Solving the Immigration Problem

Back to the Immigration Page

Jon E. Dougherty, NewsMax.com
Thursday, May 20, 2004

Besides identifying the historical causes of mass immigration to the U.S., as well as the problems it has created domestically, immigration reformists say there is a number of steps Congress -- in conjunction with state and federal authorities -- could and should do to finally address.

But current policy initiatives, such as President Bush's "guest worker" plan, do nothing to stem the flow of immigration, legal or otherwise, they argue. Rather, such policies only serve to worsen the problem while undermining any efforts to control America's porous southwestern border.

It didn't start with President Bush, however.

NAFTA a Contributor

Some reformers and political analysts believe the immigration problem worsened after Congress and the Clinton administration approved the North American Free Trade Agreement, more commonly known by its initials: NAFTA.

Under terms of the agreement, which was made between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, barriers to free-flow of trade in goods and services vanished. So too did years of rules and regulations which helped protect American consumers.

As highlighted by columnist, author and former GOP presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, NAFTA has contributed to the food poisoning (and deaths) of American consumers, facilitated an increase in drug trafficking, and led to the reintroduction of diseases like tuberculosis that had long been eradicated.

Solving the Problem

But what to do about the problems? For one, say reformers, get the locals involved.

David Ray, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), says the biggest impediment to solving the problem is "the indisputable absence of all interior immigration [law] enforcement." By that he means once most illegal immigrants manage to get over the border and into the U.S., they're home free.

In order to address the many aspects the problem that is mass immigration, Ray and other experts have identified a series of steps:

Narrow immigration to largely include only foreigners with marketable skills in the U.S., which would make immigrants less likely to remain poor and dependent on public assistance;

Implement verifiable documents that employers can use to ensure they are not hiring illegal immigrants or immigrants who don't have the right to work in the U.S.;

Implement laws so that employers who hire illegals run the risk of losing their businesses because of the government-imposed sanctions;

Place U.S. troops on the border with Mexico, to assist Border Patrol agents and other Immigration officials with closing off wide swaths of border;

Employ the latest technology in addition to troops and border agents, including motion sensors and detectors, satellite surveillance, and infrared technology, to track and intercept illegal border crossers;

Close legal loopholes that allow illegal aliens to gain footholds in the U.S., such as access to driver's licenses, matricular consular cards, and the establishment of bank accounts;

Make defense of the border "in depth," were it is nearly impossible to gain illegal access, then nearly impossible to get employment;

Enlist state and local police officers, during the normal course of their duties, to ascertain if persons are in the U.S. legally and, if not, detain them and call federal immigration officials to come and retrieve them;

The U.S. should get serious about incarcerating repeat offenders who are caught crossing into the country illegally?to encourage compliance with American immigration laws;

Deport illegal immigrants currently in the country, and provide them with instructions on how to gain access to the U.S. legally;

Begin to hold U.S. elected officials accountable for their mass immigration stances and policies by removing them from office;

Implore Mexican officials to develop the tools and policies to bolster infrastructure, education and opportunities in Mexico, so many of its citizens don't feel compelled to travel to the U.S. to earn a living;

Hold Mexican authorities who cross into the U.S. responsible for violating internationally recognized borders;

"The federal government is incapable of enforcing immigration laws by itself," said Ray. Washington needs help from the rest of the country. "There are only 2,000 federal agents to cover the entire U.S.; most states aren't enlisting local police to help" in the effort.

He said illegals know that once they get past the border, they are "home free," Ray said. "Through our lax immigration laws, we have invited anarchy into the United States."

Said President Ronald Reagan?though he also signed a landmark illegal immigrant amnesty while in office -- "The simple truth is that we've lost control of our own borders, and no nation can do that and survive."

Whether the 9/11 attacks, the cost of providing for so many immigrants, the loss of the American standard of living, or a total of these problems apply, mass immigration is a problem Washington has not dealt affectively with for decades, most likely because many see it as a boon to their careers, either through votes or campaign contributions from employers who hire cheaper immigrants.

In the long run, analysts believe, this lack of political resolve to protect the nation's borders will only worsen the country's political, social, economic and cultural divides.

1970s Law Laid Groundwork for out-of-Control Immigrations

Jon E. Dougherty, NewsMax.com
Monday, May 17, 2004

"Illegal immigration is out of control."

That phrase was uttered by Leonard Chapman, commissioner of the old Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS], at a time when apprehension of illegal aliens by the U.S. Border Patrol had more than doubled, to 766,000 arrests.

The year was 1965 – a decade after Congress eliminated the "national origins" quota system with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act [INA], and a decade after the measure's chief Senate sponsor, Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said, "Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually; under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same."

Kennedy's claim was either incredibly naïve or overly optimistic; according to the U.S. Census Bureau, immigration ? legal and illegal ? between 2000 and 2003 amounted to 2.3 million people.

The Kennedy-inspired initiative not only set the stage for a massive influx into the United States of immigrants, it also has changed the balance of power.

Decades afterward, millions of immigrants – legal and illegal – continue to flood the U.S.

The immigrant overload has been a boon to the Democratic Party – which is set to have an electoral lock on the White House if demographic trends continue.

What was it about the 1965 INA that has led to mass immigration nearly 40 years after its passage?

There are several reasons, say immigration reform experts, and most all of them can be blamed on federal government rule-making.

For one, says the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank advocating immigration caps, the law created "a seven-category preference system for relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens and for persons with special occupational skills needed in the U.S." It also established "a category of immigrants not subject to numerical restrictions: immediate relatives (parents, spouses, children) of U.S. citizens."

The law also limited Eastern Hemisphere immigration – China, the Middle East, Africa primarily – to 170,000 a year, while limiting Western Hemisphere immigration – Canada, Mexico, Latin America – to 120,000. But, CIS noted, "neither the preference categories nor per-country limit were applied to the Western Hemisphere."

There is another aspect as well. The law was passed in the midst of a civil rights struggle, "when an admission system based on national origins seemed out of step with national values," the think tank said.

Still, the core portion of the law that ultimately led to more immigration from Mexico and its southern neighbors had to do with changes in previous limitations on "core" family members. Says a CIS analysis: "The change to family reunification shifted the source of the immigration flow away from the developed, western countries toward the closer and more overpopulated developing countries."

The Future and Beyond

The INA did not remedy any immigration problems the U.S. was experiencing. In fact, it only made matters worse. Into the 1970s and 1980s, immigration – especially from regional Third World countries (which were largely Hispanic) – grew. The decade between 1980 and 1990 was the nation's second-highest in terms of immigration; some 8 million people came to America, mostly from Latin America and Asia.

"I guess if you traced the immigration debacle, you'd have to go back to the Carter administration, and the Reagan administration as well," Steven Camarota, a lead researcher for CIS, tells NewsMax.com. He adds that the immigration problem has only worsened since.

The Reagan administration led the next big change in immigration policy ? one reformists believe was an even bigger mistake than the policy changes of the 1960s.

In 1986, Congress passed and Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act. One tough measure made it a crime for any employer to knowingly hire an illegal alien. But the law also granted an amnesty to all illegal aliens currently in the country, and it created a new classification of "seasonal agricultural worker."

Rather than solve the problem of immigration, the law only increased it. Formerly illegal workers who had been given amnesty and could now remain in the U.S. left the low-paying jobs they had previously filled. That left many unfilled positions, which meant a new crop of immigrants were needed to fill them again.

In short, the 1986 amnesty established a vicious circle of immigration.

Historical Failure

U.S. policies dealing with mass immigration have historically resulted in failure, which is why the problem continues to expand.

David Ray, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), says that despite some politicians' best intentions, most immigration policies for decades were born to fail.

"If you start with the 'Immigration Reform and Control Act' of 1986, it was a bitter pill to swallow for those of us who believe in enforcing our immigration laws," he said. "The only way we were able to get laws on the books that fine employers for hiring illegal aliens – which was a first in American history – was to accept a compromise to grant amnesty for up to three million illegal aliens who were currently in the country."

That set a precedent for others, Ray said, that translated into this axiom: "If you sneak into the country, and if you're patient enough, eventually the government will cave in and give you [citizenship]."

After signing the 1986 amnesty law, President Ronald Reagan would declare: "This country has lost control of its borders. No country can do that and survive."

The immigration crisis didn't start with Reagan, and there were others who saw the problems mass immigration could – and would – create decades before today's reformists went to work trying to solve the problem.

Get Jon Dougherty?s new book, "Illegals," and check out our FREE offer – Click Here.

Profit Motive Changed Immigration

Jon E. Dougherty, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, May 18, 2004

"America must not be overwhelmed. Every effort to enact immigration legislation must expect to meet a number of hostile forces and, in particular, two hostile forces of considerable strength," Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor [the "AFL" in AFL-CIO], said in a March 19, 1924 letter to Congress.

"One of these is composed of corporation employers who desire to employ physical strength (broad backs) at the lowest possible wage and who prefer a rapidly revolving labor supply at low wages to a regular supply of American wage earners at fair wages. The other is composed of racial groups in the United States who oppose all restrictive legislation because they want the doors left open for an influx of their countrymen regardless of the menace to the people of their adopted country," Gompers wrote.

Eighty years later, many immigration reformists believe Gompers' words were prophetic, as the U.S. faces a continuous influx of immigrants --mostly Mexican-born Hispanics who have come by the millions -- much as the country faced a similar influx of European immigrants during Gompers' time.

Gompers, who himself emigrated to the U.S. in 1863 from England, understood the cause and effects of mass immigration probably better than anyone else during his time. Yet for all his prophecy, his warnings have gone largely unheeded until today, when America is overrun with an estimated 13 million illegal immigrants.

Worse, more are on the way.

As Gompers anticipated, many come to America to find work. And, as the English labor leader predicted, their effect has been to entice corporations to hire them "at the lowest possible wage" because they "prefer a rapidly revolving labor supply at low wages to a regular supply of American wage earners at fair wages."

Demographics

According to a Census Bureau report released March 18, the nation's non-Hispanic white population will decrease from 69 percent in 2000 to just over 50 percent in 2050. Also, the population will age; 20 percent of Americans by 2050 will be 65 or older. As that happens, the working age population will have to rise in order to pay for Social Security, Medicare and other benefits for seniors.

Hispanic immigrants can help fill that gap, say analysts.

"The profound demographic shifts promise to redefine American society at every level ? from the ethnic makeup of suburban neighborhoods to public education, elderly care and voting patterns," said an analysis by USA Today.

By 2050, Hispanics in the U.S. will swell to 103 million?nearly double today's figures -- to 24 percent of the population. Hispanics surpassed blacks as the country's largest minority group in 2002, with 38.8 million.

But other analysts see problems with so much population growth. Demographically, it could place major strains on the national infrastructure.

"America is in the midst of unprecedented population growth with major demographic consequences, and the most shocking aspect is that this is happening without public discussion or the approval of the American people," says Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

"The government and the media seem to accept massive population growth as an inevitability that we are powerless to control. It is not inevitable; it is a choice that we are making through our immigration policies," Stein says. "Even worse, both political parties are committed to increasing population growth through higher levels of immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens.

"Massive population growth is not the future most Americans want for themselves and their children," Stein continued. "But it is the future that will be forced upon them by unwanted mass immigration that benefits a small number of special interests and politicians who cannot see beyond the next election."

Ethnic Groups

Most immigrants are coming from Latin American/Hispanic nations, say demographers.

According to William H. Frey, a University of Michigan demographer and scholar with the Brookings Institute, in the South blacks are the dominant minority group. But in the West, Hispanics dominate.

But overall, says the Newhouse News Service, in a July 30, 2003 interview with Frey, "Americans in ever-larger numbers are leaving most of the states that are premier destinations for immigrants and moving to Southeastern and Western states that are home to most of the white population growth in the nation."

"The pattern gathered substantial force in the 1990s and offers a revealing look at how the interplay of another decade of record immigration and the growing lure of a baker's dozen of fast-growing states with suburban appeal are transforming the nation's demographic landscape," Newhouse News Service's Jonathan Tilove wrote.

Profit Motives

"The influence of money and profit" in the corporate world "has influenced a lot" of the immigration influx, Craig Nelson, head of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, told NewsMax. Also, he said, reflecting on Gompers' words, ethnic groups within the U.S. continually push for more of their group to be allowed to come into the country.

"What was true in 1924 is true today," Nelson said. "Gompers was prophetic."

He said the proposal by the Bush administration -- to grant legal status to illegal aliens who find jobs in the U.S. -- was indicative of how the White House views immigration in general.

"We keep hearing [the proposal] was an outreach to Hispanics, which I find racist in and of itself," Nelson said, "but if that were true?and the plan was really just to go after Hispanics -- the administration would have announced the plan in September," just weeks away from the fall elections and in time for maximum effect at the polls.

"But January is the time [the Bush campaign] is raising money. So we think it's pretty obvious [the announcement] was made to secure campaign contributions, or bribes, or whatever you want to call them," says Nelson.

Nelson and other border experts also argue that a number of loopholes, coupled with political pressure and pressure from industry, business and ethnic groups, has made enforcement of current immigration laws a joke.

"The coalition to sort of weaken immigration laws and keep immigration high enjoys very little public support, but from an elite perspective, it enjoys a lot of support -- on the left and right," he said.

Still, argue immigration reformists, the nation's lax immigration laws and policies will most likely benefit Democrats in the long run.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Immigration/Borders

Mass Migration Favors Democrats

Jon E. Dougherty, Newsmax.com
Wednesday, May 19, 2004

Immigrants have become a huge political tool used by politicians in Washington as benefactors for new voting rolls, as well as big corporate donors. But despite the leaders of both major political parties looking the other way as the immigration problem worsens, mass migration will likely hurt the Republican Party in the long run, say experts.

"Immigrant groups, like Hispanics, are seeing their political clout grow as members of their ethnic group grow in the country," David Ray, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), told Newsmax.

"Your Wall Street Republicans see mass immigration as a necessary component to capitalism, that cheap workers are a necessity and even, perhaps, a right," said Ray. "Democrats see immigrants as the next group of loyal constituents."

Dems Favored by Mass Immigration

Craig Nelson of the immigration reform group, Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement(FILE) says, with a laugh, regarding the mass immigration problem, "you'd have to believe politicians are short-sighted, and only care about the next election."

"Karl Rove is no dummy," he said. "The White House knows about the problem. But what [Washington] is really concerned about is November rather than 2010 or whatever," he said, regarding the short- and long-term implications of mass immigration.

Other analysts say so much immigration is benefiting Democrats over Republicans.

"It would be unfair to describe immigration as a voter registration drive for the Democrats," says Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies. "But it would also be inaccurate to say that it has a kind of neutral effect on the political balance" in the U.S.

"Immigrants are clearly trending towards the Democrats," he said, for three primary reasons.

For one, says Camarota, immigrants tend to be poor, which -- at least rhetorically -- plays into the hands of Democrats. "They have a more appealing set of policy options, so to speak, for immigrants," he told NewsMax. "I realize conservatives would counter, 'Yes, but our policies [of individual achievement and capitalism] are actually better for the poor,' and that may or may not be," he said. "I?m just saying the low income tend towards Democrats."

For another, immigrants "benefit from race and ethnic-specific policies" favored by liberals and Democrats, said Camarota. "Most notably, this applies to affirmative action, but there are others."

Third, "immigrants tend to gravitate toward their own leaders in America, and the immigrant elite -- especially Hispanics -- are overwhelmingly Democrats," said Camarota.

"If you look at the policies of Hispanic officials, intellectuals and journalists, they are overwhelmingly Democratic," he said. "If you found an 80-20 split [between Hispanic Democrats and Republicans], I'd be surprised. It's probably more like 90-10."

Ray agrees. "Many immigrants [who] arrive poor and have a hard time making it in America rely on the social programs that Democrats love to hand out."

In the Long Run

He says in the long run, mass immigration will favor Democrats politically, though in the short term, "it will favor the money interests of the Republican Party."

"The major miscalculation the GOP is making is that they're not going to be able to win the immigrant vote through family values," said Ray. "But immigrants, like everyone else, vote with their pocketbooks. As long as we keep selecting immigrants the way we are today, they're going to be overwhelmingly Democrats."

Analysts believe states that are up for grabs now politically -- such as Illinois -- will trend more Democratic as immigration increases the U.S. population in the coming years. Meanwhile, says Camarota, states "that are solidly Republican, such as Texas and Arizona, will go into play. It's not that the GOP will lose every time, but states that overwhelmingly Republican will, long-term, begin to shift" towards the Democrats.

Democratic states -- New York, California -- will remain solidly so, he says.

Ray says it would be better to select immigrants on the basis of they're being able to make it in the U.S. once they get here, and hence, "less reliant on public services."

Balkan American States?

These days, however, many of the immigrants?legal and illegal?come to reap the financial benefits America offers them (jobs, health care, social benefits) without burdening themselves with the task of becoming citizens.

Many of those that do remain insist so much on keeping their ethnicity, culture and heritage alive, they refer to themselves in a hyphenated sense -- Hispanic-Americans or Latino-Americans -- and work hard not to assimilate into American society, but to remain aloof from it. That has experts worried.

Some demographers and immigration analysts have suggested that as America dissolves into a nation not dominated by any ethnic group, cultural tensions could rise to the boiling point.

Other analysts say a society needs commonalities like language, customs, culture and history as fabrics to hold it together. Differences tend to segregate people, not unite them, which could lead to misunderstandings, violence and chaos, they argue.

"We certainly have never had the kind of immigration before that we have now," Camarota said.

Sam Huntington, in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine, believes the current wave of immigration will eventually create two Americas.

"Continuation of this large immigration (without improved assimilation) could divide the United States into a country of two languages and two cultures," Huntington, a distinguished political scientist who heads the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies, wrote.

Like Nelson, Huntington sees the current wave of immigration as unprecedented, especially in terms of numbers. European immigrations from the 19th and early 20th centuries also formed their own ethnic enclaves, but they generally dropped most of their ancestry -- including language -- and assimilated English and American-born culture.

But he believes the current wave of mostly Mexican Hispanic immigrants is different. "Demographically, socially and culturally, the reconquista (re-conquest) of the southwestern United States by Mexican immigrants is well underway," wrote Huntington. "Hispanic leaders are actively seeking to transform the United States into a bilingual society."

Others disagree. "Samuel Huntington is raising a legitimate question - it's just that he's wrong," Cornell University professor Victor Nee, co-author of "Remaking the American Mainstream," a study of immigration and assimilation, told the Chicago Tribune.

"I was shocked by its crudity, " Princeton University sociologist Douglas Massey, who has studied Mexican-American immigration, told the paper. "It's an affront to scholarship."

Part One: ?Laying the Groundwork for Out-of-Control Immigration? CLICK HERE.

Part Two: Profit Motive Changed Immigration CLICK HERE.

Get Jon Dougherty?s ?Illegals? and check out the free offer. CLICK HERE.

Editor's note:
Shop NewsMax.com?s store for the best deals on books, tapes, videos and more! Click Here Now!

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Immigration/Borders

Illegals:
The Imminent Threat Posed by Our Unsecured U.S.-Mexico Border

FREE OFFER – Get "Illegals" FREE – Click Here

Hardcover – 256 pages

A focused examination of the problems posed by illegal immigration from the unique perspective of those who deal with the U.S.-Mexico border every day.

In years past, immigration into the United States was treated as a privilege, not a right to be granted automatically just by being able to make it to America's shoreline or borders. Today, however, the entire process of immigration has been drastically politicized by both major parties in Washington, D.C.; one party sees votes – the other, cheap labor. This is investigative journalist Jon Dougherty’s probing look into how this indiscriminate immigration is tearing at the fabric of our culture and society. Interviewing Border Patrol agents, local residents, citizen-enforcement groups and even the immigrants themselves, Dougherty examines the implicit dangers of our reckless attitude toward admittance, showing how all American citizens, native-born and otherwise, are consequently threatened by welfare fraud, drug lords, and terrorism. This is the untold, unnerving true story about the social and political turmoil on the U.S.-Mexico border

FREE OFFER – Get "Illegals" FREE – Click Here
Author Jon E. Dougherty

List Price: $22.99
NewsMax Price: $19.95

Special Offer: By ordering this product today I will get four months FREE to NewsMax.com magazine – that's a $20 value based on our cover price. At the end of your third month of the magazine, we'll send you a renewal notice. If you like the magazine, do nothing and we'll automatically renew your subscription at the discounted annual subscription price of $42.95, and each year thereafter. There is NO RISK. You can cancel at any time.

Order today online, by mail or by calling 1-800-485-4350