Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to Robert Stevens and Thomas Bayley some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    Undocumented reform: What D.C.'s new immigration mojo means for Washington State

    Pramila Jayapal looks at local impacts of the recent immigration reform proposals from President Obama and the Senate's new "Gang of Eight."
    Section of the 652-mile wall along the U.S.- Mexico border

    Section of the 652-mile wall along the U.S.- Mexico border Photo: Flickr User d∂wn's

    It’s game on for immigration reform in 2013. Prospects for a real immigration bill this year took a big step forward last week as a bipartisan “Gang of Eight” Senators released its framework for an immigration bill, and President Obama staked out his own position with a speech and a written set of principles. 

    Washington State stands to benefit greatly from an inclusive, humane and comprehensive immigration reform bill. This two-part series will analyze the core elements of last week's two immigration proposals. (Neither is a bill yet, just the principles and a framework for one.) Part One of the series focuses on border security and treatment of the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants who are already in America and, in some cases, have been for decades.

    Part 2 (coming this Wednesday) will look at the components of the proposals that deal with reform of the legal immigration system. These include family reunification, high-tech and research sector immigration, employment verification and the future flow of workers.

    Washington State has an undocumented population of about 240,000 people. Many work in the state’s $18 billion agricultural industry, which depends on immigrant labor. Others are employed in restaurants, hotels and in various trades. Still more undocumented immigrants work at home, taking care of their kids or our kids as part of a temporary and informal labor market. Almost one-fifth of Washington’s undocumented immigrants are young people who were brought here as children. Often, they are unaware of their illegal status until they are much older. For many of these young people, known as DREAMers, American is the only home they know.   

    The framework laid out by the Senate’s Gang of Eight outlines two paths to citizenship: a faster path for DREAMers and agricultural industry workers, and a slower, more cumbersome path for everyone else — a path which involves securing our borders. President Obama's plan proposed the same process for legalization and path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants, and it does not make this path contingent on border security — although it does propose improvements to border security.

    Given that Washington State has substantial populations of both DREAMers and undocumented agricultural workers, the Senate’s two-track approach would not be bad for our state. But everyone would benefit if there were one clear and direct path to citizenship. 

    Under the Senate framework, undocumented immigrants who are not DREAMers or agricultural workers, and who have not committed a “serious crime,” would be eligible for temporary legal status once they have paid a fine and any back taxes. However, the next step — permanent legal residence — would be “contingent” on border security and a functioning exit-entry system. 

    So how do we define and measure border security?

    A recent report by The Migration Policy Institute found that the U.S. spent $18 billion on immigration enforcement in 2012. That’s more than the combined amount spent on five other federal agencies: FBI, Secret Service, Drug Enforcement, U.S. Marshal Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    The U.S. Border Patrol has doubled in size over the past decade to over 21,000 agents, and there are now 652 miles of steel barriers separating the U.S. and Mexico. (Consider that the Berlin Wall — when it stood — was about 100 miles long). As a result of increased federal spending — and the economic recession — the number of illegal crossings and apprehensions at the border have both dropped significantly. And yet, in the estimation of the federal government, the border remains vulnerable.

    The Government Accountability Office addressed the elusive nature of border security in a December 2012 report. The GAO concluded that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must establish actual performance goals and measures for assessing “border security.” DHS also said it intends to shift from a “resource-based approach” to security to a “risk-management approach that leverages existing resources.” In other words, DHS has the necessary resources and technology. What it lacks is a more nuanced and strategic approach to border security that better suits the evolving threats.

    Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


    Posted Mon, Feb 4, 3:59 p.m. Inappropriate

    We had an amnesty for illegal immigrants already. The claim was that the border would be secured, so we should provide amnesty to illegal immigrants. That was in 1986. Since 1986, millions of illegal immigrants have snuck into the United States. Now these illegal immigrants demand special laws to benefit only themselves.

    Amnesty for illegal immigrants does nothing but cause more illegal immigration. The 1986 effort granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants. That 1986 was sold as ending the illegal immigration problem. Now, the 2013 amnesty would grant amnesty to at least 12 million illegal immigrants. That is four times the amount demanding amnesty today. Amnesty for illegal immigrants does not work in solving illegal immigration problems. So, in twenty years do we have another amnesty for 48 million illegal aliens?

    The current amnesty proposal grants amnesty before any border security. There should be no amnesty anyway.

    Nations have borders for a reason. Illegal immigrants come from nations with borders themselves. The United States needs to be able to decide on who is allowed into the United States, and in what numbers. Individuals from foreign nations should not be the ones making the decision for the United States by sneaking into the nation; and then demanding amnesty. These illegal immigrants deserve nothing. They have a home nation, they need to be directed back to their home nation. They need to work to fix their own nations, instead of sponging off the United States, and demanding things from the United States.

    In the end the tolerance of illegal immigration, and this amnesty, is nothing but institutional racism; and anti-United States Citizen. We do not need the illegal immigrants, or most of the legal immigrants. The writer of this column seems to be anti-United States herself, and a racist.


    Posted Tue, Feb 5, 7 a.m. Inappropriate

    Both the TIMES and Crosscut seem to be on board with one sided, unbalanced presentation of the illegal immigration issue. Why? Pramila Jayapal is just another paid advocated for illegal behavior being codified into law. Will Crosscut examine the impacts of illegal immigration and the consequences for allowing the illegal behavior to continue? Will Crosscut review the likelyhood of this proposed version of amnesty being any more or less successful than the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli? Is the lack of balance because nobody you know thinks any differently Pramila and yourselves? Or is this an agenda driven cause?


    Posted Tue, Feb 5, 8:50 p.m. Inappropriate

    If immigration is any example, all the nonsense about passing some sort of gun control laws is just a waste of time. Nobody will pay attention.


    Posted Wed, Feb 6, 8:46 a.m. Inappropriate

    There are many who warn us about the increasing disparity between the incomes of the lucky and the talented compared to the incomes of ordinary workers. So one would expect right thinking people to wish to increase incomes at the bottom of the pyramid and, of course, they do. But all too often these same right thinking people want to flood our country with more people who toil at the bottom making it all the less likely that those incomes will rise. Why is this apparent contradiction not discussed? well it's in the national interest, in a way, to have a surplus of low-wage, low-skilled workers. It helps us that Chinese and Korean workers are not highly paid and, likewise it helps us (in the middle) to have a source of cheap labor to do some tough jobs. I suppose, in a way, it's prudent to not discuss it. But it's not admirable.


    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »