|
June 1994
A Bold Proposal on Immigration
California will cease to be a democratic polity unless it
lets its Mexican immigrants vote in local elections. Politically
impossible? Yes--but a dramatically successful experiment in effective
border control could change that political calculus
by Jack Miles
In California immigration has become a hot political topic without quite
becoming a debate. Like crime, it is a topic over which Californian political
candidates contend mostly by going faster or further than their opponents in
the same general direction. Control of the border, restrictions on even legal
immigration, repatriation of illegal immigrants imprisoned for crimes committed
in California, the reduction of health and education benefits for illegal
immigrants, and an aggressive insistence that Washington pay the bill for
policies made in Washington--proposals like these define the flow, and no one
who aspires to office dares go against it. Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne
Feinstein, both Democrats, both liberals, have each offered restrictionist
immigration-reform proposals. Governor Pete Wilson, arriving a bit late on the
scene and quietly jettisoning pro-immigration policies that he championed as a
Republican senator, has offered proposals far more sweeping, including a
patently unconstitutional demand that citizenship be denied to the
American-born children of illegal immigrants. Democratic gubernatorial
candidate Kathleen Brown, the daughter of one former governor and the sister of
another, has her own immigration-reform agenda. All these politicians are
responding to an uncompromising public mood.
Into the teeth of this gale comes an article published last year, in the
anthology The California-Mexico Collection, making the bold suggestion that
illegal Mexican immigrants to California should be not just legalized but also
given the vote. Jorge G. Castaneda, a noted Mexican intellectual, writes in
"Mexico and California: The Paradox of Tolerance and Dedemocratization" that,
all other cultural and economic issues aside, the presence of a large, growing,
and permanently disenfranchised Mexican population in California is subverting
the state's most basic tradition--its democracy. "Through no fault of its own,
undocumented Mexican immigration is contributing to the "dedemocratization" of
California society. . . . by the end of the twentieth century, the richest
state in the world will have a terribly skewed political system, with a foreign
plurality that works, consumes, and pays taxes, but does not vote, run for
office, organize, or carry much political clout."
Californians who have commented on the political disenfranchisement (or
non-enfranchisement) of illegal immigrants from Mexico have tended to see it as
a problem for the immigrants themselves: lacking the vote, the immigrants lack
influence. Castaneda sees the same disenfranchisement as a problem for
California as a democratic society. Sixty-three percent of the students of the
Los Angeles Unified School District are Latinos, many of whose parents are
legally ineligible to vote; but, according to a former Los Angeles school board
member, 75 percent of registered voters in California and 88 percent of those
who actually vote have no children in school. True, parents are hurt by
nonparents who refuse to be taxed to educate other people's children,
but--Castaneda would argue--to see the resulting harm in classic interest-group
terms is to misconstrue it. In a normal, healthy democracy, the self-interest
of the parents, which coincides with the long-term self-interest of the
society, would be backed by plenty of votes. A democratic society in which the
parents of many children in the public school system lack the vote is abnormal
and unhealthy. Whatever the laws on its books, it is, de facto, both
undemocratic and dysfunctional.
That Castaneda has identified a grave weakness in California's democracy is, I
think, irrefutable. And yet his remedy for this weakness is perfectly
calculated to send an already inflamed controversy deeper into the flames: "The
only realistic way to alter the negative effect of Mexican influence on
California . . . is to change the nature of its origin by legalizing
immigration and giving foreigners the right to vote in state and local
elections." Castaneda recognizes that in practical, political terms, the odds
against his view's prevailing in the near term are insuperable. "The real
stumbling block is that the decision to legalize immigration will not be made
by those who would benefit from it most--the bottom tier--but rather by a
white, Anglo, middle-class, and elderly electorate. The only way to change the
nature of California politics is through legalization, but the only way to
achieve legalization is to change the nature of California politics. Not an
easy circle to square."
Castaneda draws a modicum of encouragement from the fact that Sweden, Denmark,
Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Switzerland have granted
foreigners the right to vote in state and municipal legislative elections.
Following their lead, he proposes not that immigrant Mexicans be naturalized
but rather that, while remaining Mexicans and without acquiring dual
citizenship, they be allowed to vote in California state and local elections
only. He recognizes that tradition in the United States has seen naturalization
and the vote as inseparable, but this inseparability is just the part of the
tradition that he believes must change. "The choice . . . lies between
enfranchisement along European lines or continuing to deny foreigners political
rights and relegating them to the bottom tier of California society. The fact
that the problem is so strongly concentrated in California should serve as an
incentive to finding a state or municipal solution. What happens in California
or Los Angeles and San Jose need not be a federal policy applicable throughout
the country."
There is a daring plausibility to Castaneda's analysis, but if California were
to accept his proposal, the state would be saying, in effect, that on so
crucial a matter as the prerogatives of citizenship its relationship to Mexico
counts for more than its relationship to the United States. After all, no
comparable crisis of "dedemocratization" yet looms for the country as a whole.
If Mexicans are understood to have migrated from Mexico to the United States,
rather than to California, it would seem to be up to the federal government to
determine their status, including their eligibility to vote in even local
elections. Castaneda, however, prefers to see these immigrants as having come
only to California rather than to the United States--a bold move on his part.
Like all the contributors to the anthology in which his article appears,
Castaneda assumes that the U.S. Border Patrol is not and never will be a factor
in the demographic future of the California-Mexico connection. Only one of his
fellow contributors so much as mentions the Border Patrol, and then only to
include it among potentially delinquent elements to which "the California
connection itself may become hostage." For the rest, the constant assumption in
The California-Mexico Connection is that illegal immigration is as
uncontrollable as the weather. It is not a policy, in other words, but simply a
large, generally benign fact.
Against this background the sudden, unprecedented success of the Border Patrol
at slowing--indeed, almost halting--illegal Mexican immigration across the Rio
Grande at El Paso, Texas, a major entry point, comes as something of a
thunderbolt. On the one hand, it opens the possibility that immigration may
become a policy again rather than a quasi-natural fact. On the other hand, it
opens the way, paradoxically, to the acceptance, in some form, of Castaneda's
otherwise unacceptable proposal.
From September 19 to October 2, 1993, the El Paso Border Patrol, under Chief
Silvestre Reyes, quietly but suddenly closed the several breaches in the border
fence that had been major entry points for illegal immigrants, and
simultaneously instituted a strategic reform and redeployment of the patrol's
forces. The reform was a sharp de-emphasis of the hot pursuit of illegal
immigrants after they cross the border. The redeployment was a new
concentration of agents along the borderline itself. Of 650 agents in the
district, 400 were now deployed along the border; in the downtown El Paso area
they were stationed in a line of sight, each to the next. At the start there
were also temporary reinforcements from both the Border Patrol proper and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, which has charge of a bridge where most
legal entry occurs. The total additional cost of the two-week Operation
Blockade, including repair of the fences and overtime, was only $300,000.
Shortly after the start of the operation Reyes announced that the new approach
would continue indefinitely, without new funding, as Operation Hold the Line.
Hold the Line would have been a better name for the initial operation, which
never sealed the border or halted legal permanent or temporary border crossing
from Ciudad Juarez, just across the Rio Grande. The continuation of normal,
peaceful interaction across a border regulated but not sealed only makes
Reyes's results the more impressive. Apprehensions for illegal entry along the
El Paso border have dropped to about 150 from an average daily level of 800 to
1,000. Since as many as half of all border crossers into El Paso come to work
in greater El Paso, statistics for those going beyond El Paso by plane or train
are of particular interest--and as it happens, those numbers are even more
dramatic. According to John L. Martin, who last December published under the
auspices of the Center for Immigration Studies the fullest account to date of
the continuing operation, "Apprehensions resulting from train checks have
decreased by 90 percent. Airport apprehensions, regularly numbering in the
hundreds, and which hit a record level of 1,034 last July 4, are now averaging
8-15 per day."
Seventy to 75 percent of the citizens and legal residents of El Paso are of
Hispanic descent, and mistaken arrests by the Border Patrol have resulted in a
series of lawsuits, particularly in connection with Bowie High School, near the
Rio Grande, where illegal border crossers reportedly have sought cover in the
school crowd. Martin claims that this problem has now been all but eliminated.
"Chief Reyes noted on November 8 that, since assuming the new operational
deployment of deterrence rather than apprehension, there has not been a single
new complaint from the public. He pointed out in a similar vein that there had
not been a single shooting incident involving his forces since then, either."
Not in jest, Martin reports a new morale problem in the El Paso Border Patrol:
the new techniques, substituting deterrence for pursuit, are so effective that
the agents are bored.
Though no scientific opinion poll has been taken, the El Paso Times reported on
September 23 that telephone calls to the newspaper were running ten to one in
favor of the new policy. The Ciudad Juarez Chambers of Commerce and Industry
did oppose it, and even called for a boycott of El Paso businesses. There was,
briefly, a decline in trade at the downtown stores nearest the border, perhaps
partly because of the misleading initial use of the word "blockade." Outlying
stores were unaffected, however, and by October even the downtown stores were
back to 85 to 90 percent of their pre-operation volume, with a substantial
reduction in shoplifting and car theft.
The policy has detractors beyond the Ciudad Juarez Chamber of Commerce. The
Roman Catholic bishop of El Paso opposes it. Residents of Ciudad Juarez
accustomed to crossing freely into El Paso to work also oppose it. In one of
three demonstrations hundreds of marchers chanted "We want to work." Shortly
after the operation began, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times, it
was denounced in a Mexican diplomatic note dispatched to the State Department.
And yet, a bit surprisingly, the mayor of Ciudad Juarez was quoted as being in
favor of it, perhaps because of the difficulty that the permanent residents of
his city have had in coping with the criminal "coyotes" who prey upon
prospective emigrants.
How important a precedent is El Paso? Operation Hold the Line is in effect
along only a twenty-mile stretch of border separating El Paso from Ciudad
Juarez, and attempted border crossings east or west of that twenty-mile stretch
have risen slightly. Still, though smaller than Tijuana-San Diego, Ciudad
Juarez-El Paso is of major importance. Its combined population comes to more
than 1.5 million. The normal rate of legal border crossing there is estimated
by the INS at 120,000 a day, or well over 35 million a year. If the approach
taken in Operation Hold the Line has reduced the level of apprehensions for
illegal border crossing--the nearest available objective measure of illegal
traffic--at such a major entry point by more than 85 percent while keeping the
border open to ordinary traffic, staying within the existing border-control
budget, and lowering the level of violence and citizens' complaints, then this
approach certainly merits serious consideration as a border-control model.
Reyes's El Paso redeployment, as noted, brought 400 of the district's 650
agents to the border proper. Until recently the San Diego Border Patrol had
fewer than a hundred of its 1,000 agents guarding the line. Last February,
under public pressure, Attorney General Janet Reno announced that the San Diego
contingent would gradually grow by another 400, and the commissioner of the
INS, Doris Meissner, predicted a linked and again gradual shift from the inland
apprehension of border-crossers to El Paso's approach, deterrence at the border
itself. Reyes's success in El Paso may well have owed something to sudden
implementation and surprise, however, and there will be no comparable surprise
in San Diego. In addition, Martin, in a telephone interview, cited Reyes on the
potential importance of a "desperation factor" in San Diego. Tijuana may differ
from Ciudad Juarez, Martin explained, in that more of the migrants arriving
there are simultaneously at the end of a long journey and at the end of their
resources.
These are all important considerations, but they may mean only that if
comparable results are ever achieved in San Diego, they will be achieved on a
budget higher than Reyes's amazingly low one. Reyes has called into question
the claim that controlling the border would be fiscally prohibitive if not
technically impossible. He has also called into question the quite common claim
that even if not technically impossible or fiscally prohibitive, controlling
the border would entail a level of brutal militarization that would appall the
nation and the world. The image summoned up has been that of the Volkspolizei
of the former East Germany, peering through the cross hairs of their
high-powered rifles at fugitives creeping past the barbed wire. But Reyes, whom
Martin describes as a quiet, low-key, unconfrontational leader, has become
dramatically more efficient at halting illegal immigration while all but
eliminating violence by the Border Patrol agents under his command--and while
winning, it would appear, warm support from a 70 percent Latino community with
intimate ties to a sister city across the Rio Grande. The significance of this
several-faceted success is hard to exaggerate.
Because of their intellectual investment in the thesis that the border cannot
be policed, many immigration advocates will want to prove that Reyes's success
is temporary or illusory--but they should consider the potential gain for the
huge population of immigrants already in the United States should his success
prove replicable and permanent. At stake, in brief, is another mass amnesty for
illegal immigrants like the one that occurred in 1986.
At the moment there is absolutely no chance of a second such amnesty. On the
contrary, American political leadership, spearheaded by Californians, is
hell-bent on reducing, not enhancing, benefits to immigrants, which are now
perceived narrowly as mere incentives for further immigration. In a way
Castaneda saw this coming. Having proposed the mass legalization and
enfranchisement of illegal immigrants, he wrote in The California-Mexico
Connection, "There is no dispute that legalization poses costs and perils. The
main danger lies in the incentive for future immigration and in the increased
migratory flows that would undoubtedly result in the short term. But these
costs are clearly no greater than the costs of the status quo, which threatens
to tear California society apart."
But why should this incentive exist only in the short term? Worldwide, the
supply of desperately poor potential migrants is essentially infinite. Illegal
immigration across the U.S.-Mexican border is only a part of that much larger
problem. It is the most visible part, however; and unless the border can be
controlled, the political trend will be precisely the opposite of what
Castaneda would wish, as indeed it has been during the past year.
And yet this backlash is ultimately against a perceived and frightening loss of
control, rather than against Mexicans as a racial or ethnic group. Accordingly,
if legalization can be seen again as a measure promising a restoration of
control--that is, if it can be made to function as something other than an
incentive--then it may yet attract surprising support. The 1986 Immigration
Reform and Control Act was accepted as a once-only great compromise. The mass
legalization of then-illegal immigrants was traded for the promise that a new
program of employer sanctions would destroy the incentive for further mass
immigration. That hope proved vain; but if it had never been entertained, IRCA
would never have passed.
Until Americans have some assurance that a new mass legalization will not
function as an incentive, they will never vote for it. It is not that the last
foreigner to be naturalized must have been naturalized at the time of a new
mass legalization. What is required is rather and only that control be so
firmly and clearly re-established that decisions on admittance to the
country--and admittance to the voting booth--will be at the discretion of the
American host and not of the foreign guest. Employer sanctions alone, however
severe, will never be enough to bring this about, but employer sanctions
combined with truly effective policing of the border might be.
And in that case the IRCA compromise, now a bitter embarrassment to many who
backed it at the time, may return in a new form. Immigration "restrictionists"
will have to agree to legalize illegal immigrants who are already in the
country. Immigration "admissionists" will have to surrender the notion that
there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant (there are only "undocumented
workers") and agree to an effective, publicly backed Border Patrol assuring
tight control over the largest single source of future illegal immigration.
Unlikely? No doubt--but surely no more unlikely than the indefinite maintenance
of a status quo that nearly all parties to the immigration debate find
unacceptable.
Jack Miles is a book columnist and editorial writer at the Los Angeles
Times. His most recent book is God: A Biography.
Copyright © 1994, The Atlantic Monthly Company. All rights
reserved.
The Atlantic Monthly; June 1994; A Bold Proposal on Immigration; Volume 273,
No. 6;
pages 32-43.
|