Comments on Obama's immigration position

When Obama was elected president of the U.S., many Mexicans were excited. The day after, I spoke with a Guatemalan on the border between the cities Tecun Uman and Cuidad Hidalgo. He works as a “balsero,” steering the rafts that carry people back and forth across the Suchiate River between Guatemala and Mexico, away from the official international crossing point. Because there is little immigration enforcement in the strip of land right along the border, this river is a center of informal cross-border commerce for the people who live in the border region. For Central American migrants traveling northward, it is a common illegal border crossing point. This balsero, who witnesses unregulated migration every day of his life, told me he was excited because he thought Obama would make things easier for migrants, both those in the U.S. and those who are trying to enter.



It is true that the Obama has taken an approach to the immigration issue in the U.S. that tends to focus more on the human rights of immigrants than many of the recent discussions and broad-scale actions on the issue, which tend to target immigrants as criminals. For example, the policy position on immigration listed on the administration’s website mentions the need to increase the number of visas available for legal immigrants and eliminate the back-log in applications for legal entry. The position also supports the development of a pathway to legalization for undocumented immigrants already in the country.

I believe changes such as these are definitely critical for preserving the human rights of immigrants. Increased options for legalization will decrease the vulnerability that many immigrants face because of their undocumented status.

Nevertheless, if the Obama administration wants to claim their policy is working on protecting human rights, they are sorely off-track in one of their stated opinions. The emphasize the need to secure our nation’s borders and the intention to provide for “additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border.” Used in this context, “securing the border” most likely refers to combating drug trafficking and obstructing illegal immigration.

In terms of immigration, this argument falls in line with the well-worn political paradigm that assumes increased border enforcement will decrease the numbers of immigrants successfully crossing the border illegally. Studies have shown, however, that it is unclear whether or not additional border enforcement actually decreases this migrant flow. What is clear is that increased enforcement causes migrants to seek out more desolate and dangerous crossing points, thereby increasing the number of deaths and human rights abuses that migrants suffer during their crossing.

The assumption that U.S. borders need to be secured through increased immigration enforcement also neglects the reality that the majority of “illegal” immigrants in the U.S. do not enter the U.S. through its southern border, but rather on planes or public buses. These immigrants enter legally, with papers, and then simply overstay their visas (thereby becoming “undocumented”).

Lastly, this assumption ignores that fact that, when it is harder to cross into the U.S., not only to immigrants keep coming, but they stay longer. Once they make it across once, they are less inclined to travel back home for periods of time because they don’t want to have to risk the difficult crossing more than necessary. This ironic consequence actually tends to increase the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S.

Even when we consider the drug trade, it is unclear if increased border security is the best step. Studies have shown that efforts focused on decreasing the demand for drugs through treatment and rehabilitation of drug users are twenty times more effective than aggressive attacks on drug traffickers (Rydell and Evering, 1994).

When Obama talks about “securing the border,” one thing he is signaling is the desire the U.S. has to know exactly who is entering and exiting the U.S. for security reasons. I agree that this goal cannot be accomplished when people cross the border illegally. Nevertheless, beefing up border security isn’t the only way to accomplish this goal. Increased opportunities and flexibility regarding entry into the U.S., combined with thorough documentation and registration at points of entry, would provide potential immigrants with legal alternatives for entering the country. These options would need to be accessible and take into account the range of abilities and backgrounds of potential migrants.

While the policy position of the Obama administration regarding immigration makes some real strides regarding human rights protections of immigrants, it still falls short on its border politics. It blindly accepts the paradigm that the border needs to be secured against our southern neighbors, without taking into account the effects and contradictions of border enforcement. True human-rights centered immigration reform needs to recognize the realities of the immigration situation and to focus on pathways for legal entry and on decreasing the vulnerability of migrants in their journey.

Rydell and Evering. "Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army", (Santa Monica, Rand Corporation Study 1994, summary available online at http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Cocaine-Supply-Demand1994.htm