SysOp's Arsenal/SysOp's Arsenal 1 (Arsenal Computer).ISO/govwatch/immigr.txt

Text File | 1994-10-25 | 13.0 KB | 220 lines

October 19, 1994


            A Statement on Immigration
             William J. Bennett and Jack Kemp

Immigration has become one of the most controversial issues in contemporary
American politics.  We are increasingly concerned about the direction the
immigration debate has taken, the intensity of anti-immigration sentiments,
and some of the public policy "solutions" that are now being proposed.  We
urge Republicans not to support an anti-immigration movement which we
consider, in the long run, to be politically unwise and fundamentally at odds
with the best tradition and spirit of our party.  And we believe that
Republicans should oppose some of the policies being proposed to deal with
illegal immigration -- including California's Proposition 187, the so-called
"Save Our State" initiative.

We want to be clear and emphatic on this point:  we are not in favor of illegal
immigrants receiving state or federal welfare benefits.  But it is important to
point out that under current law, illegal immigrants are not eligible to receive
welfare benefits.  The attempt by some to portray the Proposition 187 debate
as a choice between those who oppose versus those who support welfare
payments to illegal immigrants is demonstrably false.  The fact is, one can
oppose Proposition 187 and at the same time oppose granting welfare benefits
to illegal immigrants and advocate tough, intelligent reforms which will help
curb illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration -- the focus of so much of the public's anger -- is a serious
problem.  Frustration and concern are warranted.  And every sovereign nation
has the right and the duty to control its borders.  We oppose illegal
immigration, and believe much more needs to be done to curb it.  Among
other things, we need to do a much better job enforcing laws that are currently
on the books.  There are, in fact, other concrete, targeted, effective steps
which we should take to help stem the flow of illegal immigrants to this
nation (some of which are briefly outlined in this statement).

At the same time, concerns about illegal immigration should not give rise to a
series of fundamentally flawed, constitutionally questionable "solutions"
which are not consonant with our history; which would prove ineffectual; and
which would help contribute to a nativist, anti-immigrant climate.  We are
concerned, too, that the line which should separate our attitude toward illegal
and legal immigrants is being blurred; that the legitimate concerns about
illegal immigrants are broadening into an ugly antipathy toward all
immigrants.

It seems to us that some of the most vocal and prominent voices in the anti-
immigration movement fail to recognize the valuable contribution immigrants
continue to make to this nation; unfairly blame immigrants for being the
source of America's social and moral decline; and mistakenly assume that
immigrants are a net economic liability.

The facts belie these claims.  America's immigrants are, in fact, a net positive
gain economically; tend to live in strong, stable families; possess impressive
energy and entrepreneurial spirit; and make important intellectual
contributions to the nation.  Most come to America in large part because they
believe in traditional American ideals.  Their achievements and contributions
are worth celebrating, not demeaning or denying.

A number of the proponents for restricting immigration (legal and illegal) are
articulate and able advocates; we simply have differences of opinion with
them on this issue.  Most of the proponents of Proposition 187 are motivated
by a legitimate desire to reduce illegal immigration.  Unfortunately, some are
employing anti-immigration rhetoric in the belief that it will bring political
advantage.  For some, immigrants have become a popular political and social
scapegoat.  We believe that it is time for reason, facts, and considered
judgment to become the hallmarks of this critical political discussion.


Immigration and the Republican Party

We realize that our views on immigration run counter to strong and deep
political currents -- even within the Republican party.  Public opinion polls
indicate that fear of immigration is rising.  A Newsweek magazine poll found
that 60 percent of the public considered immigration to be a "bad thing" for
the country.  And in political races around the nation, anti-immigrant
campaign rhetoric is perceived to bring an advantage.  To which we would
respond:  this is all the more reason to argue our case.  It is worth keeping in
mind that political pendulums do swing; flawed proposals which are
momentarily popular will often lose their appeal over time and when put
under scrutiny (the Clinton health care proposal is an example).  In any event,
we are willing to concede that tossing logs onto the anti-immigration fire
might result in a short-term political gain.  But we believe that in the medium
and long-term, this posture is a loser for the GOP.  Here are some reasons
why:

*    The vast majority of immigrants hold principles which the Republican
party warmly embraces:  an entrepreneurial spirit and self-reliance,
hostility to government intervention, strong family values, and deeply-
rooted religious faith.  The anti-immigration boomerang, if it is unleashed,
will come back to hurt the GOP.  It is useful to check the historical record
in this regard.  The Republican party helped to create a Democratic base
in many of America's cities with its hostile stand toward the last
generation of immigrants from Italy, Ireland, and the nations of Central
Europe.  Can anyone calculate the political cost of again turning away
immigrants, this time turning away Asians, Hispanics, and others?

*    The population of Asians and Hispanics is expected to grow in the nation
overall, and is projected to make up about half of California's population
within a decade (this demographic change will occur with or without
immigration).  Immigrants are a welcome fact of life.  The Republican
party should welcome them.

*    Political parties are identified not simply by the policies they propose, but
by the spirit which they embody.  Ronald Reagan won 93 states in two
elections.  Under his leadership, the Republican party became the party of
optimism, confidence and opportunity.  It was a broad, embracing vision.
But there is now a growing strain in the GOP -- and within the
conservative movement -- which is pessimistic, angry and opposed.  This
attitude manifests itself in the immigration debate.  If some of the anti-
immigration proponents have their way, Ronald Reagan's shining "city on
a hill" will be replaced by an isolated fortress with a moat -- drawbridge
up.

*    The most ardent opponents of immigration are among the core
constituencies of the Democratic party.  The Republican party should
offer a clear, sharp contrast with that unprincipled political posture.  It is
rare when a political party is afforded this kind of opportunity to expand
its base.  Our hope is that Republicans will take advantage of it.  As Ron
K. Unz writes in the current issue of Policy Review, "if used properly,
immigration could serve as the issue that breaks the Democratic Party and
forges a new and dominant conservative/Republican governing coalition."

*    One of the chief problems in contemporary politics is the tendency to
overpromise.  There are no magic bullets when it comes to reversing
cultural decline, and when politicians cannot possibly deliver on what
they say, the public inevitably grows more cynical.  Immigrants are
becoming a kind of all-purpose punching bag, and if some of the anti-
immigration measures now being considered do pass, the problems which
they are supposed to ameliorate will still be with us.  And there will be a
political price to pay.


California's Proposition 187

The leading edge of the immigration debate can be found in California, where
on November 8th voters will consider Proposition 187 -- the so-called "Save
Our State" initiative.  Right now, Proposition 187 has strong support among
the public, and it is not difficult to understand why.  At a cursory glance, this
initiative seems to be reasonable.  Proposition 187 purports to cut off a host of
social services to illegal immigrants.  The image of thousands of
undocumented immigrant families living off the taxpayer-funded government
dole has provided potent political ammunition.  When combined with the fact
that the federal government has clearly failed in its duty to control the borders
and deport illegal immigrants, the appeal becomes even stronger.  Indeed, one
of us [William J. Bennett] initially voiced support for Proposition 187 when
he was asked about it.

The problem is with the fine print.  Some of the concerns that Proposition 187
addresses are valid.  But the promises turn out to be illusory, and some of the
means to achieve the stated ends are pernicious.  Proposition 187 is bad
policy for a number of reasons, not least because it will not decrease illegal
immigration and it will distract Washington from enacting necessary,
fundamental reform.

To reiterate a point we alluded to above:  there is a myth that is driving much
of the support for Proposition 187.  The myth is this:  illegal immigrants are
allowed, by law, to receive welfare benefits.  In fact, under current law, illegal
immigrants are already ineligible for publicly-funded welfare assistance or
food stamps.  They can already be criminally prosecuted for producing or
obtaining fraudulent work permits.

All of which raises the question:  what are the benefits Proposition 187 will
deny?  The main target is public education.  The initiative would bar children
of illegal immigrants from public elementary and secondary schools.  And
U.S. born children of illegal immigrants -- and therefore U.S. citizens --
could, in effect, be required to inform on their parents, who would then face
deportation.  This is not a road we should head down.

But Proposition 187 does more than just close school doors to illegal
immigrant children.

*    It imposes vast new enforcement burdens on private individuals who will
be forced to act as quasi border guards and immigration officials.  Nurses
would be required to verify the immigration status of patients seeking
medical care.  Teachers and school officials would have to report any
student who "appears" to be an illegal alien to federal authorities.  They
would be forced to investigate and certify the citizenship of new students,
current students, and their parents as well.

    Charging teachers and nurses with the duty of reporting people they
suspect to be illegal immigrants is profoundly anti-conservative; it relies
on a highly intrusive, Big Brother approach.  It is also a mandate for
ethnic discrimination.  Does anyone seriously doubt that Latino children
named Rodriguez would be more likely to "appear" to be illegal than
Anglo children named, say, Jones?

*    Much is made about the importance of identifying illegal immigrants;
hence the attempt to turn educators and nurses into de facto INS agents.
But the INS already has many more leads on illegal immigrants than it can
now handle.  The INS is not suffering from a lack of information; it is
suffering from poor leadership, inherent structural flaws, and insufficient
resources concentrated on the border.  The INS does not have the
resources to investigate and deport the people it already knows about; it is
folly to assume they will be able to act on leads generated by educators
and hospital administrators.

*    Proposition 187 will be immediately enjoined by the courts.  Both sides
concede that it is unconstitutional (in 1982 the Supreme Court ruled that
states cannot bar children, including children of illegal immigrants, from
public schools).  Proponents of Proposition 187 want to force a legal
challenge.  It will be several years before the Supreme Court hears the
case, and it is not likely to pass constitutional muster.  In the meantime,
there will be no effective control on illegal immigration.

*    Proposition 187 will be expensive for the state of California.  First, the
education and medical care systems will have tremendous new regulatory
burdens.  They will need to fill out new forms, send people to new
training sessions, and hire lawyers to be available to answer tricky
questions about documents.  Second, the state will spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars in legal bills bringing the case to the Supreme Court.
And third, the state will undoubtedly be sued by immigrants who are
wrongly denied schooling or medical care.


National I.D. Card & Computer Registry

Two other ideas gaining popularity in the immigration debate are the national
identification or worker verification card proposed by the House Republican
Immigration Task Force and the "computer registry system" proposed by the
U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform.  Ironically, at a time whe