‘Conditional’ legalization: A way out of the current impasse?

Who will verify that improvements in the workplace verification system or reductions in illegal immigration are occurring? The ICE, in concert with the U.S. Government Accountability Office, and private research contractors, could perform this work, and their findings should be presented publicly in congressionally mandated “certification” hearings to determine if the nation is actually making progress in bringing illegal immigration under control. If so, legalizations should proceed; if not, they should be suspended for a year, or revised in accordance with annual findings.

Conditional legalization has the added value of giving the executive leverage over Mexico, which has been anxious to see its citizens gain expanded access to the U.S. labor market. Under conditionality, the Executive would have a way of prodding Mexico to get involved in comprehensive border control, in conjunction with U.S. border forces, a form of bilateral cooperation that Mexico has long resisted. Knowing that the granting of permanent legal visas is contingent upon a verifiable reduction in illegal flows might end the “nod and a wink” approach Mexico has taken to illegal immigration and compel stronger, more pro-active measures to limit cross-border movements. In addition, Mexican illegal aliens seeking legalization would have to register with their own consulates, which would become responsible for assisting in the removal of aliens no longer deemed eligible for legalization.

In other words, the program envisioned here is no mere U.S. immigration plan. It is a bilateral approach that addresses the bilateral causes and dimensions of the problem. Mexico and the U.S. would likely have to sign an accord to make conditional legalization work. And well they should.

Some critics will contend that a conditional legalization program is inhuman or even discriminatory. However, our current immigration system is based on explicit selection criteria and there’s no reason not to use such explicit criteria, especially with those who aren’t here legally to begin with. Many illegal workers would be glad to register as temporary workers, with basic labor protections, and substantial freedom to move from employer to employer. And many would freely agree to return home, if the penalties for not doing so were severe, clearly spelled out, and agreed to in writing, and they had the opportunity to re-apply through the established legal immigration system.

A restricted, conditional legalization program of this kind certainly won’t solve all the problems in the U.S. immigration system. It’s chiefly designed to allow our economy and society to adapt to an enormous flow of foreign labor over several decades in a manner that is consistent with our national policy goals, which include economic, political, and humanitarian considerations. Considerations of equity and sheer feasibility demand that we recognize that millions of illegal workers are here, contributing to our economy, and cannot be effectively removed. But that doesn’t mean every illegal with a job is entitled to keep it, or to stay in the U.S. to live. If we agree to this principle, we will never achieve a fully effective border and workplace enforcement program, and illegal immigration will never be brought under control.

Stewart J. Lawrence is a Washington, DC-based public policy analyst who writes frequently on immigration and Latino affairs.  He is also founder and managing director of Puentes & Associates, Inc., a bilingual survey research and communications firm.