The Politics of Immigration Reform

Daniel Altschuler
AQ Web Exclusive
October 27, 2010

Photograph courtesy of Arasmus photo.

In early 2010, with a major national movement behind it and support from President Barack Obama and congressional leadership, comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) looked like it could be the next big bill after health care. But election year politics intervened. Senate Republicans backed away from a potential CIR bill, and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the controversial SB 1070 into law, forcing pro-CIR advocates to play defense. Now, they face a daunting political climate that could become even less friendly after the mid-term elections.

Much ink has been spilled on Republican obstructionism to CIR. But analysts have paid less attention to the pro-CIR movement, an equally important piece of the puzzle. An important group behind this movement is the emergence of the Reform Immigration FOR America (RIFA) and its efforts to adapt to a difficult political environment. By expanding its grassroots organizing efforts and communications infrastructure, RIFA became stronger than its pro-CIR predecessors. But RIFA has proven unable to wrest back control of public debate on immigration, and thus remains on the defensive.

The Movement’s Makeover

Observers have long noted that the immigration system is broken. Labor demand in certain sectors like agriculture outstrips domestic labor supply, encouraging undocumented workers to emigrate, primarily from Latin America. A notoriously slow legal immigration infrastructure hurts businesses that need high- and low-skilled workers and leads some immigrants to risk the desert and deportation rather than waiting many years for a visa. The current detention and deportation system raises a myriad of due process concerns, putting at risk the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike.

In 2003, groups pushing for a comprehensive solution to these immigration problems coalesced into the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CCIR). CCIR gained early momentum. A bipartisan bill that included widespread legalization seemed likely to pass the Senate. But the House acted first, passing a draconian enforcement-only bill in 2005.

People responded. Millions took to the streets in arguably the largest expression of immigrant and Latino political muscle in U.S. history. The Republican-controlled Senate then passed a bipartisan CIR bill that proved unreconcilable with the House bill. But, under Democratic control in 2007, the Senate proved unable to repeat the magic.

Access the full story at americasquarterly.org.

Daniel Altschuler is a Rhodes Scholar and doctoral candidate in politics at the University of Oxford.  His research focuses on civic and political participation in Honduras and Guatemala.

See more in:  United States, Immigration & Remittances