Judiciary Hearing on Immigration Represents Important Rhetorical Pivot

Today's Senate Judiciary hearing on the economic imperative for immigration reform made little news, but it underscored an important rhetorical shift away from focusing on immigration reform in the context of the 11.1 million undocumented immigrants to focusing on the ways in which the broken system affects all Americans.

The first panel was comprised of business leaders and educators including Robert Greifeld, the CEO of NASDAQ OMX Group; David J. Skorton, the President of Cornell University; and Brad Smith, General Counsel and Senior Vice President, Legal and Corporate Affairs at Microsoft.  This panel covered questions ranging from H1B visa policies to questions about educating foreign students in American universities.  The second panel, comprised of mayors, including Paul Bridges, of Uvalda, Georgia focused on the effects state and national laws have on municipalities.  Bridges, who is a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Georgia's new immigration law, called the legislation "Government intrusion of the worst kind."

While the panel did not offer any big revelations, the context of the panel is new.  Traditionally, reform advocates have focused on what immigration reform would mean for undocumented immigrants.  Even the headlines from last month's hearing on the DREAM Act emphasized what passage of the legislation would mean for DREAMers and their families, with footnotes about what legislation means for the American economy and military preparedness.  By contrast, today's hearing focused on the ways in which our immigration system forces foreign-born talent to work and build their businesses abroad.

In the search for productive political pressure points on this issue, immigration advocates have over-relied on the importance of reform to the Latino electorate.  As a strategy to motivate executive action, it has its merits, especially as Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico come into electoral focus.  But as a strategy to engage members of congress, it is relatively ineffective.  Even in districts where Latinos represent a substantial portion of the electorate, they are often under-engaged and unable to organize at the levels necessary to tip an election.  For the handful of Democrats with haphazard records on these issues (read: the Kay Hagans and Mary Landrieus of the world), they are unlikely to face a Republican challenger with a more progressive stance on immigration reform.  And for the handful of Republicans that could be persuaded by their Latino constituents (read: Marco Rubio), they must balance a desire to win those votes with a desire to maintain the support of the more radical elements of their base.  Democrats and Republicans understand the importance of the Latino vote, but it is not significantly imperative to tip votes on this issue in the current congress.  What immigration means for the American economy?  Now there's an issue every American can get behind.  And when Americans get behind an issue, so do their reluctant leaders.

My one criticism of today's hearing is that by focusing almost exclusively on high-tech visas and high-skill labor, the committee missed an opportunity to highlight the economic benefits of the larger pool of undocumented immigrants.  Take for example, NDN's study on the economic impact of immigration, or  a 2009 study conducted by the libertarian Cato Institute found that legalizing the 11.1 million would results in an economic boom: "[L]egalization of low-skilled immigrant workers would yield significant income gains for American workers and households. Legalization would eliminate smugglers' fees and other costs faced by illegal immigrants. It would also allow immigrants to have higher productivity and create more openings for Americans in higher skilled occupations. The positive impact for U.S. households of legalization under an optimal visa tax would be 1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion."  Another report, 'Raising the Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform,' by Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, "finds that comprehensive immigration reform that includes a legalization program for unauthorized immigrants and enables a future flow of legal workers would result in a large economic benefit — a cumulative $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years. In stark contrast, a deportation-only policy would result in a loss of $2.6 trillion in GDP over 10 years."

Today's hearing was a good start.  There's still much more to do.