posted 12-31-2003 12:48 AM            

New American

The Bush administration's plan to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens would prove to be an even bigger disaster than previous amnesties.

Get ready for a battle royale to save our borders. The Bush administration and pro-immigration invasion Democrats and Republicans in Congress are planning a big move this year to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens now residing in the United States. President Bush and his counterpart in Mexico, President Vicente Fox, were forced to put this scheme on hold in 2001, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Now the plan is back, along with a multitude of connected initiatives to deluge the U.S. with waves of legal immigrants, "refugees," "temporary workers" and your standard variety of illegal alien border jumpers.

Republicans and conservatives maintained a continuous cannonade against President Clinton for his blatant disregard of our borders and his efforts to swell the Democrat Party's voting ranks by giving citizenship to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. Continuing these policies, they warned, would lead to national suicide. Many of those voices, however, have been strangely mute as President Bush has continued, and in some cases expanded, Clinton's suicidal immigration policies. Some have actually switched from jeering to cheering, apparently convinced that any policy, no matter how bankrupt, destructive or unconstitutional, suddenly becomes beneficial when backed by Republican Party leadership.

The Bush administration sent some important signals on this front in December. First, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge sent up a flare at a December 9 town hall-style meeting at Miami Dade College. A Copley News Service report of the event on December 11 made the following observation:

In the strongest sign to date that the Bush administration is considering a major immigration initiative next year, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has called for "some kind of legal status" for the estimated 8 million to 12 million immigrants living illegally in the United States.

Ridge, who oversees the nation's borders, also said that such an unprecedented legalization program should be coupled with a decision about "what our immigration policy is," followed by a firm commitment to enforce it.

What does the Bush legalization process mean? "I'm not saying make them citizens, because they violated the law to get here," Ridge said at the Miami event. "You determine how you can legalize their presence. Then, as a country, you make a decision that from this day forward … this is the process of entry, and if you violate that process of entry we have the resources to cope with it."

Amnesty Disaster Replay

Legalize their presence but never allow them to become citizens? Does this mean that they would become permanent legal aliens? Mr. Ridge knows that is an absurd notion; once the millions of illegals are legalized, the political pressure will build inexorably to grant them full citizenship.

And what of Secretary Ridge's talk about getting tough "from this day forward" - meaning after the legalization? "We've heard that one before," says Karl Nelson, a retired investigator for the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). "Look, that's what the immigration 'reformers' promised with the 1986 IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act] amnesty," Nelson told The New American. "But what really happened? Most of INS resources were shifted over to processing nearly three million aliens for amnesty. Did we get the promised enforcement increases? No. Did that amnesty satisfy the amnesty advocates? No. They immediately pushed for widening the amnesty and granting innumerable exceptions. And the [Reagan-Bush] administration caved in. Did we get control of our borders as promised? No. As everyone should know by now, our borders continued to be overrun - and still are being overrun. Show me one reason why we should trust in the new promises when the record shows that all similar promises in the past have been broken."

The new Bush amnesty would be far worse than previous amnesties, says Nelson, who served 25 years in the Border Patrol and INS. "The paperwork alone will be a killer," he notes. "The IRCA amnesty program ate up much of the INS budget and tied up an extraordinary percentage of INS personnel. How will they process several times that number of applicants? The reality is that tightening budgets together with personnel overload and political pressure to speed the process will result in rubberstamping not only millions of current illegal residents, but millions more who will come to take advantage of the opportunity. Besides all of the usual economic and social problems this will cause an incredible security problem. Homeland security? This is absolutely ludicrous."

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), a leading congressional champion of immigration control, was likewise appalled. "I can think of few things that could be more dangerous for homeland security than granting amnesty to 8 to 12 million illegal aliens," said Rep. Tancredo, in response to Secretary Ridge's remarks. "Perhaps the administration ought to dedicate more energy to enforcing our existing immigration laws and less on finding ways to allow millions to skirt them."

White House Spin Cycle

At a December 11 press briefing, White House spokesman Scott McClellan was asked if Secretary Ridge's statements were signaling a new amnesty policy. Mr. McClellan said "no," but acknowledged "there are some that had interpreted this as some broad amnesty discussion, and that's not at all that he was suggesting." However, McClellan then failed to offer anything that would dispel the alleged misinterpretation. In a muddled and evasive explanation, he stated that Ridge has been "looking at the issue of the large number of illegal immigrants we do have in the country, and looking at those that could be threats and those that are here for other reasons. And so he's just talking about the realities that we are facing now."

A few days later, at a December 15 press conference, President Bush told reporters that he "is firmly against blanket amnesty." This is more of the Clintonian rhetorical slithering we've come to expect on this issue. Note the president didn't say "no amnesty," just no "blanket amnesty." Bush's upcoming selective amnesty (or amnesties) is apparently intended to look conservative compared to one that unreservedly proclaims amnesty for all illegal aliens regardless of nationality or circumstances.

At the same press conference, President Bush made another important statement. He declared: "I have constantly said that we need to have an immigration policy that helps match any willing employer with any willing employee." The president has indeed repeatedly expressed this policy position and done everything possible to implement it. What is extraordinary is that this radical position has gone largely unexamined and uncontested by conservative and liberal-left politicos and commentators alike. There are literally hundreds of millions of "willing employees" throughout the world who would gladly come here to work for a fraction of what American employees are paid. If President Bush's immigration policy is being framed, as he himself has repeatedly said, to "match any willing employer with any willing employee," then we are in for a continuous immigration deluge - and a huge rise in layoffs of American citizens, as their jobs are taken by willing foreign employees.

Amnesty by Any Other Name

Back in September 2001, The New American observed regarding the Bush-Fox amnesty threat: "The Bush administration has been torturing the English language in an effort to craft a new amnesty for millions of illegal aliens without saying the dread word: 'amnesty.' Some newly devised euphemisms include 'regularization,' 'legalization,' 'permanent status,' and 'earned adjustment.' President Bush has repeatedly dodged the amnesty issue, refusing to use the term. Still, when recently pressed on the issue, he insisted that his soon-to-be-revealed immigration policy vis-à-vis Mexico will not include a 'blanket amnesty.'"

We noted that "whatever Clintonesque term is finally adopted as the cover for the Bush policy, a large amnesty is certain to be the central component of his immigration package." And it is coming, regardless of the intentionally conflicting signals being sent by the White House. As the Copley News Service reported on December 11, 2003, "the administration is considering a major election-year immigration initiative." The report continued:

In September, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, said he had received White House assurances that if a bill he drafted to legalize between 500,000 and 800,000 farm workers reached the president's desk, Bush would sign it....

And this week, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said in an interview that Karl Rove, Bush's chief political strategist, promised a presidential push to deliver on immigration reforms sought by Mexican President Vicente Fox and advocates for undocumented workers.

posted 01-22-2004 02:09 PM               

It is not true that immigrants take jobs away from Americans. Here’s why:

Immigrants do not increase unemployment among natives. A study by economists Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and Stephen Moore found that states with relatively high immigration actually experience low unemployment. The economists believed that it is likely immigration opens up many job opportunities for natives. They wrote, “First, immigrants may expand the demand for goods and services through their consumption. Second, immigrants may contribute to output through the investment of savings they bring with them. Third, immigrants have high rates of entrepreneurship, which may lead to the creation of new jobs for U.S. workers. Fourth, immigrants may fill vital niches in the low and high skilled ends of the labor market, thus creating subsidiary job opportunities for Americans. Fifth, immigrants may contribute to economies of scale in production and the growth of markets.” 1

Research on immigration’s labor market consequences on minorities has also yielded information that suggests little negative impact. In her study on immigration’s impact on the wages and employment of black men, the Urban Institute’s Maria E. Enchautegui concluded, “The results show that in the 1980s black men were not doing worse in areas of high immigration than in other areas and that their economic status in high-immigration areas did not deteriorate during that decade.”2 The National Academy of Science study The New Americans, while finding there may be some impact of immigration on some African Americans locally, concluded that “While some have suspected that blacks suffer disproportionately from the inflow of lowskilled immigrants, none of the available evidence suggests that they have been particularly hard-hit on a national level.”3

Even in particular sectors of the economy, the evidence of a negative impact of immigrants on natives is limited. A review of studies by Jeffrey Passel of the Urban Institute found that “The majority find no more evidence of displacement than is revealed by the aggregate data. Even studies of more highly skilled occupations, (e.g., registered nurses), find no strong evidence of displacement.”4

Immigrants fill niches at the high and low ends of the labor market. This will be increasingly important in the future. As the U.S. population ages, many skilled workers and professionals will retire, leaving gaps for employers. Meanwhile, as jobs in the skilled professions become more attractive, natives will continue the trend of gaining higher levels of education and abandoning lower skilled jobs. (Today, less than 10 percent of native-born Americans have not completed high school.) That will create gaps at the lower end of the job market, as the demand in health care, hospitality, and other service jobs increases as the U.S. population ages.

Some wage studies are dubious. Harvard economist George Borjas has argued that immigrants lower the wages of native high school dropouts. His theory is that these impacts do not show up locally, since natives move out of state in response to immigrants moving into an area. However, research by Columbia University economist Francisco L. Rivera-Batiz shows the flaw in Borjas’ theory, since Rivera-Batiz found that native out-migration in states that receive many immigrants is barely measurable and to the extent it occurs it is college-educated natives who have left, presumably for a variety of reasons. Rivera-Batiz concluded that “Although the supply of workers with less than a high school education has been increased by immigration, both theory and empirical evidence suggest that there has been very little, if any, impact of immigration on the wages of high-school dropouts.”5

There is no such thing as a fixed number of jobs. Contrary to the belief that an increasing number of people compete for a static number of jobs, in fact, the number of jobs in America has increased by 15 million between 1990 and 2003, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor).6 Between 2000 and 2010, more than 33 million new job openings will be created in the United States that require only little or moderate training, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This will represent 58 percent of all new job openings.7

Myth Number 2: Most immigrants are a drain on the U.S. economy or treasury

Here’s the truth about immigrants, taxes and the economy:

All individuals who work in the United States are required to pay federal income taxes. The only exception is if they are exempted due to their level of earnings, a provision of the tax code that results in no taxes, or a bilateral tax treaty.

Significant total taxes are paid by immigrants. Immigrant households paid an estimated $133 billion in direct taxes to federal, state, and local governments in 1997, according to a study by Cato Institute economist Steve Moore.8

State level tax payments approximate natives. Immigrants in New York State pay over $18 billion a year in taxes, over 15 percent of the total, and roughly proportional to 3 their size in the state’s population, according to a study by the Urban Institute. Average annual tax payments by immigrants are approximately the same as natives—$6,300 for immigrants versus $6,500 natives.9

Long-run benefit. The National Academy of Sciences concluded that “Over the long run an additional immigrant and all descendants would actually save the taxpayers $80,000.”10

States come out ahead. In Congressional testimony, University of California, Berkeley economist Ronald Lee, the principal author of the fiscal analysis in the National Academy of Sciences study, concluded that a dynamic analysis, with the appropriate assumptions, would likely show that 49 of the 50 states come out ahead fiscally from immigration, with California a close call.11

Some of the Academy study is misused. Professor Lee testified that some have misinterpreted the Academy study’s use of the annual costs of immigrant households to argue that immigrants are a large fiscal cost to states. He has stated that “These numbers [annual costs of immigrant households] do not best represent the panel’s findings and should not be used for assessing the consequences of immigration policies.” He found that it is misleading, on an annual basis, to calculate the schoolage, native-born children of immigrants as costs caused by immigrant households but not to include the taxes paid by those children when they enter the workforce. Professor Lee also testified: “Reducing immigration would make it more difficult to support the health and retirement of the baby boom generation.”12

Overall economic benefits of immigration. The report by the National Academy of Sciences also found that immigrants benefit the U.S. economy overall, have little negative effect on the income and job opportunities of most native-born Americans, and may add as much as $10 billion to the economy each year. As a result, the report concluded, most Americans enjoy a healthier economy because of the increased supply of labor and lower prices resulting from immigration.13

Economists agree on immigration’s benefits. In a poll of eminent economists conducted by the CATO Institute in the mid-1980s and updated in 1990, 81 percent of the respondents opined that, on balance, twentieth-century immigration has had a “very favorable” effect on U.S. economic growth.14 Moreover, 56 percent of the economists polled believed that more immigration would have the most favorable impact on the U.S. standard of living, while another 33 percent felt that the current levels of immigration would have the most favorable impact.15

Myth Number 3: America is being overrun by immigrants.

Here are the facts on immigration statistics:

The number of immigrants living in the United States remains relatively small as a percentage of the total population. While the percentage of U.S. residents who are foreign-born is higher today than it was in 1970 (currently about 11 percent), it is still less than the 14.7 percent who were foreign-born in 1910.16

The annual rate of legal immigration is low by historical measures. Only 3 legal immigrants per 1,000 U.S. residents enter the United States each year, compared to 13 immigrants per 1,000 in 1913.17

The 2000 Census found that 22 percent of U.S. counties lost population between 1990 and 2000. Rather than “overrunning” America, immigrants tend to help revitalize demographically declining areas of the country, most notably urban centers.18

Myth Number 4: Immigrants aren’t really interested in becoming part of American society.

Here’s information about immigrants’ feelings about the country and the future:

Immigrants more optimistic about nation’s future. “A poll of Hispanics finds they are far more optimistic about life in the United States and their children’s prospects than are non-Latinos,” according to an August 2003 New York Times/CBS News poll.19

Immigrants identify with America. “Nearly 70 percent of foreign-born Hispanics say they identify more with the United States than with their country of origin,” according to the New York Times/CBS News poll. Only 16 percent, including those here fewer than 5 years, said they identify more closely with their native country.20

Immigrants believe in the American Dream. A CNN/USA Today poll reported that more immigrants than natives believe that hard work and determination are the keys to success in America, and that fewer immigrants than natives believe that immigrants should be encouraged to “maintain their own culture more strongly.”21

Immigrant children learn English. In San Diego 90 percent of second-generation immigrant children speak English well or very well, according to a Johns Hopkins University study. In Miami the figure is 99 percent.22

Naturalization rates rising. Statistics from the 2000 census indicate a steady rise in the naturalization rates of immigrants. In 2000, slightly more than 37 percent of all foreign-born residents were naturalized, a 3 percent increase from 1997.23

Immigrants want to become proficient in English. Reports from throughout the United States indicate that the demand for classes in English as a second language far outstrips supply. Data from fiscal year 2000 indicate that 65 percent of immigrants over the age of five who speak a language other than English at home speak English “very well” or “well.”24 The children of immigrants, although bilingual, prefer English to their native tongue at astounding rates. In fact, the grandparents and parents of immigrant children have expressed some concern that their youngsters are assimilating too quickly.

Immigrants learn English. Only 3 percent of long-term immigrants report not speaking English well, according the National Academy of Sciences.25

Myth Number 5: Immigrants contribute little to American society.

The facts show that immigrants contribute significantly to America:

Immigrants show positive characteristics. A Manhattan Institute report showed that immigrants are more likely than are the native born to have intact families and a college degree and be employed, and they are no more likely to commit crimes.26

High levels of education for legal immigrants. According to the New Immigrant Survey, which measures only legal immigrants, “The median years of schooling for the legal immigrants, 13 years, is a full one year higher than that of the U.S. native-born.” The New Immigrant Survey is a project headed by the Rand Corporation’s Jim Smith.27

Immigrants help with the retirement of baby boom generation. While countries in Europe and elsewhere will experience a shrinking pool of available workers, the United States, due to its openness to immigration, will continue healthy growth in its labor force and will reap the benefits of that growth. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated that “Immigration, if we choose to expand it, could prove an even more potent antidote for slowing growth in the working-age population.”28

Foreign-born expertise aids U.S. research and development. Foreign-born scientists and engineers make up 28 percent of all individuals with PhDs in the United States engaged in research and development in science and engineering, helping to spur innovation.29

Immigrants contribute to entrepreneurship. Inc. Magazine reported in 1995 that 12 percent of the Inc. 500—the fastest growing corporations in America—were companies started by immigrants.
Our understanding of the meaning of American patriotism would not be complete without considering the pride and commitment immigrants demonstrate on behalf of the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Defense:

More than 60,000 immigrants serve on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Immigrants make up nearly 5 percent of all enlisted personnel on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Nearly 7 percent of U.S. Navy enlisted personnel are immigrants.30
Historically immigrants have made significant contributions to the defense of America:

More than 20 percent of the recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor in U.S. wars have been immigrants, a total of 716 of the 3,406 Medal of Honor recipients have been immigrants.

500,000 immigrants fought in the Union Army during the Civil War.

A special regimental combat team made up of the sons of Japanese immigrants was the most decorated of its size during World War II.

Major U.S. weapons, such as a more advanced ironclad ship, the submarine, the helicopter, and the atomic and hydrogen bombs were developed by immigrants.31

On July 3, 2002, President Bush recognized the contributions of immigrants in the U.S. Armed Forces by signing an executive order that provided for “expedited naturalization” of noncitizen men and women serving on active-duty since September 11, 2001. The order granted some 15,000 members of the U.S. military who served fewer than three years the right to apply for expedited citizenship in recognition of their service.

After the passage of Section 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 143,000 noncitizen military participants in World Wars I and II, and 31,000 members of the U.S. military who fought during the Korean War, became naturalized American citizens, according to White House statistics.32

At a time when Americans value patriotism more than ever, immigrants demonstrate that they are a part of this spirit through their service in the military. Paul Bucha, President of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, has stated: “I put to you that there is a standard by which to judge whether America is correct to maintain a generous legal immigration policy: Have immigrants and their children and grandchildren been willing to fight and die for the United States of America? The answer right up to the present day remains a resounding ‘yes.’”33
Conclusion
In sum, who are these people we call immigrants? They could be your parents, your grandparents, your teachers, your friends, your doctors, your policemen, your grocer, your waiter, your cook, your babysitter, your gardener, your lawyer, your favorite actor, actress, or sports hero, your shopkeeper. Immigrants permeate the fabric of America. They are an integral part of our society, its goals and its values. The backbone that helps make this country great, they set us apart from every nation in this world. In short, they are us.

47DP3002 8/14/03

Footnotes

1 Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and Stephen Moore, Immigration and Unemployment: New Evidence,Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Arlington, VA (Mar. 1994) at p. 13.
2 Maria E. Enchautegui, “The Effect of Immigration on the Wages and Employment of Black Males,” Urban Institute, Washington, D.C. (May 1993) at p. 17.
3 The New Americans, National Research Council, 1997, p. S-5.
4 Jeffrey S. Passel, Immigrants and Taxes: A Reappraisal of Huddle’s ‘The Cost of Immigration’, The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C. (Jan. 1994) at p. 51.
5 http://www.columbia.edu/~flr9/
6 Council of Economic Advisers. Economic Report of the President 2003, Table B-37.
7 Daniel E. Hecker, “Occupational Employment Projections to 2010,” Monthly Labor Review (Nov. 2001).
8 http://www.immigrationforum.org/about/articles/tax_study.htm.
9 http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=900094
10 Testimony of Ronald D Lee, Member, National Academy of Sciences Panel on the Demographic and Economic Impacts of Immigration, Before the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, “Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration,” (Sept. 9, 1997).
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 The New Americans, supra note 3.
14 Julian L. Simon, “Immigration: The Demographic and Economic Facts,” Cato Institute and National Immigration Forum (Dec. 11, 1995).
15 Ibid.
16 Griswold, Daniel T., “Immigrants Have Enriched American Culture and Enhanced Our Influence in the World,” Insight on the News (Feb. 18, 2002).
17 The New Americans, supra note 3.
18 Ibid.
19 Simon Romero and Janet Elder, “Hispanics in the U.S. Report Optimism,” New York Times (Aug. 6, 2003).
20 Ibid.
21 http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-29.html.
22 Ibid.
23 American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) Policy Report “Realities of Immigration Emerge in 2000 Census” (Mar. 2002).
24 Elizabeth Grieco, “English Abilities of the U.S. Foreign-Born Population,” Migration Policy Institute (Jan. 1, 2003).
25 The New Americans, supra note 3. The report stated that, according to the 1990 Census, “of those who had been here 30 years or more, only 3 percent reported that they could not speak English well.”
26 http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-29.html.
27 Stuart Anderson, “Muddled Masses,” Reason (Feb. 2000).
28 Testimony of Alan Greenspan before the Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate (Feb. 27, 2003).
29 Science and Engineering Indicators 2002, National Science Foundation.
30 AILF Policy Report, “U.S. Soldiers from Around the World: Immigrants Fight for an Adopted Homeland” (updated Mar. 2003).
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.

posted 01-22-2004 03:26 PM            

My parents were legal immigrants to this country in the 50’s. They only spoke Ukrainian and had to learn the English language, they had to adjust to the American way, and they had to earn an honest living. They were not GIVEN anything other than citizenship that was properly earned.

As is typical in the northeast, most people my age are either first or second generation Americans. I’ve spent most of my life around many types of nationalities – including Mexican or Puerto Rican. From what I’ve observed, those groups tend to be on the slovenly and unmotivated side. No, I am not saying that there aren’t exceptions to every rule and neither am I stereotyping - this is simply an observation. Keep in mind, this behavior is coming from LEGAL immigrants and/or citizens. Can you imagine what the illegal immigrants would do if they had carte blanche in our country? Let’s face it, privileges would be abused! This is a scary thought!