Skip to comments.Untying the immigration knot
Posted on 05/19/2006 3:24:42 PM PDT by strategofr
It would end the U.S. as we currently know it.
Thats Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation, speaking of what would happen if an immigration proposal by Sens. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) becomes law. Their plan would grant amnesty to 9 million to 10 million illegal immigrants and put those immigrants on a path to citizenship.
Moreover, the Martinez-Hagel plan would pave the way for an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years -- fully one-third of the current population of the United States. Current law allows 19 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years. The Martinez-Hagel plan would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to that number.
Effectively, within 20 years, a quarter of the U.S. population will be foreign born under Martinez-Hagel, Rector says. He calls the prospect of such a huge influx utterly unprecedented.
If Martinez-Hagel becomes law, Rector says, we can expect the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years.
Why? Consider a few facts Mr. Rector has exposed:
Half of all adult illegal immigrants lack a high-school degree. Among Latin American and Mexican immigrants, 60 percent lack a high-school degree and only 7 percent have a college degree. By contrast, among native-born U.S. workers, only 6 percent have failed to complete high school and nearly a third have a college degree.
Immigrant households are about 50 percent more likely to use welfare than native-born households.
Immigrants without a high-school degree (both lawful and unlawful) are two-and-a-half times more likely to use welfare than native-born individuals.
Then theres the problem of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which a) correlates strongly with welfare use and b) is more prevalent among foreign-born Hispanics than among non-Hispanic whites (42.3 percent vs. 23.4 percent). Children born and raised outside of marriage are seven times more likely to live in poverty than children born and raised by married couples, Rector writes. Children born out-of-wedlock are also more likely to be on welfare, to have lower educational achievement, to have emotional problems, to abuse drugs and alcohol, and to become involved in crime.
Beyond the economic concerns of immigration are security problems. Mixed in with those who simply want to make a better life for their families are some dangerous people. When immigration laws are flouted routinely, terrorists and drug traffickers find it easier to engage in criminal activities. Whats needed, James Carafano suggests in another Heritage paper on immigration, is for policymakers to enforce laws that bar employers from hiring illegal aliens.
Research by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the SSA Inspector General suggests an alarming degree of collusion between illegal workers and employers who intentionally turn a blind eye to hiring individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States, Carafano writes. This collusion helps to fuel a burgeoning population of undocumented workers and encourages unprecedented levels of illegal border crossings.
To reduce those crossings, we need a smarter way to secure our borders, Carafano says in a separate Heritage paper. We need enhanced and secured infrastructure, appropriate screening, inspection of high-risk cargo and people, persistent surveillance, actionable intelligence and responsive interdiction, he writes. Combining these instruments into effective border security requires not just integrating assets at the border, but also linking them to all activities involved in cross-border travel and transport, from issuing visas, passports, and overseas purchase orders to internal investigations and the detention and removal of unlawful persons.
Do these concerns mean that Americans should shun immigrants? Certainly not. Ours is a country born of immigrants. But immigration reform is long overdue and must emphasize work incentives, not welfare incentives; keep current US citizens safe from terrorists and thugs who enter under the dark of night; and include measures to make sure those legally entering our country are willing to contribute to society and become U.S. citizens. Patriotic assimilation is crucial, as Matt Spalding explains in a paper for Heritages First Principles Series. The American theory of citizenship necessitates that the words immigration and assimilation be linked in our political lexicon and closely connected in terms of public policy: Where there is one, there must be the other. Spalding points out that assimilation must include an emphasis on acquiring English, learning about our history, political principles, civic culture and establishing primary allegiance to the United States.
If we do not enact wise reform measures that protect our American way of life, there may one day be no recognizable American way of life left to protect.
Rebecca is the author of Home Invasion: Protecting Your Family in a Culture That's Gone Stark Raving Mad and a vice president at The Heritage Foundation, a Townhall.com Gold Partner.
Copyright © 2006 Rebecca Hagelin
Typically when anyone is granted citizenship, then they can apply to bring their brother, their sister, their uncle, an aunt, Mom and Dad...and a cousin. As long as their is GRAVY on the Gravy Train, there won't be a wall big enough or deep enough.
This nation was forged by men of vision who were not afraid to put everything on the line in order to establish a free nation. To wit:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
We are told that it is not possible to deport the illegals ... too many, I guess. Although Bush claims 6000,000 have been deported since his election. The question I have after reading this article, is "how come we know so much about them if they're stuck in the shadows?
Moreover, 103 million is the approx total population of Mexico. I don't think they'll all be migrating to the US. That said, I don't like the idea of increasing the immigration quotas. Beefing up the borders, enforcing the law, encouraging the illegals to leave (deporting where necessary), etc, will bring the numbers down over time. If there ever is a genuine labor shortage (seasonal agricultural work for example) temporary laborers can be brought in for a specified period. When the job is done, they should be sent home.
Mexico has a declining birthrate, just as we do. This may not change the current wave of illegals, but in 20 years Mexico will be competing to get people back. They won't have excess people in 20 years to flood us with.
Tony Snow was on Michael Medved this afternoon, and said Rector, his friend, is all wet.
The US would have to have an annual growth rate of 15% (something it has never had) to create enough jobs to absorb 103 million immigrants.
Like global warming, this is nothing but scare-mongering.
Hagel is an idiot. This isn't his first screw up and I'm sure it won't be his last. And to think, this jerk thinks he could be president. ROFLOL
This is something I guess I'm too thick to understand, too. Why is it OK to deport 6 million now, but it will be impossible to deport them after the border is sealed? Why is it morally or ethically acceptable to deport illegals now, but if we do it later we will be "breaking up families", "uprooting lives", etc.? Is it only permissible to deport illegals when they can come right back over the border, and impermissible to deport them when they can't get back in?
Regardless, the figures are not important. The important thing is a secure border for the US, regardless of what we do with guest workers or legal residents. Once the border is secure, then will be the time to evaluate other aspects of immigration.
My comment is not about aliens in the US, but about Hagel and how dumb he is. This jerk panders to everyone and has NOT been a friend to President Bush or the Republican US Senate.
Big time B & B
I think the 103 million estimate refers to legal immigrations from all countries, not just Mexico - could that be the difference?
This is, above all else, a matter not of immigration, but of sovereignty
We lost our sovereignty with nafta, cafta, shafta. It's over.
I'm wondering if he's referring to 1,000,000 or so who are caught at the border each year and deported? I'm also wondering if this is really six million persons or is it one million persons caught six times each? And or also wondering if this same six million (if this is the right number) didn't also keep trying until they made it and therefore now make up one-half of the twelve million that are supposedly here? And how do we know we haven't double counted and thus this same six million (which actually may only be one milllion persons caught six times each) don't make up the total of the twelve million? Hmmmmm?
Yup, it's all over folks. RepublicanHippy has declared it so. Buy your plot, lay down, and pull the ground over yourself. They've drained us of our precious bodily fluids.
I think the 6 million "deported" are repeat deportations. They get picked up near the border, deported, picked up again the next night, deported, picked up again, deported, etc. until they actually, finally evade Border Patrol and make it to the areas where there is no immigration enforcement. And they don't just do this one year until they're finally in. Many return home and come back and do it all over again. They might as well say "banana" instead of "6 million" because that's all that number is worth. The number I wish someone, anyone had, was the actual number per year that violate the border. But we'll never get that number until the border is under control. I would also like to know the actual number of illegal aliens living within our borders. The 12 million number being used is likely very low and there's no way that anyone can actually know since they're hiding and many will stay hiding unless a blanket amnesty and free citizenship is given. Of course, we don't want that, so many will never register and will stay in the shadows and we'll never know. We should never have allowed them to come in and think that they could stay here in the first place.
There have been times when Mexico was desperately short of people, e.g. 1560 (after all the plagues), the early 1700s, late 1800s, and so forth.
Sometimes the Mexican economy (and living/working conditions) has outperformed that of the North American British colonies.
Depends on what part of history you look at. At the moment Mexico is not as well off as the US. This may change.
Oh, yes, and historically speaking, Latin America has been a primary target for Spanish emigration. Today, Spain is a target for immigration ~ much to the relief of the folks who live there. Spain is actually looking to Latin America as a source for new workers (who are culturally, religiously and linguistically compatible).
All in all it's better to live in a place folks want to get into than to live in one where they want to leave.
It's not only Mexico. For example, the hundreds of thousands in the Maryland - Virginia area are mostly from El Salvador, the rest of Central America, Bolivia and Peru. There is no shortage of immigrants available to make the 103 million.
The numbers are bad enough. What is not addressed because of fears of "racist" labels is that the 103 million will be mono-cultural. Even in our peak European migration, the cultures were diverse andcould only survive in a true melting pot where no culture dominated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.