Recession Calls for Vision, Not Resignation, on Immigration Policy

I keep my eyes on the Economist's immigration coverage with two things in mind.  First, its editorial position on international migration is frequently sensible.  Second, its coverage of American politics routinely adheres to the worst kind of Joe Klein/Tom Friedman warmed-up pseudo-centrist conventional wisdom. (That is to say, it's usually wrong.)

So what does the Economist have to say this week?

Ever since 2002, when America began to recover from a mild economic downturn, migrants both legal and illegal have streamed over the border. By 2006 Americans rated immigration as the nation's second-most-important problem after the Iraq war, according to Gallup. A bold attempt to reform immigration laws the following year was scuppered by an extraordinary outburst of popular anger. Yet, almost at that moment, the problem began to go away.

This "extraordinary outburst of popular anger" turned out to be illusory (immigration has nearly fallen off the list of issues of concern to Americans) and largely fueled by William Gheen's 80-year-old-internet fighter pilots-not a movement that has a bright future.

Jeffrey Passel, a demographer at the Pew Hispanic Centre, estimates that the number of illegal immigrants in America fell by 500,000 between 2007 and 2008. Some left the country; others worked their way to legitimacy. Few were replaced. For the past three years, Mr Passel reckons, there has been more legal than illegal immigration-a reversal of the previous pattern. And even legal immigration may now be falling.

Gabriel Jack, a Silicon Valley immigration lawyer, says companies are requesting fewer visas for foreign workers, although demand for the most popular permits still outstrips supply. Tourism and business travel seem to have declined, too. Fewer people are flying into and out of America than at this point last year, according to the International Air Transport Association.

Companies have fewer positions to offer anyone, foreign nationals included.  And the extraordinarily cumbersome visa regulations imposed on businesses by the Department of Labor and USCIS have had the desired effect-businesses now decide it's just not worth the trouble.  Tourists would rather spend their money elsewhere than face consistent harassment by consular officials and airport security.

All of this changes the politics of immigration.

During the presidential campaign Mr Obama promised to tackle immigration reform in his first year in office. He has a sound reason for keeping that promise: Latinos are solidly Democratic. Exit polls for CNN suggest that Mr Obama carried Hispanic voters by 28 points in Texas, 51 points in California and 54 points in Nevada. By 2012 the Hispanic electorate will be bigger and the heavily Latino Western states will command a few more electoral-college votes, thanks to the 2010 census, which will give extra congressional seats to the West.

The abrupt slowdown in human movement might seem to improve the odds that America's broken immigration system will be overhauled soon. What do nativists have to fear, if fewer people are trampling the border and some undocumented workers are going home?

Greg Siskind has put forward a version of this argument.  But the Economist disagrees.

In fact, though, immigration reform is becoming harder.

The immigration bill that died in 2007 would have legalised undocumented workers, stepped up enforcement of existing laws and increased the supply of immigrant workers. It was a compromise that offered something to liberals, Hispanics, conservatives and businessmen.

The recession has swept away the third part of the grand bargain. Even 18 months ago some Midwestern Democrats (including Mr Obama) were wary of a guest-worker programme. It will be extremely hard to sell an increase in foreign workers during a recession. Doris Meissner of the Migration Policy Institute in Washington notes that the last two major relaxations of immigration laws, in 1965 and 1990, both occurred at times of low unemployment.

(With friends like this . . .)

If there is to be no grand bargain, lesser steps may be taken. Farmers, who have political clout and a perpetual hunger for cheap labour, may be allowed to hire more seasonal workers. "Americans still aren't rushing to pick lettuces in 115º heat," notes Glenn Hamer, president of Arizona's chamber of commerce. The DREAM Act, which would enable some illegal aliens who were brought to America as children to become residents, may be revived.

The Economist then hazards a vague prediction that "the dynamism of the world economy" will revive the immigration issue once again, so don't rest easy for too long.

Here's what I think.  The Economist may not care much about things like maintaining families intact, preventing deaths in detention, discouraging racial profiling, protecting unaccompanied migrant children, or offering refuge to legitimate asylum-seekers, but Barack Obama sure better.  If he wants to maintain the respect of the Latin@ community and young voters, if he wants to bring the U.S. into compliance with international human rights norms, if he wants to mitigate this country's international pariah status, he would do better not to listen to naysayers at establishmentarian magazines and centrist think tanks.

This is a time for bold moves.  The immigration debate is sufficiently polarized that any fence-sitters will be ripped to shreds by both pro and antis.  It's time for Obama to consider carefully who he prefers to listen to: people like his new Labor Secretary Hilda Solis or William Gheen's internet fighter pilots.

[Image: Economist/Getty]