What are the disadvantages and problems to the U.S. of having millions or tens of millions of illegal immigrants?

AP: The fact that we have close to 12 million individuals living undocumented in the United States reflects poorly on the ideals of fairness, equality and opportunity that America represents. It erodes the American dream. The continued oppression of undocumented individuals creates a two-tiered society that is unsafe for these individuals and feeds fear.

Are there any advantages and benefits?

AP: There is no advantage to keeping 12 million people undocumented and in the shadows. Our nation benefits greatly from the presence of immigrants, both documented and undocumented. Immigrants have a particularly robust impact on the economy because they tend to be of prime working age and work in a diversity of areas.

Specifically in metropolitan areas, where immigrants tend to be concentrated, economic growth and immigrants go hand-in-hand. During a study of 25 metropolitan areas, the Fiscal Policy Center found that from 1990 to 2006, Phoenix, Dallas and Houston experienced both the fastest growth in immigrants in the labor force and economic growth that was well above average.

In addition to economic impact, immigrants add to the rich diversity and history that defines the United States. Each group brings with it unique culture and traditions that make our communities richer. The U.S. government, and we as Americans, should encourage this inclusivity and integration.

What do you think of the idea of a blanket amnesty and citizenship for many illegals, such as those who have been in the U.S. 10 years and have no arrest record?

AP: First, I do not like the term "illegals." It is degrading and disregards our most basic notions of human dignity. Immigrants are people first and are not defined by their immigration status. A person cannot "be" illegal; he or she can only behave illegally.

It is also important to note that none of the proposals or frameworks for comprehensive immigration reform that have been introduced call for a blanket amnesty. This is a common misperception.

CLINIC does not support a blanket amnesty, but rather an earned path to citizenship ... a way for the undocumented to have the chance, over time, to achieve permanent residence and citizenship. In addition, the U.S. is in need of immigration reform that strengthens family-based immigration in order to preserve family unity and creates legal avenues for migration, so that migrant workers, who labor in many important industries in our nation, are able to enter the country legally and in a safe and orderly fashion.

Reform would also restore due process protections stripped from immigrants by legislation from the 1990s and address the root causes of migration, so that immigrants and their families ultimately can remain in their home countries and support their families in dignity. The current immigration system does not offer enough opportunities to achieve legal status and imposes overly harsh consequences for those who enter unlawfully.

With conveniently situated El Paso becoming the home of a very large Army base, what do you think of the idea of using as many soldiers as it takes, or other military techniques, to extensively patrol the border with Mexico to stop people coming in?

AP: It's important to stop thinking of the border as a barrier, and think of it as more of a gateway through which a considerable amount of legitimate business and travel moves. People cross the border for any number of reasons, including to escape persecution, to seek employment and to be with family. The safety concerns along the border relate to trafficking, drugs and other serious crimes. That is where our enforcement efforts should be focused.

Arizona's law passed earlier this year to identify and remove illegal immigrants became controversial, mostly because it requires immigrants to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil, and gives police broad powers to detain suspected illegals. Your thoughts on these provisions ... which have been temporarily blocked by a federal judge ... and any other aspects of Arizona's law?

AP: The anti-immigrant law passed earlier this year in Arizona demonstrates the need for reforms to current immigration law and policy by the federal government. Both sides recognize the need to fix the broken system, but the answer is not to develop 50 different sets of laws. To do so would be confusing and damaging.

The Arizona law makes it impossible for immigrants to work, to secure housing, to access health care, to get drivers' licenses, to open bank accounts, and otherwise to do what they need to do to live. These measures will not force immigrants to leave the country. They will, however, lead to the creation of a large class of second-class noncitizens without rights, security or the means to care for their families.

Six other states so far have introduced similar bills and at least 20 others have indicated an intent to do so in the next legislative session. This trend will continue until federal comprehensive immigration reform is accomplished.

In Collier County at the southern tip of Florida, thousands of miles away from the land border, one third of the residents of the county jail nonetheless are illegal immigrants. Your thoughts on the implications, if any, of this?

AP: Undocumented immigrants are not found only at land borders. When they are detained, they are often moved all across the country to detention facilities in rural areas ... away from their families and legal counsel. This adversely impacts their ability to be represented in their proceedings and thus affects the outcome. Studies have shown that a person's chances of a favorable outcome are up to 40 percent higher with legal representation.

As an aside, recent research has shown that immigrant communities do not increase the crime rate and that immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born Americans. While the undocumented immigrant population doubled from 1994 to 2005, violent crime dropped by 34 percent and property crimes decreased by 32 percent.

It must also be noted that being in the United States in violation of immigration laws is not a crime. It is a civil violation and immigrants have a right to go through a process to determine whether they may lawfully remain here. Yet the U.S. government detains immigrants in penal-style correctional facilities.

Vulnerable groups ... especially asylum seekers, families, children and people with mental disabilities ... should not be detained. Detaining torture survivors and victims of human trafficking further aggravates their isolation, depression and other mental health problems associated with the trauma they have survived. Detention may be justified only when a detainee poses a threat to the community or when other less restrictive solutions are not an option.

Many U.S. citizens also know decent, hard-working illegal immigrants who may have made harrowing, dangerous trips into this country to pursue an American Dream impossible for them in their homeland ... just as many of our forebears did in previous centuries. What should happen to these people? They are now in an underground economy ... is it better to just turn a blind eye and leave them alone?

AP: Nobody at this point believes that it would be feasible to remove every undocumented person from the United States. However, the fact that there are currently 12 million individuals without legal status in this country is because we "turned a blind eye." As a nation, we welcome the work ethic of immigrants but have failed to update our immigration policy to reflect the need.

Our forebears came here at a different time ... when different immigration laws were in place and people were allowed to enter the U.S. specifically to seek work. This is no longer the case. No opportunity currently exists to come to the U.S. without first having a job or a family member to support you. The lack of a way to "do it right" and "get in line" is the reason the U.S. has this underground economy. This is why we call the system "broken."

Experience teaches us that an "enforcement only" approach will not work. We have tried it. Between 1993 and 2006, funding for Border Patrol more than quadrupled, from $362 million to $1.8 billion. During that period, the undocumented population did not decrease. In fact, it at least tripled. We need comprehensive reform that will allow immigrants to live securely, to support their families and to practice their faith.

Please tell us about the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. ... what its goals are, what it's accomplished, etc.

AP: The Catholic Legal Immigration Network is a national advocacy organization for nonprofit immigration programs. It supports close to 200 charitable immigration programs. Our goal is to expand the availability of affordable immigration legal services to low-income and vulnerable immigrants and to advocate for fair and humane immigration policy.

Since its establishment in 1988, CLINIC's network has grown to include Catholic and nonCatholic nonprofit immigration legal service offices, which have served over 600,000 individuals. We have trained over 15,000 legal practitioners through more than 50 trainings each year.

Over our 20 years, we have also created special projects that address unique needs of vulnerable populations or address trends in immigration policy. For instance, there has been an increase in states and localities developing their own immigration-related measures. CLINIC has developed a project to assist local advocates with legal analysis of proposed laws. CLINIC has also recently initiated a program that matches unaccompanied minors with free legal counsel in target cities across the U.S. To complement the National Pro Bono Project for Children, we are also providing custodians of these kids with information about their legal options and responsibilities.

As an attorney, have you handled cases involving immigration issues and if so, which one stands out most in your mind?

AP: One of my first clients was a Chinese woman in her 20s who was forcibly taken from her home and unwillingly subjected to the abortion of her second child by the authorities. Immediately afterward, facing the threat of forced sterilization, her family helped her to flee. She left her husband and 18-month-old daughter behind to travel to the United States, where she entered without a visa or other papers and requested asylum.

She was taken to a detention center directly from the airport. She was imprisoned with criminals in the county jails where the immigration service rents bed space, not knowing how long she would remain there. She could not understand how the Americans around her who had committed crimes were given an end date for their period of detention, but she who was only awaiting an assessment of her asylum claim was not. It was 18 months before she was finally released on parole and another six months before her asylum request was finally granted by an immigration judge.

The U.S. is hardly the only nation grappling with these questions. Even countries in Europe, which once thought themselves "above" such concerns, now are hard hit. Do you know of any nation that has been successful in dealing with the problems we're discussing here?

AP: It would all depend on your definition of success. As you correctly mentioned, Europe is experiencing its own struggles with immigrants. However, I cannot answer this question because I am not an expert in other countries' immigration laws.

There are many other proposals to deal with the issue of immigration reform. Are there any you find particularly praiseworthy or deplorable?

AP: Immigration reform based on enforcement alone would be deplorable. As I have described, detention and removal of all undocumented immigrants is not a viable solution. Enforcement of immigration laws should be left to the federal government, and not untrained local law officers. In addition, enforcement measures must be accountable to the communities in which they are conducted.

Communities should dedicate themselves to immigrant integration. As many resources as possible should be allocated to promoting English-language acquisition, literacy, and access to programs and services. Applying for citizenship opens doors to apply for better educational and employment opportunities, vote, travel and unify more easily with family.

Individuals who naturalize have stronger attachments to the United States, demonstrated by engaging in political elections and seeking positions in the government. Immigrant integration requires the cooperation and efforts of both the receiving and the immigrant communities in order to create a new group which meets the needs and wishes of all community members. It should be prioritized as a national objective.

Is there anything else you wish to say on this issue? Are there any changes you would like to see that haven't been touched on above?

AP: Ideally, the most vulnerable of immigrants, especially children and those with mental disabilities, would be provided with counsel in their immigration proceedings to ensure the fundamental fairness throughout the very complicated process. Every individual has a right to be represented by an attorney.

Strengthening the family-based migration system is also a key component in ending illegal immigration and ensuring that a broad and diverse pool of individuals comes to the United States. Sufficient visas must be allocated to unite family members within a reasonable period of time.

(Ms. Posner is a graduate of the College of the Holy Cross and American University Washington College of Law. Prior to joining CLINIC in 2004, she worked as an associate with the general practice firm of Geary & Associates in Massachusetts and in the immigration practice law office of Paul Zoltan in Dallas.)

Posted Dec. 10, 2010