The First Question, An Answer

Following is an examination of the question posed at PRPR Debate I.

Should the United States grant citizenship to the approximately 11.7 million immigrants who live in the United States without lawful documentation?

No.

Extending citizenship to the 11.7 million undocumented aliens as part of any immigration-reform effort would damage American sovereignty. Foreign nationals who enter or remain in the United States in contravention of America’s laws should not be offered, en masse, the opportunity to determine America’s political destiny.

A country defines itself in large part by controlling the gateway to its citizenry. It does so principally with immigration laws that establish, among other terms, the process by which an alien enters the country and becomes a citizen. Immigration laws represent a policy choice. We, as a people, could have opted for a system of open borders and unfettered access to our polity. But we didn’t; we chose a highly restrictive system.

Two arguments against the no-citizenship position discussed during the debate bear addressing.

The first, deftly raised by Comrade Katarina, is that a path to citizenship is correct because “the majority of undocumented immigrants who chose to establish a life in American society have inevitably contributed to the workforce and to the economy and have become enmeshed in their communities.” The argument requires unpacking.   

To start, our immigration policy should not be dictated by the choices of aliens, whether or not those aliens are here illegally. Also, the citizenship issue should not be directed by the immigrants’ contribution and entrenchment because they were accomplished in violation of American immigration laws.

The Comrade’s point seems based, at least in part, on an implicit contract between the undocumented foreign nationals and the United States: immigrants agreed to work, businesses agreed to pay, and government officials agreed to relax their fealty to immigration law. Although persuasive, it does not satisfactorily reconcile how such a bargain compels granting naturalization.

Citizenship is the highest form of participation in American democracy. The aliens at issue do not deserve that lofty station simply because they found a way to make a home here, even after accounting for tacit assistance from American institutions. The resulting signal would be strong and corrosive: The deeper the foreign nationals’ immigration-law transgressions the more compelling is their case for citizenship. This is true regardless of the difficulty or duration of any proposed pathway. And nothing about the no-citizenship position is an absolute bar, always and forever; anyone, including illegal aliens, should be free to apply for naturalization at any time in the ordinary course.

But this is only part of the equation.

Denying citizenship works in tandem with permitting the 11.7 million undocumented immigrants to live and work, indefinitely, in the United States. Offering permanent residency to the undocumented aliens is correct because it is fair and advantageous to the economy.

It’s fair because it properly upholds the implicit bargain struck between the foreign nationals and the United States. The immigrants came to work in exchange for payment from business and complicity from government. Adherence to the agreement means sanctioning the immigrants’ continued employment and residency. Citizenship is a step too far that cannot be justified by the bargain.

Permanent residency is advantageous to the economy because America does best with a diverse, vibrant work force, particularly by including a class of immigrants that, like many immigrant groups from previous influxes, is motivated by the necessity to seek and seize employment opportunity. Furthermore, unlocking the real potential of our working underclass will reward the American economy with a new front of innovators, entrepreneurs, and artisans that will not just perform work but create it.

Lord Jim lodged the second critique, arguing that granting permanent residency but not citizenship would create a perversion once the foreign nationals begin to flourish in the workforce. Essentially, after becoming employers and creating jobs and opportunities for many Americans, the foreign employers would be deprived the most important American status, citizenship, while it would be standard issue for their subordinate employees. Ld James reasons that it is unfair to the immigrant-entrepreneur “to contribute wholly to the fabric of American society . . . without being able to participate in . . . choosing representation in government.”

A fair point, but plenty of permanent residents work, own businesses, employ people, pay taxes, and amass wealth in the United States without obtaining citizenship. There is nothing perverse about it. At the root of such arrangements are the immense opportunities for entrepreneurs of all nationalities, opportunities that America is famous for providing on a meritorious basis. And just as it relates to K’s argument, the alien employer is permitted, at every turn, to apply for citizenship.

In addition to (a) denying citizenship and (b) granting permanent residency, immigration reform should include (c) opening the American labor market, primarily to North Americans. A lingering concern, raised by Ld Jim but not reached during the debate, is that unfastening the labor spigot would force American workers to compete with foreign workers for jobs. This quarrel is beyond the scope of this post and will not be addressed here except to note that competition is the heart of innovation and should be fostered rather than feared. 

In summary, citizenship should not be extended to undocumented immigrants because doing so would undermine America’s sovereignty. But permanent residency should be offered because it is fair and economically advantageous.

This isn’t the first word or the last word but a word nonetheless.

Motivated by purpose, united in spirit. Viva PRPR!