It seems that the idea of strengthening the boundaries remains unquestioned within the debate on the immigration reform. At the same time, there are few doubts about the perspective to be given to the eleven millions of undocumented who live in the US. The two issues, that appear two me not so strictly intertwined, are still organized in a sort of hierarchy: first we have to confirm patrols and deportations, and within this pattern of “security” we can ensure the “pathway for citizenship”.
The main points of this immigration overhaul probably couldn’t be different, for it is being implemented as a result of electoral calculations and in the form of a concession coming from the top, not the bottom, of society. But at the top we find for the moment not so many immigrants…
If asked, foreign people tend to respond that they are not deeply interested in full citizenship as a priority and, considered they cultural and economic situation (they tend to keep some ties with the home-country), it is easy to understand why. Many scholar researches confirm these interviews, and just to cite the one from Olsen and Fernandez, they stress the request for “locomotion” far more than citizenship.
It is, after all, the degree of freedom that we are going to concede to this little country inside the US what is under dispute. The quality of life of 11 millions of people and 9 millions of half-citizens half-undocumented families is the stake of the negotiation. The most shared view between politicians is that we should elaborate a plan whose actual specifications depend on the situation of economy and industry. At the same time, we have international agreements that push down customs bureaucracy and taxes. How could we envisage a system according to which the number and movements of living persons, that is people with affective and changeable motives etc., are decided on a theoretical basis? How could entrepreneurs invest and hire conveniently once that they are required to wait for the state to place some variable constraints?
Our political and economic liberal system is even too sturdily grounded on the outset that more individual freedom corresponds to more prosperity of the society as a whole. Isn’t there a contradiction with what we are deciding for immigrants?