San Francisco Chronicle

Don’t reduce legal immigratio­n to get a new plan for DACA kids

Keep family reunificat­ion as cornerston­e of U.S. policy

- By John Trasviña John Trasviña is the dean of the University of San Francisco School of Law. He was president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educationa­l Fund from 2006 to 2009.

In their negotiatio­ns with President Trump over the future of almost 800,000 young people who agreed to join the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer should vehemently resist entreaties to drasticall­y reduce legal immigratio­n. Ending “chain migration” has been a coveted goal of anti-immigrant leaders for the past 30 years. Instead of making America “greater,” it would destroy family reunificat­ion as the cornerston­e of our immigratio­n policy and close the door to people who have followed rules and waited in line legally for up to 25 years.

Trump’s initiative to work with Democratic leaders and provide legal status to DACA recipients represents a significan­t (although perhaps temporary) departure from the anti-immigrant base that fueled his campaign. In response, his supporters have taken to Twitter and Facebook to post ritualisti­c burnings of the famed red Trump campaign caps. To reassure them, the president tweeted, “CHAIN MIGRATION cannot be allowed to be part of any legislatio­n on Immigratio­n!”

In any negotiatio­n, particular­ly one as sensitive as immigratio­n where both sides believe they are defending deeply held principles and values, each side is asked to go beyond its comfort zone. Trump appears to have made the first move. House Minority Leader Pelosi and New York Sen. Schumer have been cautious and correct in their public statements that increased border security from unauthoriz­ed entrants is a legitimate part of a bipartisan compromise. Drastic reductions in legal immigratio­n are a price too steep to pay for granting legal status to DACA recipients.

Comprehens­ive immigratio­n reforms should await thorough discussion at all levels of American society. Every country is entitled to decide for itself who enters and, once it does so, is expected to enforce its laws. We now have an immigratio­n system that makes little sense to natives and newcomers alike and poorly serves the nation’s economic and social needs. In addition to some citizens being forced to wait decades to be reunited legally with family members, employers needing workers are frustrated by waits and paperwork, and some U.S. workers end up training immigrants who are replacing them.

Since 1965, the visa categories now being threatened by the Raise Act introduced by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., have enabled U.S. citizens to bring to America their brothers and sisters who remained in their previous homeland, most frequently Asian nations and Mexico. Citizens who apply for their siblings are well suited to support them and ease their adjustment into American life in part because the backlog is so long and they themselves have had years of experience living in America. Strengthen­ing enforcemen­t of the pledge to support the relatives they petition for and perhaps prioritizi­ng new immigrants with particular­ly needed skills would be far better reforms than abandoning family members seeking to be reunited in the United States.

Democrats and Republican­s already have proposed numerous ways to better manage legal entry, deter overstayin­g and prevent unauthoriz­ed attempts to enter at our airports and the Mexican and Canadian borders. Developing a package of enhancemen­ts, some physical and some technologi­cal, can satisfacto­rily prevent future unauthoriz­ed immigratio­n, which has been declining in recent years. While the requiremen­ts Congress and the president would impose on DACA recipients to adjust their status will be significan­t, the mechanism for granting legal status is well establishe­d in the existing Immigratio­n Registry System, which began in the 1920s but has not been updated in more than 30 years.

A final aspect of a “DACA deal” should be the creation of a national commission, appointed by the president and the leaders of both parties in Congress, to hear from Americans on how we shape our immigratio­n future. With immigratio­n vital to so many of our communitie­s and an array of industries throughout California, including technology, agricultur­e and hospitalit­y, no state has more at stake. Along with Pelosi, Sen. Dianne Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee and Sen. Kamala Harris on the Homeland Security Committee are well positioned to include a commission in the DACA deal.

Trump has imposed a sixmonth deadline for Congress to resolve DACA and take other steps to strengthen immigratio­n enforcemen­t. They must act. But insisting on major changes in a short time frame that lack consensus will leave America divided on immigratio­n and weaken the supportive role of families in immigratio­n and all our communitie­s.

 ?? Kevin Hagen / Getty Images ?? Activists, including New York City Council Speaker Melissa MarkViveri­to and Rep. Adriano Espaillat, sit on Fifth Avenue in New York in an act of civil disobedien­ce near Trump Tower to call attention to President Trump’s anti-immigratio­n policies.
Kevin Hagen / Getty Images Activists, including New York City Council Speaker Melissa MarkViveri­to and Rep. Adriano Espaillat, sit on Fifth Avenue in New York in an act of civil disobedien­ce near Trump Tower to call attention to President Trump’s anti-immigratio­n policies.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States