Why immigration reform at all?

Wolcott has a good essay on the right's racist rabble-rousing on the issue, launching from David Neiwert's piece on the "creeping racism" propagated by the rightwing blogosphere (in a guest post at Firedoglake; Orcinus is Neiwert's own site). For a taste of rightwing fraidy-ness, see here (linked by Wolcott). We're going to war with Mexico's tired, poor, and huddled masses! The patriots who haven't seen fit to go to Iraq - the Minutemen - should be able to win this one: an M16 stacks up well against an old woman with a water bottle and a cloth filled with tamales.

[See, also, the good Minutemen; especially the mighty "Double Nickels on the Dime." And they originally called themselves "The Reactionaries"!].

The Washington Post has the news - as does everyone else - today about the "failed" immigration reforms attempting to slither their way through Congress. Here's today's editorial on how the Democrats are responsible for "the failure."

...Democrats -- whether their motive was partisan advantage or legitimate fear of a bad bill emerging from conference with the House -- are the ones who refused, in the end, to proceed with debate on amendments, which is, after all, how legislation gets made. The unfortunate result is that momentum toward balanced reform may be lost. "The Democratic leadership played politics with the prospect of 10 million immigrants getting on a path to citizenship," said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigration group. "It seems that Democratic leaders wanted an issue, not a bill."

Too bad, because, as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) described the measure, "compared with the status quo, it's nirvana."...

So, everyone's up in arms over the immigration issue. Typical election year politics for the right. When things aren't going well, play to the xenophobic side of the US and dress it in patriotic economic terms. Nothing new there. This has been the core of the modern Republican Party since Nixon's strategy of taking the Southern race vote (with apologies). Xenophobia also wears the robes of Christianity for added cloaking effect.

But why immigration reform at all? What's the problem with the non-nirvana status quo? The US economy doesn't suffer. The taking-away-American-jobs issue is a non-issue. Non-citizens can't vote. On the liberal side, undocumented immigrants do have some networks set up for healthcare, financial advice, and so on when they can't access the US' limited public services. And it is apparently still worth the plentiful risks to come to the US for jobs. Furthermore, I'm damn thankful for immigration - legal or illegal or whatever - for providing this country with the diversity that makes for what's best about the country. Yet further, as the Wege noted at some point, the first place we could start is by kicking out undocumented Irish from Boston and New York. But that's not the point, is it?

I'm a fan of the informal network when it comes to immigration. Informal networks run the underbelly of the planet (and the overbelly - look at Doha). Although the US likes to think it's exceptional, these networks exist throughout the world. They're part of the root of Europe's reactionary xenophobia as well. And the pressures of globalization make these networks ever more extensive and intensive.

The point is that the US feels the need to place new legal limits on immigration, but the supposed problem isn't a problem in the first place. This urge to place legal (and physical!) boundaries around such issues is the United States' own version of reactionary nativism in response to one of the elements of globalization for which it is itself largely responsible. We ought to see it for what it is, no?

UPDATE:

Barba, comrade, said in the comments:

Good question, Helmut. I'm interested in immigration reform for a couple of reasons. First, I support the Molly Ivins approach (itself a component--tho a bit watered down--of the Bush proposal) because just talking about it would force that corporate sector hiring illegals to shit or get off the pot. Presently, they quietly lobby their GOP buddies, who are largely to blame for fanning the flames of xenophobia. Should we force major employers to explain just why they're hiring undocumented workers, we might begin to be able to have an actual conversation about what perceived harm those folks are doing us. Admittedly, that's not an argument for actual reform so much as an argument for a more credible threat of reform.

Secondly, I don't know how clear it looks to you folks up there, but we've got a huge and hugely expensive--and growing rapidly--border security network down here. While I have my problems with the US Border Patrol, at least it's a government agency (that they think they're above the law is only an occasional problem on my drive home from work). But--this will sound shrill and exaggerated, I realize--private prison operators are already making millions of dollars a day. A day. Holding undocumented migrants. There are over 500 here in Encinal, at a cost of about $65.00 per detainee, per day. I want to believe any serious reform effort looks at those costs--don't count on any congressional ability to see this as an issue of freedom, of course--and asks if we're not handling this foolishly.

But then, having typed all this, I think maybe you're still right. We don't need actual reform. We just need to talk about it sensibly and seriously.

Which will never happen.