The Immigration Debate: Lessons for Social Workers

For the past several years, considerable public attention has been paid to what has now commonly been referred to as the immigration debate. The immigration debate can be conceptualized as a social dialogue regarding the legal status of undocumented people living in the United States, and what "should" be done about future undocumented immigrants. The total number of undocumented people is unknown, although an estimated 12 million undocumented people are currently living and working in this country (Pew Hispanic Center [PHC], 2006). Undocumented residents come from dozens of countries, yet primarily from Latin America, in particular Mexico and Central America. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2005) noted that 92 percent of the 1.2 million foreign nationals apprehended by immigration officials were from Mexico. Whether this number represents an actual proportion of the number of undocumented citizens, or whether Mexican nationals are more likely "profiled," is unclear. We have observed that there is paucity of discussions in the social work literature regarding the needs and concerns of undocumented residents. Perhaps reflecting the ambivalence of society in general, social work has not been as involved, as it has been historically, in debates that affect undocumented people. This may, in part, be a result of the unresolved conflict social workers face between the increasing legal sanctions against providing services to undocumented people and the social justice values of the profession. The purpose of this article is to briefly present key lessons for social workers that have been brought to the forefront by this debate. Although the social discourse regarding the immigration debate may be complex, controversial, and challenging, active engagement in this discourse may provide social workers an opportunity for careful reexamination of our professional values, mission, and aims. THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE Clarifying Our Values The recent immigration debates have challenged social workers to explore their own sense of values about the clients that we serve. Over the past several decades, social workers have been moving toward an increased alignment with the medical model and its focus on pathology and disease. Consequently, empowerment and advocacy have become less prominent in social work discourse. This is evidenced by the decline in the number of social work programs offering macro practice sequence in schools of social work, as well as the paucity of social work jobs in advocacy. The immigration debate can help social workers to recommit to the protection and care of those who are vulnerable and in need of support. For instance, Furman and his colleagues (2007) found that social workers confront many ethical dilemmas in the face of legislation that limits the manner in which social workers can provide services to undocumented Latino immigrants. These ethical dilemmas included having to choose between professional ethics and legal mandates, protection of the disadvantaged and oppressed populations and protection of the agency, protection of vulnerable populations and devotion to veracity, among others. Reassessing Our Mission and Our History The early roots of the social work profession can be found in the stories of social workers who advocated for the rights of the most disenfranchised people in society. Early social workers fought alongside other social reformers to protect children and other workers from difficult and dangerous work and life conditions. Today, the mission of social work has shifted more toward the amelioration of psychosocial ailments versus social change, human rights, and justice. Social work's focus on clinical-oriented services as opposed to advocacy is evidenced by the fact that a majority of social workers today provide psychotherapy or are employed in other types of clinical or individually oriented services. The immigration debate focuses on a group of people who often experience difficult work and life conditions, not because of personal deficiencies, but because of structural forces that demand cheap labor and simultaneously restrict legal means for citizenship (Organista, 2007). …