Last week (April 15), Henry posted an interesting entry about the (ir)relevance of academic social science to policy. There is certainly a distance to traverse between the two, though I have recently been involved in a Brookings Institution working group crafting immigration policy alternatives for Congress and the new administration. (A book on immigration policymaking in Congress ‘won’ me this role). The group is comprised primarily of labor economists, sociologists, political scientists, and applied researchers in think-tanks, about 25 members total.
The political scientists involved are Noah Pickus (Duke Kenan Center) and Peter Skerry (Boston College), who are co-chairing the group; Christine Sierra (New Mexico); Bill Galston (Brookings); Francis Fukuyama (Johns Hopkins SAIS); and myself (Maryland). Other social scientists include labor economists Gary Burtless (Brookings) and Jennifer Hunt (McGill); and sociologists Ruth Milkman (UCLA), Christopher Jencks (Harvard), and Audrey Singer (Brookings).
We bring diverse views and scholarly approaches to a controversial area of law and policy. The discussions have been collegial, but also long and difficult. There have been times when I doubted that we were making any headway. Yet in spite of the enormity of the task of coming to consensus, after several monthly meetings, the group is converging on a set of policy proposals that we certainly hope will have relevance to the policy process.
Here is a sample of some of the topics that have been addressed:
1. Creation of a standing 9-member appointed commission to dictate immigration priorities and goals. This would be similar to the Base Closure Commission or the Federal Elections Commission.
2. The conditions and qualifications that should accompany the legalization of illegal immigrants. There is consensus that pre-conditions and penalties should come with the adjustment of status.
3. Impact aid should be directed toward states and localities facing the greatest immigration pressures.
4. Possibly offsetting the legalization of illegal immigrants with reductions in the number of legal immigrants admitted from specific origin countries.
5. Imposing a service requirement (broadly construed) as part of the pathway to legalization.
6. Greatly enhanced workplace enforcement and punishment for the hiring of illegal immigrants.
7. Making the use of work verification checks mandatory with E-verify.
8. The elimination of the diversity lottery for legal admissions.
9. The elimination of extended family categories of legal admission (adult siblings).
10. The move to a more labor-market oriented approach to legal immigrant admissions.
11. Foreign-policy relations with Mexico as a special case given the large number of immigrants it sends.
12. Border security and enforcement.
Having endured some contentious faculty meetings in my home department, I have been quite impressed by how a group so diverse in terms of social science training (to say nothing of life experience) has been able to work through these issues simply by virtue of their commitment to the mission of the group itself. The exceedingly patient moderation of the discussion by Professors Pickus and Skerry has been instrumental to keeping everyone on board. More work remains to be done to address important details. Unanimity may not be possible, but strong consensus does not appear beyond reach.
Once policy options emerge, there will be the added challenge of ‘selling’ the product to Congressional and Obama Administration policymakers. This will be a different kind of test for the group; not one of policy understanding, but of political strategy in a highly polarized environment. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has clumsily announced the most controversial of its immigration proposals: legalization; which reflexively triggered the opposition of Republicans and restrictionist groups. _Leading_ with the most polarizing of all policy proposals does not make the other side warm to the prospect of negotiation. At the end of the first 100-days, the journey to a legislative consensus is not off to an auspicious start.
Certainly all of the working-group’s members are well aware that the prospect for immigration reform is dim while the economy is under strain, but the Obama Administration is committed to taking up the issue sometime during these four years. Moreover, the history of immigration policymaking in Congress has shown that it commonly takes two or three Congresses to enact major legislation. Momentum is slow to build, so we need to get the ball rolling down hill.