programs in several states, usually representing low-income families whose children previously were consigned to failing and often-dangerous public schools. Immigrant families cherish education, recognizing its central role in helping their children succeed and
prosper. They make enormous sacrifices—often working multiple jobs—to enable their children to attend good schools.

Similarly, I have represented immigrants in lawsuits challenging regulatory barriers to entrepreneurship. It never ceases to amaze me how hard immigrants are willing to work to start businesses and make an honest living. They have not come here for welfare. They have not come here to commit crimes. They come here, often overcoming tremendous hardships, in order to earn a share of the American Dream.

In 2001, my wife, Shawnna, and I moved to Arizona. I love nearly everything about my adopted state, but the one thing that troubles me greatly is Arizona’s widespread hostility toward Mexican immigration, not just illegal but legal as well. Among many Arizona conservatives, opposition to immigration dwarfs all other political issues, even in the face of economic recession.

The vehemence on this issue initially puzzled me, given that Arizona still is the land of Barry Goldwater and largely reflects his libertarian, live-and-let-live philosophy. Indeed, I have often joked that if Arizonans are really serious about protecting our traditional values against assault from hostile newcomers, we should wall off our western border to California rather than our southern border.

But I discovered that the hostility to immigrants in Arizona has very deep roots. I came across a fascinating book,
The Great Arizona Orphan Abduction
.
¹
It recounts the story of forty Irish orphans who were sent west from a Catholic orphanage in 1904 to be adopted by families in Arizona mining towns. Because the Catholic families in the area were Mexican-American, the orphans were placed with them. Incensed that blond-haired, blue-eyed children would be adopted by Mexican-Americans, a group of vigilantes went from house to house and seized the children at gunpoint, placing them instead with white families. The abductions were challenged all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sustained the actions. It is a sordid yet little-known chapter of Arizona history. Yet the divisive feelings that manifested in the abductions continue to infect an otherwise great state more than a century later.

It is difficult in Arizona to even suggest solutions to immigration issues without being derided as “pro-amnesty.” It was especially painful to watch as Senator Jon Kyl, a longtime friend and true statesman, unsuccessfully attempted to find bipartisan common ground through comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, only to be branded a traitor or worse by many in his own party. Indeed, the dominant wing of the Arizona GOP was so strident on
the issue that it led me to leave the Republican Party and become an independent nearly a decade ago.

None of this is to minimize legitimate concerns raised by many immigration critics. The welfare burden imposed by illegal immigrants places strains on state and local budgets at a time when resources are scarce. Even more salient are concerns pertaining to Arizona’s border with Mexico. The horrific violence on both sides of the border wrought by drug cartels has reached crisis levels. Our nation has not fully come to grips with the nature and extent of the crisis. However, strong border security does not go hand in hand with suppressing immigration, although in Arizona they are often seen as one and the same. Even as Arizona has been at the epicenter of a long-overdue debate over immigration policy, it also has earned the unfortunate reputation of being decidedly inhospitable to immigrants.

My experiences in Arizona have made it painfully clear how difficult it is to bridge the divide over immigration policy. Yet it is absolutely essential that we do so. Despite the most extreme elements on both ends of the political spectrum, who will do anything they can to defeat comprehensive immigration reform, it appears that most Americans share common values and beliefs when it comes to immigration. They believe that immigration is a
net positive for America, and that the rules of immigration should be fair and enforced. A policy that reflects those values and beliefs should not be difficult to accomplish.

What has been lacking is political courage—the courage to face down the demagogues and to reach across the political aisle for the good of our nation.

That is why I am so proud and excited to coauthor this book with former governor Jeb Bush. My usual relationship with politicians is suing them. But Jeb is different from most politicians—and I use the term reluctantly in describing him—because for Jeb, politics is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. I had the good fortune to work with Jeb when he was first elected governor in 1998, helping him fulfill his promise to bring school choice to Florida, and subsequently helping defend the program against legal challenge. As governor, Jeb transformed the Sunshine State’s education system, dramatically expanding and improving educational opportunities for all children, especially economically disadvantaged students. The results have been amazing. Today, Jeb works with governors of both parties across the nation to effectuate positive education reform. He also is an outspoken proponent of immigration reform and the need for Republicans to play a positive role on that crucial issue, and he is willing to speak his
mind regardless of political consequences. I am hopeful that by writing this book together, we can contribute to helping our nation make significant progress toward positive and enduring immigration reform.

Recently I had the honor of presenting keynote remarks at a naturalization ceremony at my children’s charter school in Phoenix. It was one of the most moving experiences of my life. The entire student body, from kindergartners through sixth graders, was in attendance. The children waved American flags and sang “God Bless the U.S.A.”—continuing the song without missing a beat even when the stereo system broke down and Lee Greenwood’s voice disappeared. But the greatest joy was in the faces of the twenty or so men and women from various countries, many of them with tears streaming down their faces, who at last were achieving their dream of becoming American citizens.

Among the many benefits that immigrants bring to our shores, none is so great and so vital as replenishing the American spirit. Even the most patriotic among us sometimes grows complacent in our freedom. Immigrants remind us that freedom still is the exception rather than the rule in the world, and that it is precious and fleeting. Those of us who were lucky enough to have been born Americans should honor and cherish those who choose
our nation because of its values and who successfully travel the difficult road to American citizenship. I believe it is not only our moral obligation as a nation of immigrants, but also essential to our future, that we make that road less difficult to travel rather than more.

Indeed, we should tremble at the prospect that one day we will cease to have an “immigration problem” because people no longer want to come here. For that means we will have lost the freedom and opportunity that has made our nation a perpetual beacon to millions of people around the world. To sustain our greatness requires us to continue to encourage and welcome the energy and passion that newcomers bring to our nation in abundance. And that in turn requires us to confront and surmount the difficult challenges of immigration reform.

To that end this book is dedicated.

W
E WRITE THIS BOOK TO
add our voices to the call for systemic immigration reform. First and foremost, we want to draw attention to the urgency of the need for such reform. Americans often view the immigration debate in one-dimensional terms: either immigration as a matter of social justice, or immigration (especially illegal immigration) as a scourge. That contributes to the intense divisiveness surrounding immigration as an issue, which at times makes it a “third rail” in American politics. Politicians on both sides of the partisan divide duck for cover rather than confront an issue whose resolution is vital to our nation’s future.

The issue is indeed urgent. Immigration is a major driver of the American economy, an answer to tremendous demographic challenges, and a remedy for an inadequate K–12 educational system. At the same time, immigration that takes place outside the bounds of law weakens our institutions and threatens legal immigration. We believe that our nation’s immigration policy is a disaster, but one that can be successfully fixed through a combination of political leadership, bipartisan consensus, and—as with most of the difficult issues facing our nation—recourse to basic American values.

When immigration policy is working right, it is like a hydroelectric dam: a sturdy wall whose valves allow torrents of water to pour through, creating massive amounts of dynamic energy. The reservoir that supplies the power is full and constantly replenishing. The valves can be adjusted against the wall of water on the outside, easing the pressure or holding it back as necessary, but always allowing ample flow to meet the nation’s energy needs.

But today the dam is decrepit and crudely cemented over, with constant leaks that have to be patched. Its flow has been altered so many times that the dam’s structure has lost all integrity. Its valves are clogged, its spigot is broken, its energy generation is sporadic and unreliable. Water comes over the dam and through
its cracks, and every effort to stanch the flow creates new fissures. Worst of all, the reservoir behind the dam—on which the nation’s energy supply depends—is drying up, and because the dam provides inadequate outlets for what remains, others are diverting it to competing uses.

The prognosis is all too clear: we need to replace the dam.

On that proposition, that we need to fundamentally repair our current immigration policy, a majority of Americans and their elected officials in both parties seem to agree. And yet, comprehensive immigration reform stalls repeatedly. It stalled in 2007 and 2008 even when President George W. Bush and congressional leadership from both parties made a major effort to enact bipartisan immigration reform. It never got off the ground following the 2008 election of President Barack Obama, despite Democratic majorities in both congressional chambers and the fact that Obama had promised to enact comprehensive immigration reform in his first year in office.

Even though immigration reform is one of the few major issues on which the potential for bipartisan consensus clearly exists, that consensus is constantly undermined, obviously by strident opposition at the extremes of both parties but also by a lack of political courage. All too often, elected officials who possess ample
political capital to make comprehensive immigration reform a reality wither instead, in the face of hostile opposition from extreme elements of their respective partisan bases. That is the case even though those who stand on principle on immigration issues rarely suffer significant political consequences for doing so. The combination of ideological rancor, demagoguery, and political cowardice is lethal, with the result that we remain saddled with an immigration regime that nearly everyone agrees is profoundly dysfunctional.

Both sides are responsible for the impasse.

On the left, some push for open borders as a matter of justice. They excuse those who came here illegally and decry efforts to enforce the rule of law. Labor unions, which for much of the past century were the most vehement opponents of immigration, now sometimes pay lip service to immigration reform but still look out for their own parochial interests first and foremost. Although some Democrats have worked across the aisle to find bipartisan consensus on immigration reform, others wield immigration as a political wedge issue, preferring polarization to solutions. In his first term, as noted above, President Obama broke his campaign promise to enact immigration reform during his first year—which
he easily could have accomplished given commanding Democratic majorities in Congress—and did nothing until the erosion of Hispanic support threatened his reelection chances.