Posted on 09/09/2001 12:44:33 PM PDT by dubyajames
FLOOD OF ILLEGAL MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS
VICENTE FOX WANTS A "MIGRATION DEAL"
By: W. James Antle III
The media drumbeat in favor of an amnesty program for illegal immigrants, particularly from Mexico, may soon surpass the one in favor of embryonic stem-cell research. This time President Bush is benefiting from press advocacy. But will America?
At least 6 million people live illegally in the United States; the true figure is likely closer to 9 million. Only 46,750 were deported last year. Illegal immigrants are now staying longer than ever and sending increasingly large sums of money back home - Newsweek magazine reported that Mexicans, who make up an estimated 54 percent of undocumented aliens, will send home a projected $9.3 billion this year.
President Bush is working with Mexican President Vicente Fox to work out a "migration deal." Given Fox’s strenuous advocacy of the US granting entitlements to Mexican nationals within our borders, including some Front Page Magazine columnist Robert Locke points out we don’t give to our own citizens, and refusal to challenge illegal entry into US borders it is easy to guess what he would like the terms to be.
Illegal immigration is a difficult issue. The United States offers opportunities that cannot be matched in most nations of the world. Many people go through great trials to come to this country in hope of providing a better life for themselves and their families. Even illegal immigrants provide services that Americans benefit from. For this reason, it is appealing to offer them amnesty.
Yet millions of people have come to the United States legally, in a variety of circumstances, some as dire as that of the typical illegal. Many have waited years for legal permanent residency, navigated bureaucratic mazes to satisfy all pertinent legal requirements, worried about green card expirations and what would happen to their residency if they were to lose their jobs, and then waited perhaps a decade or more to become citizens. Why should those who violated the law be given treatment those who obeyed the law were not?
The last time amnesty was offered in 1986, the end result was an increase in illegal immigration as people anticipated another amnesty. Can the United States admit everyone throughout the world who might wish to come here? Billions of people could raise their living standards by coming to this country. What about places with lower living standards than Mexico that don’t have the benefit of being as close geographically? Or places plagued by war, genocide and, believe it or not, slavery? If we cannot simply let everyone in who wishes to come here and would in some respects be better off within our borders, then what criteria do we use to determine this? Do these criteria matter if we refuse to enforce them and then simply legalize those who come here in violation of our laws? What are the costs of bringing in more unskilled labor to the United States?
These are questions that need to be asked before any amnesty or other major immigration reform is contemplated. Yet instead of asking them, many in the media are simply mouthing platitudes and indulging in sentimentality.
One example would be Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter. Alter deserves points for stating "raising questions about [immigration policy] shouldn’t lead one to be labeled a ‘nativist’ (much less a racist)." He also noted "those who favor a ‘time out’ to absorb the huge wave of the last two decades deserve a hearing." Credit is due for acknowledging that we have had a wave of immigration alone.
But he does repeat folklore that complicates the debate. First, he implies that we need to import unskilled labor from other countries. This clearly is not the case. Although we often hear that illegal aliens do the work that Americans won’t do, we don’t hear the important qualifier: The jobs Americans won’t do for what they currently pay. We hear a lot about the plight of the working poor. Here is a situation where the descent of their wages could be at least partially reversed. As for needing them to fund the baby-boomers’ retirement, those who pay Social Security taxes today will be drawing them tomorrow. Immigrants tend to be slightly older than the rest of the work force- are we going to cruelly exploit them to fund the retirements of citizens and the, once we have their FICA contributions in hand, deport them when they decide to retire?
Alter also repeats the notion that an unwillingness to fund services for illegal immigrants hurt the Republican Party politically. In fact, the national GOP took a powder on most initiatives curbing benefits for illegals. Proposition 187 passed with 59 percent of the vote in California, winning a higher percentage of minority votes in that state than any of the last three Republican tickets, including Bush-Cheney. Supporting Proposition 187 saved Pete Wilson’s political career. Before that initiative, had little chance of winning reelection.
The case can be made that Proposition 187 and the Republican Congress’ decision to cut off food stamps to legal immigrants in the welfare reform bill (that Bill Clinton signed) harmed the GOP later. But the fact of the matter is, California was (in Alter’s words) "an official Republican disaster area" as far back as 1992, two full years before Proposition 187. The elder George Bush lost the state badly and both Republican candidates for US Senate were defeated, with the candidate most closely associated with Pete Wilson, John Seymour, losing to Wilson’s 1990 gubernatorial challenger by 17 points. And Newt Gingrich got his comeuppance as a result of the government shutdown, not immigration.
While it was definitely ham-handed, Proposition 187 reflected a legitimate concern that is largely being ignored. If the Center for Immigration Studies is correct, unskilled immigrants on a per capita basis will use $55,200 more in public services than they will ever pay in taxes. Is that affordable?
Many more questions need to be answered. But before they can be answered, they must be asked. A real discussion, free of politically correct slogans on the one side and racial demagoguery on the other, must take place. It is in the best interest of those who are Americans now and those who will be in the future.
NEVER FORGET!!!!
NAFTA was suppposed to greately decrease the Mexicans' need to break into our country. That was one of NAFTA's main selling points.
NEVER FORGET!!!!
Oh, but I forgot, we need all our time to think of Satan-like Condit.
Okay, F'GETABOUTIT!!!!
Out of the approximately 8 to 9 million illegal aliens currently in the United States, over 75% of them entered this country legally with a visa, but never left.
How you entered the country is not the point, being an illegal alien means many things.
A visitor that came and did not leave, a college student who dropped out and went to work, a worker that changed jobs.
How you entered the country, does not automatically make you legal, you must stay within that parameters of the visa you entered on.
decrease greatly? i don't recall anyone seriously claiming that, only decrease to some extent, depending on mexican job growth due to increased trade
but, regardless of any claims, WITHOUT nafta there would be MORE illegals here, probably hundreds of thousands, perhaps more than a million
Man, isn't NAFTA good?
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.