Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,828
- 1,790
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110008253Immigrants
Comments:
Are Everywhere
And that has many Americans anxious.
BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
There is no stronger advocate for sealing the borders now in Congress than Rep. Tom Tancredo. And usually he couches his arguments in the familiar terms of lost jobs, general lawlessness and the "cost" of having 11 million illegal immigrants in this country. But push hard enough--as we did when he dropped by The Wall Street Journal's offices last year--and even he will admit that deep down his concern isn't entirely with illegal immigration, but also with those who are here legally, and who are changing the face of this nation. Call this the cultural argument. And with many Americans feeling like they will soon be strangers in their own communities, it is often the unaddressed concern in this raucous debate.
A few years ago the University of Southern California published a study that reveals why immigration stirs emotions in even seemingly sleepy towns across the country. As late as 1990 California alone was the destination (not just entry point) of some 38% of all immigrants coming to this country. California, New York and Texas combined were home to 60% of the new arrivals. Today the three states are home to a little more than a third of new immigrants (those who have been here less than a decade). Over the past 16 years, newly arriving immigrants (legal and otherwise) have been spreading out across the country and ending up in surprising places--wherever there are jobs to be had. Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Virginia and even Idaho are now magnets for many new arrivals. The percentage of new immigrants in North Carolina has doubled in the past decade and a half to 2% of all new arrivals in the country.
Rep. Tancredo has managed to get himself out in front of the anxiety that this demographic change naturally creates and to do so while still winning elections. But he is somewhat of an aberration. When Pete Wilson was governor of California in the 1990s, he somehow managed to preside over the destruction of the state's Republican Party after pushing the passage of a popular initiative to block illegal immigrants from being able to use government services.
"Anti-immigration" candidates have also run for Congress in Republican-leaning districts in Arizona, California, Utah and elsewhere. But each time the "seal the border" crowd loses at the ballot box. Last year in Virginia, Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore tried beating up on illegal immigrants in a last-ditch effort to save his campaign. He lost by 6% to Democrat Tim Kaine in a state President Bush carried a year earlier by 8%. But more Republicans will try to walk Mr. Tancredo's line as immigration moves up the list of concerns for more voters.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is trying to herd cats on the issue now. But it's unlikely the effort will bolster his leadership credentials. If there is a third rail in politics today, immigration is it.
What then can be done? Perhaps the most significant contribution this Republican Congress can make is to keep stoking the economy with tax cuts. With the national unemployment rate under 5%, immigrants are clearly not sinking the economy, and most are contributing to what can rightly be called the Bush boom. But we can imagine how rancorous the debate would become if the unemployment rate rose to the level of, say, France.
From there it comes down to political leadership. There is no shortage of ideas on what to do about illegal immigration. There isn't, however, anything in the way of a consensus about how to address the broader problem of a nation that needs more workers but is also unsure of the power of its own culture to assimilate millions of new arrivals. In a nation where the definition of marriage is open for debate, where the Pledge of Allegiance can be ruled unconstitutional, and where we can't even agree that human liberty is a universal value, hiring more border agents isn't going to quell anxiety over the country being culturally adrift.
The solution is to create respect for the rule of law by making it possible for foreign workers to come here and fill the jobs the economy needs filled. Immigrants will use legal avenues to enter this country if they are open to them--even at a small cost--for the simple reason that it is more profitable to live outside the shadows than inside barrios where hustlers can take advantage of them without fear of the long arm of the law. That means vastly more work visas than the U.S. now issues, and it is why President Bush is pushing for a guest worker program.
Once immigrants are allowed to live outside of the shadows, it will be much easier for the nation to assimilate them and then target drug traffickers and others who still sneak across the border. The strongest fence is the economic opportunity of a life out in the open. It's about time this nation started using economic incentives to its advantage.
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.
Comments:
Immigrants Are Everywhere
BY BRENDAN MINITER
And in a Downturn?
Chuck Lyons - Los Gatos, Calif.
The economic based arguments of illegal immigrants fill the "jobs Americans can't or won't do," and immigrants "come here and fill the jobs the economy needs" may be justified, albeit wrong, in a Clinton or Bush boom. Economics also proves that every boom is followed by a bust. And in an age where jobs are outsourced and 40-ish workers are no longer hired due to "out of date" skills, the bust will have a devastating impact on legal and illegal immigrants. They'll have to train us on how to do the "jobs Americans can't or won't do."
~~~~~
Losing a Sense of Who We Are
Michael D. McCaffrey - Yarmouthport, Mass.
Fundamentalists grieve about loss. They yearn for an era when the gifts they enjoyed stay in place and continue to provide joy and satisfaction. The cultural aspects of immigration herald a change in our society and it should be no secret why this makes so many people unhappy. This resistance to change is what drives the "English only" movement. In the Catholic Church it is what drives millions toward the Latin Mass. The rage about same sex marriage is a desire for business as usual with mothers and fathers.
It is not fear of outsiders. Xenophobia is a problem. But the real fear is a fear of lost traditions which we cherish because they have produced us and made us comfortable.
~~~~~
A Slow Controlled Migration
Richard L. Leed - Ithaca, N.Y.
Mr. Miniter, with whom I agree for the most part, brings up the cultural argument in the immigration question only by mentioning Mr. Tancredo's use of it, but he doesn't really address it himself.
The "cultural" argument can be looked at as a simple demographic argument, thus avoiding invidious distinctions between cultures. Large movements of people always cause difficulties. Some are good in the long term, some are bad, but all are disruptive.
The movement of Middle Easterners into Western Europe is an obvious contemporary one. In our past, the German invasion into Pennsylvania seriously worried Benjamin Franklin. The influx of Cubans into Miami totally changed the character of that city, as did the influx of Maharishi devotees into Fairfield, Iowa.
It is a historical fact that slow, gradual movements are less disruptive than sudden, overwhelming ones. That's reason enough to control immigration, no matter what you think of economic or cultural effects.
~~~~~
Can't Assimilate Them All
Ken Zwick - Ocala, Fla.
This article makes two points: 1) It is anti-Congressman Tancredo; and 2) It is pro illegal immigration.
While everyone is pushing the figure 12 million, most people know the figure is much higher than 12 million.
How can any country "assimilate" millions of people "pouring" over their border especially when those invaders do not wish to assimilate but to conquer and establish their own society within a society?
The reason our lawmakers are having a difficult time with illegal immigration is because they caused the problem and have allowed it to fester. They now have a very large bull by the horns and don't know what to do with it. Politicians caused the problem for votes. They sold our country down the drain.
It took years to erupt. It can't be fixed easily. It requires a series of "fixes" beginning with securing the border. Then, severely punishing the companies hiring the illegal immigrants. Then, as the illegal immigrants are identified they should be deported. A "good" guest worker program should be instituted with absolutely no connection to citizenship. A child born to foreign parents here illegally should not be made a citizen automatically.
Criminalization of the illegal immigrants especially as felons is ridiculous and unworkable.
~~~~~
Increase the Cost for Crossing Illegally
Edward Vitello - Montpelier, Vt.
Yes. I'm another anxious American. My paternal grandparents came here from Italy at the turn of the century and my maternal grandparents from Ireland and England (via Canada) at about the same time.
I am not anti-immigrant and as an American (and attorney) I am a firm believer in the rule of Law. We must not repeat the error of the 1980s and reward illegals who have violated our laws! In 1986 the politicians kicked the can down the road and rewarded three million illegals with an amnesty; now, as a direct result of that shameless political expediency, we have 12 million illegals expecting the same. And if we allow politicians of the same ilk to repeat this idiocy, in 2026 our next generation will face 48 million illegals.
No deals, just leave them in the shadows where they have been for these last 20 years. Add in strong enforcement of our laws with expulsion the penalty for every infraction! Driving without a license, without insurance, whatever--fingerprint, DNA and expel. Then put in place a mandatory one year sentence for a repeat violation of our border--a sequence of one, three, five and then 10 year mandatory sentences will make the cost of border violation quite high.
~~~~~
My Proposed Start
Jessica O'Connor - Bayonne, N.J.
This article failed to address the single most irksome change which the massive immigration of Mexicans and Central Americans has brought about in this country. We are already become an English/Spanish bilingual nation. It seems that many Spanish speakers have recently clearly shown that their allegiance lies not with the U.S.A., where they live, but to their home countries. That is where they send their money, and that is where their loyalty stays.
To show how far this bilingualism has gone, last Christmas, I could not even buy my niece a copy of "The Cat in the Hat" that was not a dual language version. There will be no assimilation if children are reading Dr. Suess's classic in Spanish.
Secure the borders. End bilingual education. Enforce the labor laws. Increase penalties for crimes committed by illegal aliens. These things would make a good start.
~~~~~
Counterinvade
David Govett - Davis, Calif.
The U.S. should get it over with. Take over Mexico, lock, stock, and sombrero. Only Mexican plutocrats would object.
~~~~~
Heading South
Lenny Webber - Gulfport, Miss.
I live on the Katrina-ravaged Gulf Coast. We have been flooded with illegal aliens (not immigrants) and on a daily basis, I see contractors paying them out of their back pockets. The contractors don't report any of this to the IRS, and the money goes to Mexico--tax free, and in the billions.
These people have no desire to assimilate, and ignore our culture as an inconvenience. Our hospital emergency rooms are now health clinics for illegals and I and other taxpayers are footing the bill!
I, for one, have had enough. I and my son will not vote in November. I hope other Republican's feel the same; I want to send a message to the current crew of Republican lawmakers that losing the House and Senate better be a wake-up call to all of them!
Tell me, somebody, is this the way you want this country to go?
~~~~~
Sinking This Nation
P. J. Smith - Austin, Texas
I strongly disagree on the issue that illegals are contributing to our economy. It is a negative drain versus positive when you consider a majority will use more taxpayer funded services (school, healthcare, housing, food stamps, legal etc.) and then send their excess home to their families. If we got real numbers it would shock the nation as they are only saving corporations and businesses salary expense. Plus, consider that when we make these lawbreakers legal they will want to bring the rest of their family here to live and will do so as is being done now--illegally. Yes, maybe our federal taxes have decreased, only to see our state and local taxes skyrocket to pay for those who, legal and illegal, have found out how to not contribute consciously, morally and ethically as an American citizen would. A recession or depression will make us a Third World country as breaking the law is a means of survival for those not understanding our "system"--whatever that is now.
~~~~~
Ingenious
James Mason - Houston
Mr. Miniter says "The solution is to create respect for the rule of law by making it possible for foreign workers to come here and fill the jobs the economy needs filled."
This is rich coming from a company that has helped demolish the rule of law by decrying the use of current laws (e.g., employer sanctions) to deal with the situation. To the WSJ, enforcing the law and national borders cannot and will not work, so, get rid of the law and the borders. Voila! No problem.
What an ingenious solution!
~~~~~
The Dog That Didn't Bark
Craig Russell - Salt Lake City, Utah
Americans are an extremely entrepreneurial people. With no minimum wage we could create jobs for an endless number of people--hundreds of millions of them--all of them "needing" to be filled, all of which would result in "growing" the economy. The real issue isn't whether such a policy would result in "growing" the economy or not, but whether or not the addition of another 50-100 million immigrants to our country would improve the lives of the American people. It most certainly would not.
Editors at the Journal repeatedly point out that supporters of open borders, such as entrenched congressmen Chris Cannon, Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe, managed to hold off primary challengers in 2004. The more pertinent question is why they even had to worry about primary challengers at all. The Mr. Tancredo's Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus currently lists 91 members. How many of them even have to worry about primary challengers? How many of them came close to losing their seats in the last election? Few if any, I would bet. This was the dog that didn't bark.
There are, of course, numerous elections where open borders positions lost at the ballot box, but the Journal always (conveniently) forgets about them. In California in 1994 and in Arizona in 2004 propositions attempting to limit illegal immigration passed overwhelmingly at the ballot box, despite being heavily outspent by opponents; in 2000, Michigan Sen. Spencer Abraham, an open borders fanatic, lost narrowly to a Democratic challenger after being heavily criticized by anti-immigration groups; and in 2003, California Gov. Gray Davis's chances of beating a recall election were completely sunk after he signed a bill giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens (a law so controversial it was later revoked by the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature).
An issue is only irrelevant until it isn't. National security was conveniently ignored for a decade until it forced itself back onto the national stage after September 11. The fact that voters have ignored the issue of illegal immigration in the past is no guarantee that they will do so in the future. If Republicans ignore the voters and fail to support enforcement of our laws, they will lose control of Congress--whether in this election or down the road.
~~~~~
The Goal Is to Stem the Flow
John Relle - Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Sorry but when it comes to immigration, WSJ editorial writers have no credibility. Some key staff writers have even gone so far as to say they would someday like to see open borders.
Never once have I read of a real solution to the flood of illegals. Not one program every mentioned will do anything to stop people from coming--not amnesty, not guest worker, not family reunification--why should they stop? Whoever wouldn't qualify for a legal program would just come illegally. No one has ever explained specifically how anything other than strict enforcement will stem the flow.
~~~~~
Angry Doesn't Begin to Describe It
Carl Withrow - Manassas, Va.
Here we go round and round the mulberry bush again. Americans are not anxious about immigrants. Americans are angry as hell with the massive numbers of illegal immigrants riding down their backs unchallenged and the fact that, as of yet not one single politician has stepped forward to do anything about it in accordance with the law that (supposedly) governs our land.
What then can be done?
Secure the borders.
Bring the hammer down hard on any employer or agency that hires illegal immigrants. Begin the crackdown with a minimum of $2,500 per illegal hired for the first offense. Second offense increases to $10,000 per illegal and a six month minimum jail sentence. Third offense raises the fine to $25,000 and a five years minimum jail sentence.
Lack of political leadership gave us the marriage definition debate, the removal of God from our country, an unconstitutional Pledge of Allegiance argument and all of the other haywire, out-of-sync crap Americans are forced to live with these days. Lack of leadership is now what's trying to convince Americans that they really don't want their laws enforced, their heritage preserved or the future of their children and grand children secured with made in U.S.A. by Americans.
The Bush tax cuts did not succeed in any fashion or part because of the huge numbers of hard working, illegal immigrants now in our country. It "boomed" because of American citizens buying American, investing in America and planning on America. All of this in spite of the enormous business, economic, increased insurance rates, moral and social deterioration and political rip-off illegal immigrants that are everywhere actually represents.
~~~~~
Tancredo Gets It
C. Perrine - Boise, Idaho
Let us not forget that apart from the creeds expressed in our founding documents, the rule of law itself is just another form of tyranny to oppress the masses. Therefore immigrant assimilation into the dominant culture's political history and language isn't an option either if we want to keep this great experiment in self-government going for another 200 years. Congressman Tancredo gets it. Sen. McCain, Sen. Kennedy and a host of others don't.
~~~~~
A Start, Maybe
David W. Lincoln - Edmonton, Alberta
Streamlining government so that it does the job faster. Well, I am sorry to say that it goes as well with the Bush 43 record as pink polka dots goes with paisley.
Good ideas, but only a start will be made between now and January, 2009.
~~~~~
Drawing Distinctions
Gayle Miller - Colorado Springs, Colo.
Again, Wall Street journal blurs all distinction between legal and illegal immigration. Your readers do not share your myopia, by any poll. You claim Tancredo is against legal immigration, and as usual offer boxcars full of innuendo as proof.
~~~~~
