|
|
|
|
|
In the 2004 presidential election, why is it that the
leading candidates failed to bring up the topic of our immigration policies?
With all of the nasty debate over terrorism, healthcare, the Social Security
System, and other major issues, immigration was the proverbial “hot potato”
that no one wanted to mention even in whispered tones.
Americans have always been somewhat neutral about
immigration. Most Americans have a very favorable image of the Statue of
Liberty, erected in 1886. The inscription on the statue proclaims the famous
quote, “give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe
free.” We have had low points in the immigration debate when at one time
Congress enacted the first immigration restrictions, specifically excluding
“paupers, ex-convicts, mental defectives and Chinese.” That was at the beginning of the greatest
wave of immigration in American history, which brought in 18 million new
citizens, diversified U.S. society and gave us the lifelong view of America as
the “melting pot” of diverse races and cultures.
But let us not forget one undeniable fact – unless you are
100% native American Indian, your ancestors were immigrants to this country.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, there has not been the slightest hint
of immigration belt tightening. In 2003 and 2004, Congress passed the Aliens
Act, the Aliens Registration Act and the Nationality Act. These acts provide
legal protection, add to immigration management, and provide more flexibility
in making decisions regarding an employee’s work permit issues. Reduction of
immigration quotas and restriction of Middle Eastern men apparently has not
been considered. The majority of Americans were very upset that the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) had no idea where many of the people on visas
were located or whether they had overstayed their visit. Naturally, playing the same old song, the
INS claimed they have insufficient budget and personnel to control the
immigration problem. It could never be that they just are not doing their job,
could it?
Because of extra scrutiny placed on visas, many foreign
students have been unable to return for classes at prestigious American
universities. Foreign enrollment is down 3% in the $13 billion education
market; so careful visa scrutiny is a double-edged sword. One of the reasons
for extra scrutiny on foreign students is because many apply for visas and then
disappear into the underground upon arrival.
America is in the midst of another significant wave of
immigration, with nearly one million new residents this year. Most of these new
immigrants are from Latin America and Asia. Why won’t the Republicans or
Democrats take a firm stand on eliminating or at least tightening immigration
until the war on terrorism is over? If
current immigration trends continue, the nation’s population will be over 400
million by the year 2050. Most Americans would prefer that legal immigration be
reduced. In fact, almost 60% of Americans would like to see immigration limited
to 300,000 people per year.
Some Americans argue that the total of both legal and
illegal immigration represents less than one-half of one percent of the total
population, and that a country as wealthy as America should have no trouble
absorbing that small number.
The farmers in the southwest are totally reliant on the
cheap Mexican labor to pick the fruits and vegetables for miniscule wages.
Various estimates suggest that illegal immigration accounts for between 400,000
and 500,000 people per year, although with the Summer influx of illegal Mexican
immigrants, that number may be as high as 3 to 4 million. You don’t think an
American would stoop so low as to perform that sort of menial task especially
when Uncle Sap will pay them more to sit on their ass then they could make by
actually doing a day’s work, do you?
Although we have been hoodwinked with lots of press about the increase
in the Border Patrol and billions of dollars being spent on a number of mini
“Great Wall of China” containments and new computer systems to safeguard us, no
one really wants to stop the transient immigration. The farmers would go out of
business. In the past 10 years, we tripled the number of border agents and
quadrupled their budget with little change.
In April 2005, the Pew Hispanic Center reported
that the nation’s undocumented immigrant population rose to 10.3 million last
year. Obviously people are fed up with
the inaction of the government. In
Arizona, hundreds of volunteer citizens have banded together as the “Minutemen”
(borrowing their name from the Revolutionary War patriots) for a one-month
experiment to patrol the border with Mexico. It is estimated that their
efforts, which are decried by both the Border Patrol and Washington, have so
far cut the number of Mexican migrants in southeast Arizona in half. It will be interesting to watch where this
experiment leads.
Over 85% of Americans agree that illegal immigration is a
“serious” problem and over 50% agree that it is a “very serious” problem. The
majority of Americans want illegal immigration stopped while almost two-thirds
want to find and deport all of the illegal immigrants now in the country. Not
only do these people take menial jobs, they place a costly burden on the
nation’s healthcare system.
Americans are divided on the benefits of immigration, with
many saying that immigrants have caused major problems in their town or
neighborhood.
However, the Republicans and Democrats don’t want any change
in this policy. Legal and illegal immigrants provide a ready source of labor
for the farmers, as domestic servants for the horsy set, and immigrants are
happy with jobs most Americans would consider too demeaning. Democrats too like the idea of placing immigrants
on welfare to buy their vote for the future.
Studies have estimated that immigrants put over $100 billion in the
pockets of the wealthy, since they can pay lower wages. However, let us not
forget, both the wealthy and middle classes will foot the bill for highways,
schools and police departments to support the additional population.
In April 2005, the Pew Hispanic Center reported
that the nation’s undocumented immigrant population rose to 10.3 million last
year. Obviously people are fed up with the
inaction of the government. In Arizona,
hundreds of volunteer citizens have banded together as the “Minutemen”
(borrowing their name from the Revolutionary War patriots) for a one-month
experiment to patrol the border with Mexico. It is estimated that their
efforts, which are decried by both the Border Patrol and Washington, have cut
the number of Mexican migrants in southeast Arizona in half.
Its farcical the way in which we place extreme security
emphasis on our airports to avoid the problems with terrorists hijacking
planes, again. We have pairs of National Guardsmen strolling through airports I
assume to protect passengers in the event 20 terrorists come running into an airport with AK-47s blazing. What
a waste of personnel and money just to placate the American public – this is a
very unreal scenario! These people are
not stupid. Terrorists will find a different way of perpetrating terrorist acts
such as a placing a small H-Bomb onboard a ship or they will simply slip in
over the Mexican border by paying a Coyote to lead them into New Mexico
carrying an A-bomb in a suitcase. Our border with Mexico is an international
joke. Estimates vary but somewhere between 2 and 10 million illegal aliens from
Mexico, Honduras and other Central America countries flow back and forth across
the border in a given year. Make no mistake – if this country wanted to
suppress illegal immigration, we could do it in a New York minute, but the
Republicans would lose the farm vote in the next election. Instead of fighting this losing battle,
President Bush wants to amend immigration quotas in line with realistic
economic needs of the country. He will push his plan to register and provide
rights to illegal aliens, so in theory they can be tracked. Once these
temporary immigrant workers have a way to legally enter this country for
seasonal work, much of the underground economy will disappear making it far
easier for the Border Patrol to do their job.
Critics of our immigration policies point out that three of the
19 hijackers on September 11th had expired visas, while the other 16 hijackers
freely roamed the country even though their actions should have at least raised
serious suspicions. Two of the
hijackers were on the U. S. government “Watch List” of terrorism. I don’t want
to hear some people’s complaints that placing extra scrutiny on Middle Eastern
men would have been labeled “racial profiling.” When you are at war, anyone with an IQ over that of a baboon
would not hesitate for a moment to focus on young male Muslim immigrants as a
potential source of terrorism within our borders. Racial profiling? I like
it, especially when it comes down to saving American lives. I would also not
hesitate for an iota to place extra scrutiny on a Columbian national arriving
from Bogotá as a possible drug smuggler.
One of the major impetuses for the new wave of immigration
has its roots in the Immigration Act of 1965, which placed special emphasis on
reuniting families, granting asylum to refugees, and to favor immigrants with
special job skills (especially in Information Technology). Since the new law was passed, more that
one-half of the immigrants come from Asia and Mexico. The Illegal Immigration
Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 restricted benefits for illegal
immigrants, doubled the number of Border Patrol agents, and increased the
income requirements for sponsors of immigrants. Since that time, some restrictions have been lifted with
disability benefits and food stamps being restored to immigrants who were
present before 1996. Virtually all states permit immigrants to receive Medicaid
benefits after a 5-year waiting period and to be eligible for welfare.
Remember, regardless of your attitude on immigrations, your Federal and state
taxes support these people.
In 1993, the Commission on Immigration Reform offered a
recommendation that immigration be reduced to 550,000 per year, in addition to
humanitarian refugees. More importantly, the commission recommended that those
admitted under the Immigration Act of 1965 be limited to spouses and young
children instead of siblings and adult children of previous immigrants.
Proponents of reducing or eliminating immigration cite that
their goal is to reduce the number of both legal and illegal immigrants stress
that they are not attempting to reduce the influence of a particular culture
(such as Mexicans) but simply trying to reduce the volume of people.
Liberal-minded people argue that immigration offers suppressed peoples an
escape from often-tyrannical governments.
In Los Angeles in the 1990s, because of the influx of
massive numbers of illegal aliens, the janitorial unions saw much of their work
dissipated to nonunion illegal aliens.
According to studies paid for by
the Ford Foundation and the James Irvine Foundation:
What are other countries doing about immigration, especially
when coupled with the fear of admitting radical Muslim men into their
society? The 25-member European Union (Common
Market), which has recently experienced episodes of Muslim terrorism, has
re-evaluated their own policies due to murders in Spain (train bombing) and the
Netherlands.
A significant backlash is evolving in these supposedly
enlightened countries against certain Muslim practices. For example, in France,
women have been banned from wearing headscarves in public institutions. In the Netherlands it is estimated that
500,000 Turkish and Moroccan immigrants do not speak the local language. In a
number of countries, new immigrants will be required to learn the local
language and “European values.”
Solutions to the immigration problem range from:
If you are extremely concerned about terrorism, and you
believe that eliminating or restricting immigration is the solution, then that
solution will require an increase in the budget for the INS and Border Patrol.
You must be willing to accept higher taxes over and above the hefty increases
already authorized to accomplish this goal.
If you believe that America is the last salvation for many
suppressed peoples, then you likely will want no change in policies.
It would seem that the prudent solution is to 1) enact a cap
on legal immigration as a percentage of the population, say 1/10th
of 1%, which would be 290,000 immigrants at the current rate, and 2) issue
guest worker cards in the southwest to support our farmers. This would enable
the INS to more easily track both immigrants and visas, reassign manpower to
carefully track potential terrorists, and reduce the burden on public services.
Police and the INS will also be able to randomly check on
the farmers to make sure they are employing only “green cards” or guest
workers. If illegal immigrants are found, heavy fines and even jail time can be
imposed for these violations.
|
|
|