The recent offer of self-deportation assistance by the Department of Homeland Security is a first for our nation, but it replicates the practice of many anti-immigrant countries.
The offer that was publicized in public media consists of giving a $1,000 remigration bonus for those who register online for either a free trip to their native country or a self-paid trip. The advertisement, however, would not pass the standards of truthful advertising. The media advertisements implied that there are no negative consequences to self-deportation and that return would be possible.
Unfortunately, this is misleading, since most undocumented migrants who have overstayed are subject to a 10-year ban for reentry, and there is no clear or available method for their return.
It is important to understand the American public’s views on deportation. In general, about half of those interviewed in a recent Pew Research poll said that some of those who have committed non-violent crimes should be deported, but almost all who committed violent crimes should be deported.
However, the poll found that Americans feel that those having a stable job, children born in the United States or a U.S. citizen spouse should not be deported in most cases. Although there is a big difference along party lines, the average response is not favorable to mass deportations.
There has also been a proposal to reorganize immigration services by adding a section responsible for “remigration,” or returning an immigrant to his or her country of origin. The term itself is prejudicial since it is borrowed from countries that have a very negative policy on migration. Repatriation has been a constant factor in American migration from its very beginning.
There has always been a certain percentage of migrants who return to their home countries for many different reasons. Forced remigration, however, connotes a very different procedure with no guarantee of return.
The purposes of the mass deportation policy are not clearly enunciated. This policy appears to scapegoat undocumented migrants. The American public does have an animus against illegal activity and, in this case, especially illegal immigration activity.
Many claim that their ancestors came to the United States legally, which may be true, as immigration laws once favored almost unfettered migration from many countries. However, one of the causes of our present undocumented population increase is the lack of legal methods for migration.
Some would attribute this anti-undocumented immigrant policy to implementing an improvement in the labor market by eliminating those unauthorized to work. There is a wide gap among economists regarding the negative impact of undocumented workers on the labor market.
There seems to be little competition between the undocumented and the American-born in most sectors of the labor market. However, those who experience competition for jobs are legal migrants, frequently from the same countries as the undocumented.
Contrary to popular opinion, most undocumented immigrants are not eligible for public benefits, although their American-born children may be eligible.
Research shows that illegal migration has a minimal negative impact on the labor market, with undocumented workers contributing to the economy and the Social Security system. In industries such as agriculture, hospitality and construction, immigrant workers are in high demand.
Studies conducted after the legalization program of 1986 found that the newly legalized immigrants contributed to the economy and positively impacted the wages of other legal immigrants.
A new legalization program based on integration in the economy and our society would be a much better solution to what has been described as a massive problem that demands a drastic solution.
– – –
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio is the retired bishop of the Diocese of Brooklyn, New York. He writes the column “Walking With Migrants” for The Tablet and OSV News.
