Episode 2 – Ruth Wasem on Immigration, Part 2

[0:00:00 Speaker 1] This’ll is Policy on Purpose, a podcast produced by the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. Way take you behind the scenes of policy with the people who help shape it. For more. Visit LBJ dot utexas. Study. Teoh Welcome

[0:00:22 Speaker 2] to Policy and Purpose. My name is Angela Evans,

[0:00:24 Speaker 3] and I’m the dean of the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin.

[0:00:29 Speaker 2] My guest today is Ruth Qassem. Ruth is a clinical professor

[0:00:32 Speaker 3] of public policy practice at the LBJ School and has

[0:00:36 Speaker 2] been a

[0:00:36 Speaker 3] colleague of mine for many years. From our time at the Congressional Research Service to our time here, I’ve found used to be a very thoughtful and thought provoking analyst and contributor to the public policy

[0:00:48 Speaker 2] debates. Ruth is for many years studied immigration trends, asylum policy, human rights and unauthorised migration. And I’ve invited her to join me today to provide insight on the national conversation surrounding

[0:01:02 Speaker 3] Doc and immigration as a whole, um, in how it fits into our current public policy discussions. In a camping more timely since the State of the Union address, the president talked about his four

[0:01:13 Speaker 2] pillars his pillars being the looking at the path to citizenship for the dreamers. He talked

[0:01:22 Speaker 3] about building a trust for a wall, the construction of a

[0:01:25 Speaker 2] while, ending the visa lottery and limiting family reunification. He called These is four pillars, in addition to the president’s State of the Union

[0:01:33 Speaker 3] address. A Z Everybody who’s been following public policy knows the doc Oh question came into very high stake legislation with regard to continuing resolutions in keeping the government funded.

[0:01:43 Speaker 2] So this is really

[0:01:45 Speaker 3] a very important issue right now and before us today. We have a national expert, and some would consider the national expert when you’re looking to immigration and its intersection with

[0:01:54 Speaker 2] policy. So, Ruth, what I’d like to do today is start. Let’s just start with DACA Trump. How significant is a narrow fix to the Immigration and Nationality Act that enables unauthorized residents who were brought to the United States as Children to become legal residents? How narrow is this fix? It is

[0:02:13 Speaker 0] an example where there are numerous historical precedence in which Congress has enacted legislation that allows unauthorized residents to become legal permanent residents. So it is indeed, in the wider sweep of changes to the Immigration Nationality Act. It would be a minor change. But for those who are dreamers, it’s obviously of critical concern. Their future hangs in the balance on on this. So while it might not be a major change in U. S. Immigration policy, it certainly is something that effects the lives of probably over a 1,000,000 people living in the

[0:02:55 Speaker 3] United States. Today. The president uses 1.8 as the target population for DACA, and

[0:03:02 Speaker 2] some people

[0:03:03 Speaker 3] have been talking about you know what I’m seeing as Theis you swirling around Dhaka. Most people, when you talk to them, agree that some of these Children were brought here without any saying that should be allow to be citizens under what conditions they differ in terms of, you know, the time in the year time of year’s etcetera. But

[0:03:21 Speaker 2] other people

[0:03:22 Speaker 3] also say that there’s elements within the DACA population that we need to be aware of, and perhaps not allow a carte blanche kind of, ah, allowance to have them. And like what the president was talking about with gangs, etcetera like,

[0:03:37 Speaker 2] What is your when you look

[0:03:38 Speaker 3] at the research and when you think about how this has been decided before. What’s your take on that?

[0:03:44 Speaker 0] Um, I think that, um we don’t need toe worry about some of those questions because there is already expansive existing law that bars the admission of anyone who has committed a crime. Poses a threat to national security Is a public health risk is likely to be a public charge. Go on. Relief. Ah, whole host of things that would bar individuals. So in terms of someone slipping in or as some kind of blanket relief for people that are unintended, the law already would protect the United States from those things. And also, the research seems to indicate, as best, we know, that incidents of disqualifying behavior among potential recipients of this eyes quite small s so I think that current walk can handle it. It’s not a big issue.

[0:04:46 Speaker 3] Okay, so that’s important, too, because it in terms of making decisions, it’s based on information and implementation regulations, etcetera. So what we’re hearing in the public, ah, media is like one part of it. But underneath that is a whole set of infrastructure regulations, statutes that address that. That’s what you’re saying,

[0:05:05 Speaker 0] and lots of databases that are linked with fingerprints and facial recognition and all sorts of things linked up that now, if you’ve committed a crime in the United States, the immigration admissions databases, all of those databases are linked to that. You’re going to pop up right away.

[0:05:25 Speaker 3] Okay, Thanks, Ruth. Thank you.

[0:05:27 Speaker 2] So that’s the one that was one of his president Trump’s pillars. Another is diversity

[0:05:32 Speaker 3] in the visa lottery. You know, when we’re talking about a lot of reverses, you know, another methodology.

[0:05:38 Speaker 2] What are the perceived

[0:05:39 Speaker 3] problems with the diversity lottery now? What’s the problem that we’re trying to solve their

[0:05:43 Speaker 0] well, let me briefly explain the purpose of the lottery. As its name suggests, it’s to encourage legal migration from countries other than those countries, that of the major sending countries of immigrants. It was originally called new seed immigrants, and in its early days in the 19 nineties, it was overwhelmingly people from Europe, Ireland, Eastern Europe, countries that have been traditional sending countries but then had not sent immigrants very much. By 2009 the people coming into the visa lottery shifted to B’more from African nations and Middle Eastern countries. So who was coming in who was qualifying for the lottery changed. But I also want to point out is there is a misconception that no one’s checking like they win the lottery and they take the, you know, the next flight into JFK. First off, you have to have a high school degree or its equivalent and two years experience in an occupation that requires two years of experience. So we’re already talking about someone with skill levels that we don’t require up many other immigrants coming into the country. So that’s one of the expectations. The other again, very important to point point out anyone who qualifies for a diversity visa if they win the lottery, so to speak. They undergo extensive national security reviews and background checks, first by the Department of State abroad and then upon their arrival in the United States. They’re also run through these background checks by the Department of Homeland Security. You know their standards to meet, and there’s extensive background checks. My theory behind eliminating it is that it in the wider world of immigration, which is perceived of as a zero sum game, that there’s a you know, finite number of people that will admit the diversity visa lottery is low hanging fruit. It’s only 50,000 visas. And because the pool is ever changing because it’s formula based based on how few visas have come in in past years, it doesn’t build a constituency back home of immigrant groups. If you benefitted from it in the past, you’re not going to benefit from it by the future, by its very design to be new seed immigrants. So it’s low hanging fruit that’s easy to get rid of. But I think if you’re going to make a case to get rid of the diversity lottery, you should just say, you know, we don’t need it. There’s I don’t think you need to disparage the people who come in through it.

[0:08:23 Speaker 3] So it was at the time that it was in the act, and it was It was something that was taking care of some kind of problem at that time, and that’s shift I wanted. I want to pursue this a little bit. Okay, I want to talk about why it was even enacted in the first place. It wasn’t because we had the wall come down. You know, the wall come down in terms of the Berlin Wall and we had emerging democracies coming out of Eastern Europe. Was it because the Irish were becoming more and more integrated into the capital on business? You know, creation in the world. I mean, do

[0:08:55 Speaker 2] you know? Yes. Okay. And you have identified

[0:08:59 Speaker 0] the main source countries that part of the logic in that they used to call it the Irish visa because a certain number was set aside for Ireland and also Eastern Europe. And when we get to family based, you’ll you’ll see that our current four pillars of U. S. Immigration are family reunification, immigrants with needed skills, protection of refugees and diversity of admission. Okay, diversity of source country. So those are our criteria. And before the diversity lottery was added, the family based and employment based used to call him the Billie Holiday. If you know her famous song, God bless the Child, them that’s got shall get. So if you if you had a recent immigrant or if you were part of an employment based recruitment pattern, our system not by design but by implementation just the way it worked an unintended consequence off When they created the law, it favored the most recent immigrants and their colleagues at work or their family coming in. So it was very difficult for Irish immigrants to come in back up during the troubles and some of that stuff or Eastern European immigrants to come in because they didn’t have immediate family. They might have cousins and more distant relatives to qualify, but they did not have the immediate connections that would qualify them. The diversity visa, the way it was designed. It opened up these parts of the world again that were underrepresented in our flows, but where there were clearly people that wanted to come, so that was what it was seen as to try to diversify the flow.

[0:10:48 Speaker 2] OK, But you said there’s a shift

[0:10:50 Speaker 3] now. So we went from those countries to African countries and Middle Eastern hundreds at least earn. So is there Is there some kind of a connection there with with regard to the diversity? Visa is trying to take care of some of the refugee issues or,

[0:11:05 Speaker 2] well, they wouldn’t. There’s

[0:11:06 Speaker 0] a separate pathway. Refugees, I think there. There certainly was recognition on the part of many African American and Middle Eastern and Northern African Americans that, um, the program lost its support when the flows shifted to other parts of the world. So that certainly was an issue. And when this came up in 2013 when the Senate was debating this, the Senate bill that you know, the immigration reform bill that passed the Senate in 13 eliminated the diversity lottery but had provisions to allow for flows of immigrants from again from these parts of the world. So it would’ve aimed at mitigating the racial impact of eliminating the diversity lottery.

[0:11:58 Speaker 3] Oh, I see. Okay,

[0:11:59 Speaker 2] because it was

[0:11:59 Speaker 0] recognized that there’s, Ah, racial side. That was part if you look at the Senate debate,

[0:12:05 Speaker 3] let’s move because we were trying to get a lot. I have your time for a limited amount time, and I want to pick your brain on

[0:12:10 Speaker 2] a lot of things. So can you talk to us a little bit, too? About family based immigration chain migration? What are the policy issues around family based immigration? Is there a need to re prioritize this

[0:12:23 Speaker 3] and to, you know, to limit it in limited

[0:12:25 Speaker 0] scope? Well, this has been a knish you for some time. Family based immigrants make up 2/3 of the flow each year of people becoming legal permanent residents so they dominate on. But it’s been a core principle. It dominates by design. It’s been important for over 50 years in the immigration flow, and it’s been our top priority to reunite families. And because we have numerical limits on immigration, there are probably four million people with approve pending family based petitions. You know they’ve been approved. They have the demonstrator relationships but are waiting in line under the numerical limits to come in. So were in a situation where we have have categories of family based admissions, where there are many more people in the world who are eligible and who qualify for a visa than we have set under our numerical limits. So it begs the question. Should we be narrowing what we consider family reunification? Now I want to clarify that use of chain migration chain migration is a standard demographic term. I used it a lot. I’m I’m struck by how it is now being used as a fedora tive. There is no reason to think it’s a pejorative. If I, you know, go on a cruise, meet somebody we get married, my husband comes with me. And then later, when he’s a US citizen, his aged mother comes and lives with us. You know, calling that, you know, like chain migration when it’s the Nat Natural course of life. Events kind of strikes me as a bit over reactive, but it is. It is true that cutting back on some of the categories of family based admissions have been on the table for many years.

[0:14:27 Speaker 3] So when we talk about categories talk,

[0:14:29 Speaker 0] we’re talking about adult brothers and sisters of U. S citizens. We’re talking about adult married Children of US citizens. So what the Trump administration, I believe is proposing is toe limit family based admissions to what we call immediate relatives under the law. And that is your minor Children, your spouse and your parents and any of the other relatives. Like, you know, your adult Children would not qualify under this.

[0:15:02 Speaker 3] We don’t know that for sure. That’s just

[0:15:03 Speaker 2] something based on what he

[0:15:06 Speaker 0] said and also taking a look at some of the legislation he’s admired. Like the Bill by Tom Cotton and Senator Cotton and Senator Per do you know the kinds of things that they would cut out would narrow it down. So it does raise, You know, it’s a tough question. It’s a tough question. I’m not going to deny it. And it and I think it is something that’s worthy of a serious national discussion.

[0:15:30 Speaker 2] Are you comfortable with

[0:15:32 Speaker 3] the data that we have on this in terms of numbers like, you know, part of this of people again, this is the popular perception. That’s why I want to have this policy is called Policy on Purpose is trying to get to information and facts.

[0:15:42 Speaker 2] Do we have really

[0:15:44 Speaker 3] good factual information on whether we’re bringing in second and third? Cousins are

[0:15:48 Speaker 2] most of these? Well, no. I mean, you know, we’re saying is under. No, you can’t. No,

[0:15:53 Speaker 0] we’re not. I mean, the law is pretty clear about this now. Over the course of several generations, the example I gave earlier I go on a cruise, I marry someone. He becomes a citizen. He petitions for his mother if she lives here long enough and she becomes a citizen. And so, my sister in law that is living in Germany, my mother in law, who is a U. S citizen at by that point in time could petition for her daughter in Germany to come in. So that’s kind of how it works. But we’re talking about a long period of time through our system because, generally speaking, once you’re admitted as a legal permanent resident, it’s five years before you go through the citizenship process. If you if you choose to do that on, pass the tests and do all that. And as I told you before, there are four million people already waiting for Visa in the family based categories. So my sister in law would have to get to the end of the line. And we’re talking about something that if I just got married, is a good 15 years out. So you know, I hope she’s healthy.

[0:17:06 Speaker 2] She won’t qualify. So I think that the thing about the numbers you could do

[0:17:10 Speaker 0] some speculations, but we’re not talking about snap your fingers and everybody’s cousins coming in.

[0:17:17 Speaker 2] Yeah, this is like what we’re talking

[0:17:19 Speaker 3] about now in terms of, you know, we’re looking at several of these pillars, so when we’re talking about the diversity visa ladder, use your saying this really kind of low hanging fruit, not affecting a lot of people. You’re looking at family based immigration again. What you’re gonna be changing is not

[0:17:34 Speaker 2] all that significant.

[0:17:35 Speaker 0] Oh, no, I think it in terms. Oh, it is significant because it is the largest, single group of who comes into this country and its foundational toe How we’ve always defined ourselves under family reunification. So changing it is would be a major change in a major shift in the direction of our of our priorities.

[0:17:53 Speaker 3] Okay, so going from an immediate family, they, some people think, is a nuclear family rather than an immediate family. You know, when you’re thinking about a daughter in love, that’s a mother or son in law. That’s what we’re going from something that we normally think is a family that you’re gonna put around Thanksgiving dinner vs. You’re having, you know, a re union in a mountain larger at a city with cousins. So

[0:18:13 Speaker 2] those air those kinds of the decisions, The thing I really wanted to talk to you don’t get your opinion about is this simple. Employment based admissions would be favored over family based admissions. You know, it seems like the Edison that would be the shift that that’s what it sounds like. The president Seo is shifting

[0:18:31 Speaker 0] priorities away from now. In some proposals, they would just cut immigration altogether. Yeah, but then other times the president’s talked as if he’d be willing to reallocate those numbers that he would cut from family based over to employment based and at the same time is promoting a point based system. Now my concern with that and I think it’s something for us to think to think about, is we’re shifting then from an immigration priority that pits US citizens and who in their family against businesses and corporations. In terms of who sets immigration policy are the rights of a citizen to be reunited with their family less than a corporation and their expectation for certain types of workers. Eso again, This is This is Ah, there’s a lot of minefields and this one a lot of minefields. And the president and some of his supporters have been talking extensively about shifting it to a point system. You know, this is not a new idea. Point systems were on the table in 1990 and Congress rejected him. In fact, they got morphed into the diversity visa lottery. And that’s why the criteria for what you had to do to win the lottery included economic skills. And they were on the table in 6 4007 when President Bush and McCain and Kennedy had their immigration bill. That was one of the reasons that that Bill ultimately went down and, um, and they were rejected again in 2013 1 of the reasons that the point system gets rejected is not that it doesn’t have some inherent value off thinking. And so I’m fascinated by the point system because it’s it’s about having a conversation and a process to think. Okay, what type of immigrants are in our national interest? Who is it that we need to? We need unskilled, ah, laborers picking fruit? Or do we need high tech biomedical people working in labs?

[0:20:43 Speaker 2] Who is it that we need? And I think that’s a good

[0:20:45 Speaker 0] discussion. The problem came in. Is that business

[0:20:51 Speaker 2] well there? It’s kind of like

[0:20:52 Speaker 0] family based. It’s who you know, just like with immigration policy, the family is who you marry or who’s your blood relatives and in business, it’s who you want to hire our current employment based system is based on an employer making a decision, having gone through a national and international job search, that this is the person I want to hire. It’s a personal choice so that that whole screening process about our national need, we’re giving that to the employer and their best judgment. And employers, generally speaking, do not like a point system, just like the average American wouldn’t say. Oh, well, we’ve admitted all the best people from around the world, and you can change your spouse from this group any more than an employer wants to be told. This is the pool from which you can hire. It’s part of the American D. N A. We like to make our own choices.

[0:21:56 Speaker 3] Yes, that I think that’s a very good I haven’t heard it said that way. In terms of these comparisons, I think that’s a very important thing to keep in mind as we move through this. Ah,

[0:22:05 Speaker 2] so it

[0:22:06 Speaker 3] again I’m trying to respect your time, but there is one more area that ends The four pillars is the wall and, you know, obviously in Texas this is important because we have the longest international border in the United States, and this is an important issue for us in Texas is, well, it’s nationally.

[0:22:22 Speaker 2] Can you talk to us

[0:22:23 Speaker 3] a little bit about the that approach, the trump approach to the wall in terms of building a physical wall?

[0:22:30 Speaker 0] The wall? Um, I don’t understand. Um, why you would argue. You’ve got to raise a question. Why do

[0:22:40 Speaker 4] we need

[0:22:41 Speaker 0] a physical barrier now? I think

[0:22:44 Speaker 4] we need

[0:22:46 Speaker 0] major improvements to border security. I’m not saying we don’t infuse a lot of public money into border security, but the first place I would put that is an infrastructure of the ports of entry. The infrastructures are dated. Everyone who has researched the field of whether you’re talking about criminal elements or national security risks. They’re not crossing the desert there, coming through ports of entry. And we need to beef them up, not just for our public safety but for our commerce. Goods and services need to move elegantly and efficiently through our ports of entry, and they are obsolete and dated and vulnerable. That’s where the money should go. And if we have money left over, there is all sorts of surveillance techniques. All sorts of you know, I, you know, don’t want to minimize them by calling them high tech. But there are so many ways to surveil our border. And frankly, when you look at the globe and you look at countries that are peaceful neighbors, we probably already have the most surveiled border in the world. I mean, you have to go toe warring countries like India and Pakistan that are at odds, or the Koreas to find places you know, Ratchet up to the extent that our current president is talking about. So I think, you know, were the smartest group of people in the world. We can come up with much more sophisticated ways to secure our borders than a physical structure.

[0:24:27 Speaker 3] Thank you, Ruth. Ruth, I I want to invite you because this is this is just the

[0:24:32 Speaker 2] beginning. It’s not to begin started back to the future. And a lot of these ah, different provisions. You

[0:24:37 Speaker 3] know, these air recurring issues and we thes struggles, air really important struggle. So I hope you’ll come back as this moves along in the Congress and moves along in terms of the state of Texas. So thank you so much with my pleasure.

[0:24:50 Speaker 1] Thistles. Policy on Purpose, a podcast produced by the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin Way take you behind the scenes of policy with the people who help shape it. To learn more, visit LBJ dot utexas dot eu and follow us on Twitter or Facebook at the LBJ School. Thank you for listening