IMMIGRATION AND AMERICAN POLITICS

Ihe immigraaliun issoe is the .sleep;nggiant ofpolilirs Mass imm&f;on is lransforming America in wy~ mosr Americaus dislike;
.~yet the politicalparties refuse to discuss jr in front of the vofers. ~s/fare/mulricul~ura~sn~lIegnl immigraijon is the problem, NUI
rhe mantnras, notiegalimmigr~tion. These illusionsare analyzedin the pages that follow. The task ofana/ysi has brcn made easier
by me amounr oflnformarion nowavailSnbIe. The San Francisco Examiner and ihe Washington Post have recenflyrun maj<il,r
arfdes an fhc d&feriou.s impacr of mass ;mm;grat;on an schools, lhr labor market and-nor/east--on the immjgrants them-
sc/vcs Academic rescarch has exploded its comfort& myths. Popular d&vntenl b rising over such consequences as Ihe
@read of bliingualism and the increased fiscal burden on native-born Americans. If the GOP continues to deny them, i
it will make itself irre/evant even before the inlpact of immigration on America’s demography does so.
I
Electing a New People
PETERBRIMELOW & ED RUBENSTEIN ,.2

D
DEMOGRAPHY is destiny in Republicans in 1994, when they took by the compelling logic of free-market
American politics. This point control of rhc Scnatc and House. It can economics and the capital-gains fax cut,
was made brilliantly almost reasonably be rrgardrd as the Republi- but because the Democratic Party
exactly thirty years ago, by Kevin Phil- can high-mater mark. “cippcd,” like a hrmring project. Amaz-
lips in The Ewq@r‘~ Rqublican Majoriq Then WC lowcrcd this high-warcr ingly, no Drmocratic prcsidcnrial nomi-
(196X). In the shadow of the Demo- mark by accounting for the shifting eth- ncc has rcceivcd a majority of the white
crars long-dominant “Rooscvelr coali- nit balance char rhr Census projccrs will wxe since 1948, with rhc abcrrarional
tinn,” and amid rhc wrrckagr and rr- result from immigrarion, assuming that cxcrption of Lyndon B. Johnson. As lih-
uimination of the disastrous Goldwater the ethnic groups continued to vorc as et-al commentators Tom and Mary
dcfcar, Phillips boldly predicted a gcncr- rhcy did in 1988. The results arc Edsxli pointed out in rhcir book Chain
on of Republican victories based on
e persistent but dynamic pattern of
starding (see table below). Even if the
Republicans can again win their 1988
Reaction, whites sccrr to have left a
party chat they perceived as becoming
i
&hnk politics. He has been triumphant-
ly vindicarcd.
level of support in each rrhnic group- alien and even hostile co them.
This cawed a seismic shift fo the
I
But the Republican hour is rapidly PRO,EcT.DREI’UIILICANVOTE(%) LN Republicans, which is still not complete.
PRESIDENTIAL ELEcnON YEARS
drawing to a close. Not because the But if whites flrd the Drmocratic Party,
46of the Yoting
“l’hill~ps Coalition” of the West and thr Kcpublican Age Populsirio” it is now coming afrcr rhcm. In rhc
South, of the middle class and urban scar Shlrc @, Wllife BJXCli ,.xino ASil” years co come, rhe new Democratic
blue-collar VOCETS,is breaking up in the 1%~ 53% 78,8% 10.7% 7.4% 3.3% trend will overwhelm rhc old Rrpuhli-
traditional manner. Instead, it is being zoDo m~50:7~~~~ ~~7~,i~ES~~~‘ld,o 4,3 can one-assuming mass immigrarion
drowned-x a direct result of the 1965 2004 ~0.3 73.0 11.4 10.8 4.8 continua
Inmigration Act, which ironically bc- I;;; :;:; 71.6 11.6 ;;:; 5.1 Any projccrions of this kind, of
came cffecrive in the year Phillips’s book 20,6 19.1 ,‘:I; i::i 13,5 ::g course, arc problematical. We hair ncc-
was published. Nine-wnths of the immi- zozo ea.7 67.3 )~.a I<,+ 6.3 rssarily made drastic assumptions. WC
grant intlux is from groups with sign& :i$ 18.3 65.8 12.1 IS,6 6.5 xsunc that rhe Asian and Hispanic YOI-
17.8 64.3 12.2 166 6~9
cant--sometimes overwhelming-Drn- 2032 17.4 62,8 12.3 17,6 7~3 ing cafe incrcascs-but only to that of
ocraric propensities. After thirty years,’ $I:; ii:; 61.3 1*.4 18.6 7.7 blacks, which seems reasonable. We as-
their numbers arc reaching critical mass. 2044 59.8 11.5 19.7 8.0 sume that the Republican shaic of the
46.0 57.8 12.6 20.7 8.9
And there is no end in sight. 2048 15.7 56.9 12.7 21.2 9.2 Hispanic vote remains low-but WC also
To estimate the future impact of 2052 +5.3 54.9 12.9 21.6 10.6 assume near-parity in the Asian vorc, /’
immigration, WC took chc 1988 presi-
denrial race, in which George Bush beat
PJetc:RrpbliunII/l,< Md SC1988,ir, f’x Cl‘hgrwp. i.< which, given the hard-left “Asian” Irad-
MllilC59s;Rl.<k125;L.&m2x+ Aw” 1m: h.m,m!vur<r
p”“‘icipmon
rlrr~WhllC61%:“kk 51%;L.,>,,”54%;.uvl 54% ership now rmcrging on the campuses,
S”“,CC“Ud “” ccnrvcBurmu I’opullrion
p”iELtinn~
1
Michael Dukakis with 53 prr cent of the
vote. This figure happens also fo be the
rsprcially for Chincsc, map bc opti-
which rhcy have miserably failed to do misric. WC assume that Republicans do I
avcragc vote received by the Rcpubli- against Bill Clinton-they have ac most nor increase chcir share of thr white
cans in presidential elections since 1968 two presidential cycles left. Then they vote-but, since rhc current congres-
--the largest advantage won by any go inrrorably into minority status, hc- sional icadership reftxcs to voice white
narty over any six elections in Amcrjcan ginning in 200X. COnCCrncOveI such mafters as immip
tory. And it is the vote rccclved by Indeed, looking at tbc electorate in tion and affirmative a&m, this scri,,s
...~ this cold-eyed Phillipsian way suggests a all too probable.
Mr. “rimlnw, 0 senior editor (If Furhes and ieinrcrprcrarion of rcccnt history. On \Yhrthrr our projections nre coo opii~
at NR. is the audwr of Alien Natioh this Fading, Amrrica rvrnrd IO rhc i<c- misfit or pcssimiatic is ultimately irrclc-
Mr. Rubenstein is NR’s economicseditor. puhlicans, nor hccausc it was convinced vant. The fundamcnral point, which
 does nor seem to have dawned yet on
rhe Beltway Right, remains rhe same:
T/x tmrzd ir not ow fricrzd. In this per-
spectivr, rhc decision of congrer&n~l
Republicans in 1996 co run nway from
llle immigration CIXS rccommendcd by
the ~bipartisan Jordan Commission can
only bc described as, well, brave.
There is much bluster, notably by rhc
incorrigible Wall Srrecr/ournai editorial
page, to the effect that the GOP can win
more Hispanic vows. But ar the very
best this will be an uohill strue&
Hispanics do indeed mov; rightwan%
longer they remain in America. But this
effect is canceled out by newly arrived
immiuams who ovenvhelminzlvu i votr
New Mexico may presage rhc future
also in that rhr Democrats split-appar-
cntly a worldly Hisoanic
L machine was
pi&d against Anglo leftisr loonies. The
vast complication of ethnic polirics
brought about by currem immigrarinn
policy may, in the end, undermine both
parries. Politics will presumably contin-
ue. But not American politics 3s \IY
have known xnd lovrd it.
Immigration & Welfare-
Mayhe some supply-sidcr or ncocon-
scrrwivc can ger clcctcd to something in
2050. bornr along by a multicultural
throng like Tarzan on a lirtrr. Bur, as
always with immigration-Farricolarly
since rhc National Academy of Scicnccs
has contirmed rhat there is no sjgnifi-
canr aggregarr rconomic benefit (See
“The Week”)-the question musr be:
Why take the risk? 0

Den&tic. Hence, directly because of Solving the welfare problem will solve the ,..
lmmigrarion the GOP has ncvec
approached a majority of the Hispanic welfare problem-not the immigrahon problem
vote. And this shows no sien of chant.
” 0

ihg my rime soon.

The latest alleged portcnr: the laud- GEORGEJ.
BORJAS
able victory of l?c~.~Rill Redmond in
the recenf New Mexico special rlecdon

for the House seat vacated by UN An-
hassador Bill Richardson. A more care-
ful reading of this result, however, leads
(nor for the first rime) to the conclusion
rhat immigration enthusiasts can’t count.
The Republican vote, 42 per cmt, was
barely above its previous peak and well
short of a majority. What happened was
that the Democratic wfe was split, by a
former Democrat running as the candi-
date of New Mexico’s cnviro-Stalinist
Green Parry, who gor I7 per ccnf of the
vore. This, and not a mass comrrsion of
Hispanics, won rhc sex. Rep. Redmond
will do w/I fo hold it in 1998.
In facr, the New Mexico race does
presage the future, tibcit in ways un-
forcscen by the Wall Smct Jouv,ml. It
shows the power of indcpendcnt cnndiL
darts co burr major-parry candidates by
splirting rhe vote-and immigrarion, as
evidenced in counrrics as far apart as
France and Ausrralia, is prc-cmincnrl!
an issue that, if ignored by establish-
mrnt parries, prowkes insurrection. Not
coincidentally, the rumored Michigan
candidacy of ophthalmologist Dr. John
Tanton, the chairman of Fcdcration for
American Immigration Reform, against
Republican Scn. Spcnccr Abraham has
been grrring front-page rrearmcnf in the
state’s heavily Drmocraric media. Othrr
such single-issue candidacies are being
_
mc"n"n~d--t"r cuampe, a 1'198 ckl-
lctige KO Rcpublicx At-izona Scn. John
~McCain by Robert D. Park, leader of
rhc srare’s succrssful Ofticial English
rcfcrcndum campaign in 1988.
I
BEGAN fo invesrigare rhc link be- 1990, the Census showed that immi-
nrecn lmmigrarion and welfare in gl-ants were more likely 10 receive cash
1~987. Since that tjme, I have given bcnetits than native households. In fact,
countless prcscnrarions at univcrsitics if one adds non-cash programs (such as
and think tanks. Invariably, someone will Medicaid, Food Stamps, and housing
~“me up after rhe seminar and say some- assistance), if turns auf that 21 per cem
thing like: “1 brliwe the data and I of immigrant households rcceivr some
agree with you that rhcre is a problem. fype of aid, as compared to 14 per ccnf
Bur the problrm is nor immigration; the of native houcholds and 10 per cent of
problrm is wclfsre.” This response has whitr non-Hispanic native houschnlds.
rcccnrly been cnshrincd by Care Inx- In short, thr “welfare gap” berwec,,
rufc analysts as their rallying cry againsr unmigranrs and natives has revrrscd
rhc accumulating cvidcnce on immi- direction and grown subsrantially in a
grant use of wclfarr: “Immigration Yes, vrry short time.
Welfare No!” Why did immigrant use of wcifarc
When I first hard this response a rise so rapidly? It’s elcmcnraq~ today’s
decade ago, it snuck me as odd. Yes, lmmigranra arc rclativrly less skilled
rhcrc arc things thsr arc wrong with the than those ,vtro came [wo or rhrcc dcc-
arlf~rc sysfcm. Bm if flit socinl cxperi- ndcr ago. Since rhc ~~,~ctmcn~ of rhc
lmcnrarion of the pax icw dccndcs h3s 1965 Anxndmcnrs, rhc Unircd Srarcs
taughr us anything, it is rhar WC have no has been grnnting entry visas K” pc’so””
clue about lhow to tackle povc”y. In who have rclnfives in the KJnircd Srarcs,
view of our resounding defcar in the with no regard tu their skills IX cco-
War on Poverty, whv would wc con- nomic pownrial. Immigrxxs who ar-
scioosly pursue poliiies-such as our rived in the mid fo lxe 1960s enrercd
currenr immigrarion policy--that exac- the U.S. labor marker wirh a wage dis-
erbatc poverry? advanragc of about 17 per ccnr; today’s
Toda!‘s immigrants are more likei,, ro immigrants cnfcr with a wage disadvan-
receive wclfarr than natives and ha,, tage of about 32 per ccnc. In the 196Os,
earlier immigrants. In 1970, the Census the economic adaptation crpcricnccd b!
indicarcd rhat immigl-ant households immigrants as they found OUI about job
IVCIC ierr likely to rcccivc cash bcncfirs opportunitirr and learned to speak Eng-
(such as AFDC, SSI, or General lirh guaranteed rhar the initial 1;: per
Assistance) rh;m tnativc households. By cult wxge gap would dlsnppcar w;tl,in a
couple of dccxdcs. If tuday’s immigrant
h,r, B0rlns is ~ P TO,‘essor OfPUbliC Policy (LI have the same rate of ndaprntion as car-
the ~~h,~F 1~ennrdy School o/‘Goocrrment, licr immigranrs, wc cnn cxpecr that the\:
Haruard Lhiuersily. will hcvc a wage disad\~nnrq,y of about

34 I\‘ATIONAL RH”iEW, j”NE 16, ,997

 15 per cenr throughout much of rhcir
wnrking livrs. The inherently unstable
combination of unskilled immigration
and a generous wclfarc state has
broumhr us r” the currenr siruation.
4 a
HE geographic clustering of im-
migrants in the United States is
T remarkable. In 1990, rhree-quar-
tcrs of the immigrants lived in “nly six
smtcs. This clusrcring has crated a
~mosaic of ethnic neighborhoods “r en-
claves in s”mc American cities, and has
fostered the creation and growrh of eth-
nit netwot!~ that transmit information
about life in these United Srarcs to po-
tential migrants in the sourer countries.
Do fhcsr ethnic nrtworks provide in-
formatilm about welfare prngrarns IO
new immigrann? Casr studies of the
Russian and Chinesr communirirs leave
little doubt that rhcy do. Russian- and
Chinese-language newspaprrs print dc-
tailrd reporrs about the application pro-
cess and eligibility requiremcnrs for
particular programs. There arc “Dear
Abby”-style columns in newspapers ro
hrlp readers with welfare problems. And
bookstores in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and
rhe United States sell a Chincse-lan-
page book that contains a 36.page
guide to SSI 2nd other benetits.
‘Ncr~“rk effects probably grew in im-
porrance as the nerworks became more
established. It is well known that “rake-
up” rates (ix., the fraction of eligible
persons who actually receive be&its
from a parricular wrlfare program) are
well below 100 per cent. As the ethnic
networks expanded, the takr-up rams of
immigrants probably increased.
The welfare srate can also have a mag-
netic rffcct on immigrants. Wrlfare pro-
grams in the United Srarrs, though nor
generous by Western European stand-
ards, stack up pray well when corn-
pared to thr srandard “f living availnble
in m”sf of fhr world’s less-developed
youotrics. While it is rrur rhnt many
unmigranrs c”me t” the United Stares
for j”b opportunities, decades of cco-
nomic research into the dcrermiuanrs of
migration decisions have demonstrated
that it is potential income that is the sig-
nificant kmor. And thr welfare srarc
provides a lot of income opportunities,
especially for persons wirh fern skills. As
a result, thr question is nor whrthcr
magnetic efi‘ccrs exist-they d” Rather,
the question is whether rhrsc magnetic
effects are numerically imporrlnt.
Three diffrrcnt types of mngneric
c@ccrs influence immigranr behavior. It
is possible that wclhrr programs arrract
persons who otherwise would nnr have
migrared to the United States. This is
rhc magnetic rffccr mosr people have in
mmd, but is also the one about which
rhcre is least empirical evidence.
Sccnnd, the safcry ncr might also dis-
coumgc immigrants who “fail” in the
United Sratrs from rcrurning t” their
homr countries. A rccenr study (by
CCO~O~IS~SRandall Olsen and Patricia
Regan of Ohio State Universiry) pro-
vidcs the tirst hint of such a magnetic
c&zt ‘1~ sh”wing that thr probability of
out-mlgrarion is grrarly reduced if rhe
household recrives public assistance in
the United States.
Finally, magnetic effects arise from
the huge disparities bcrwecn diffcrrnr
states’ wrlfare benefits. In 1970, Calilbr-
ma’s AFDC benefit lcvel wxs only 65 per
crnr that of the median srare; rwrnry
years latrr it was 2.5 rimes that of the
median state. By lY90, Calitbrnia’s
bcnctit package was the second morr ...thestoi Ckashes,
generous in the nation (surpassed only
by Alaska’s). It rums “ut chat the frac-
the dollar drips, inflation
tion of new immigranrs not ON welfwe heatsUp;:& :jbu needto
who chose ro live in California dropped ‘protect your savings and
bcrwccn 1980 and 1990, from 30.1 r” &.-.-&it! ;‘I:;.:: ‘;
28.9 per cent. Rot rhe fraction of nrw
immigrants an wtlfarcwho chose to live
order ,M&& ~FREIZ 1997 Gold
in California r”se sharply, from 36.9 t”
45.4 per cent. Thr evidence, therefore, Investment Guide ,and see how
suggests a clustering effect upon immi- your inv&tmen~ ian be &cted
and grow in,the world’s oldest foti
.,~,.
Today’s immipants of wealth.:.GOLD.
This ‘.free guihe ‘$11’ gives you
are relatively less
everything you’ need tb know
skilled than those who about investing in gold. .,.toda)‘s
best gold buys; future trends of
came two or three
the~dollar, stock+; and the bestway
decades ego. to ,protecr your
family’s ‘savings ‘1,’
grant wclfzre recipients 3s California’s and retirement.
benetjr lcvcl rose nbovc thnt of “rher Don’t be caught
smrcs.
uninformed. Call
The existcncc of ethnic networks and
magnetic effects implies rhat immigrants today and r&w
rrspond to variations in welfare bene- your FREti iPp7.
fits: As a result, it should nar be r”” Gold Investnrent
surprising that the welfare problrm in Guide; and learn :tihy the “stiait
the immigrant population has grown
&I&” is b$& goid NOW!
considerably in rhc pasr two decades. ., ~.
In 1996, after years “f C”ncer” Over
the link bcrwcen welfare and immigra- CALL NOW!!
tion, Congress included a number of
immigrallt-rrlated provisions in rhc wel-
fare-reform bill. Accrxding t” rhc Con-
I-800-366-7925
grcssionnl Budget Ofiice, ahn”st half of Meritt Financial Services
rhc $54.billion savings in this legisla-
J
/ NAI’IONAL REVIEW 35
 tion can be traced directly to the rcstric-
Cons on immigrant use of welfare. The
rvelt~re-reform bill banned most woes
>f assis~ancc for immigrants who would
cnfer the country after August 22, 1996
(wirh rhe ban being lifted when the im-
mi$ints become citizens), and it mm-
dated that most non-citizens present in
the country on August 22, 1996, be
kicked off the SSI and Food Stamp rolls
wirhin a year. The welfare-reform legis-
lation was a capitulation by Congress to
the idea that the problem was indeed
welfare, ,,“I immigration.
Congress was wrong, however. Even
before the ink dried tbr rumblings had
begun that rhc rcsrricrions on immi-
granr USCof welfare were onerous, inhu-
mane, and unjust. The immigranr provi-
sions brought together a number of
powerful interest groups all of which
lobbied hard for their repeal. Governors
and mayors could read bctwcen tbc
lines of the welfare-reform bill: Hun-
dreds of thousands of current (and fu-
ture) immigrants on the federal payroll
would, more likely than not, become
chxges of state and local govermnents.
After alI, someone would have to bear
tbc costs of supporting the disabled,
,nany of whom ace elderly and I,“[
employable. Immigrant-rights organiza-
tions stressed the unfairness of a piece
of legislation that made no provision for
legs1 immigrants who bad paid their
faxes, had been eligible to he d,-afted,
and had contributed in many ntber ways
Co U.S. economic life. Finally, as the
shutting-off dare approaches, the ever-
alert media have begun airing case stud-
ies of veqr ii1 immigrants who received
lctrcrs from the Social Security Admini-
stration notifying them that theis- bene-
fits would be cut off within montb~.
Not surprisingly, it seems as if these
in~vx groups will carry the dny. Con-
gas has already voted to extend the
deadline for cutting off SSI bene-
tics co ihe d,sablcd. And many Ott
the resrrjctions on immigrant use
of public assisrancc will probably
bc repealed. An important com-
^.
porientat theimlgeragree”x”t
reached recently betwee,, the Re-
publicans in Cbngress and l’resi-
dent Clinton allocates funds for
rhc provision of aid to disahlcd
““WClf,ZC,lS.
The unraveling of this ‘major
.^, giccc of social legislation teaches
us many 1cssons. No one nu~ch
disputes the fart that immigrant
use of~social benefits grew rapidly
36 NAY,ONAL KEYIEW , ,lJNE 16,
in the pasr three decades. So it is hard
to argue that the restrictions on immi-
grants in tbc wclhre-rrform bill were
based on faulty analysis or data. Con-
grsr raw an actual problem--rising wel-
fare UC by immignnts-and tried to do
somerhmg about it.
Our political system finds ir difflcuit,
if not impossible, to dismantle any part
of the safety net protecting thr econom
ically disadvantaged, no matter how
serious may bc the intended conse-
qucnccs of that safety net. It is all but
unimaginable rbar the day will come
when TV cameras will record for pos-
terity rhe insrut on immignot Alzbeim-
et patient loses his SSI benefits, is evicr-
cd from his apnrtment or nursing home,
and ends up wandrring aimlessly
around the streets of his ncighhorhood.
T is irresponsible to dismiss rhr
problems associated with welfare
I and immigration by passing the
hlamc~off on the welfare state--and by
asserting that we could solve the proh-
Irm by repealing all rhe programs that
make up the welfare state. It is far from
clear chat the rcmoval of immigrants
from the welfare rolls today would gel)-
crate lor~g-~u?r budgetary savings-par-
ricularly for those programs wbcre the
rvclfare state remains active, such as the
provision of emergency medical care f”
the needy. PI-~-natal care, for instance, is
far cheaper than the cost we would have
IO bear when an immigrant woman who
had not seen an obstetrician arrived at a
hospital envzrgcncy room to deliver her
baby. Put differently, the cosr of prouid-
ing last-minure services to immigrants
could easily cncecd the cost of putting
than on a “retainer” through wclfarc
bcheficr.
LM!; point is simple: It is unclear that
WCwant to bear the political, s”ci:d, and
xonomic costs of removing immigrants
,997
nlveady in the United Stares from the
welfare rolls. That dots not mean that
WC give up on reforming the immigra-
tion system. But wc lmusc adapt “or
]mmigration policy to this political real-
ity. In the end, it will be much easier
nnd cheaper to reduce the wclfarc~ costs
of immigration not by “ending welfare
as we know it,” but by rrforming immi-
gration policy.
If WC truly u’ant to reduce the num-
ber of immigrants on the welfare rolls,
we will have to restrict immigrant access
to the welfare system ar rhc point where
the restrictions are most likely to be
effective and stick-at rhe point of en-
try. We ,nusf accept the fact that the
cooscquences of the misbvided immi-
gration policies that we pursued”;” the
past rhrcc decades are here to stay. Sunk
costs, as e~~n”m,sf~ say, arc sunk.
What types of point-of-entry restric-
tions might we waot to consider? It is
obvious, it Ins been said before, but it is
worth saying again. Immigrant use of
welfare ,vograms would be greatly rc-
duccd ifwe improved the skill composi-
tion of the immigrant flow. It makes a
great deal of rconomic sense to restrict
the entry of persons who will probably
become public charges. WC could set up
a point systenljr L Canada--where the
success of a visa application would dc-
pend not only on whether the applicant
had relatives in the United Stares, but
also on the applicanr’s education, age,
“““patl”“, and job prospects. The
point system would also nullify the in-
fluence of efbnic networks “c magnets
ill generating CYCCSS use of welfare pro-
grams by immigrants.
In the absence of such point-of-entry
restrictions, some swes have begun to
take unilarcral actions that wmkcn the
link between immigrarion nod wcllirc
\vithin their borders. “l-be wclfw-re-
form hill gives stares much more Iecwxy
in setting bcnctit icvcls. States
will now compete when setting
welfxe benefits. Immigrant-re-
covmg states, such as California,
have a huge incentive to race K”
the bottom in benefits as the)
attempt to reduce the tiscnl bur-
den imposed by the immigration
of less-skilled rvorkcrs.
It is rcmarkablr that while the
hcatcd debate over tbc rclaripn-
ship between welfare and imfn-
gration dominates the public
arem, a c”,,sc,,sus has evolved
that fhc pins from immigration
to the U.S. cconr,“7y 2s a wholr
 xc small. The National Academy of
Sciences reports that immigration gen-
ewm a net gain for U.S. natives of at
most $10 billion annually, or about
$120 per native houxhold in the Unit-
ed~ Stares. At the same time, however,
the National Academy reports chat im-
migration imposes a $1,174 annual tis-
cd burden on the typical native house-
hold in California, and a $229 annual
fiscal burden on the typical native
household in New Jersey.
WCml1 have not rrally addressed the
problems introduced by rising use of
welfare benefits in the immigrant pope-
larion, and the debate over the welfare-
reform bill indicates that we will not
solw these problems until we tackle the
much larger question of what type of
munigration policy the United Stxes
should pursue. 0

immierants and native residents wet 16

years:ld.
California, Here We Come Almost half of natives earn less than
$20,000 annually-compared to two-
thirds of immigrants. Twentynine per
cent of natives earn more than $35,000;
only 15 per cent of immigrants do so.

I
MMIGRATION optimism abounds Sometimes the confusion seems delib- Since less than 2 per cenf of income-
among pundits and politicians- crare. In Seprember 1996, the Census tar revenue in California is generated by
and understandably. America over Bureau released a report entitled School those earning below $20.000 per year,
‘time has absorbed countless immi- Ewollmmt-Social nid Emrzomi~ Chava~- immigrants overall are not “making a
~grants. But as official reports and demo- twistits of Studentr. Data showed that big contribution economically.” And
graphic trends reveal, immigrants are between 1974 and 1994, when elemen- poor immigrzats with children are a net
becoming America’s new underclass. ray- and higll-school enrollment de- public cost because the largest public
On April 8, the Bureau of the Censay clined by 565,000 students, Hispanic en- cspense of poor people is the education
released a report entitled, The Foreign- r”llmcnr n”“ethcless increased by of their children.
Bow Pq%&tion: 1996. It is sobering. 3,048,000, black enrollment by 767,000, The Los Angeles Unified Schoo! Dis-
Median personal income for immigrants and other races (mostly Asians) by trict had the largest enroUment growth
is $14,772, compared to $17,835 for 1,650,OOO. How so? The answer is that in the U.S. in the last decade-not only
natives. The poverty rate for the for- white enrollmcnr declined by 6 million. immigrant children but also the citizen
eign-born is 22.2 per cent, in contrast In the report, just below the table children of immigrant parenrs. And
fo the native rate of 12.9 per cent. And containing fhcsc tigurrr, is the state- since 1990, births to immigrant moth-
among children the numbers arc WOISC. CL’Shave accounted fbr 44 per cent of a,,
In 1993, 41 per cem of immigrant chil- ‘ncome Ran6e births in California. If a family with
dren lived in poverry, as compared to $1 to $9,999 four children earns less than $20,000
22 per cent of native children. Most per year-and many such families have
al:
troubling of all is that 35.6 per cent four or more children-the tax revenue
of immigrants are not high-school s50’,,00 oc ,,,“;e they contribute does not cover the cost
graduates, versus only 16 per cent of ’ of educating those children (about
natives. ment that enrollment growth results $22,000 annually if they spealt tnghsn).
Moreover, the number of new immi- from echo boom “which was due pri- This trend in California has caused a
grants who lack education and skills is marily IO the enttaoce of ‘baby boom’ huge education funding deficit.
not declmng; of is growing. Primary women (born 1946-1964) into their Yet immigrants also account for 65
causes are the continued flow of illegal .primc childbearing years.” Again, did per cent of California’s 4 million high-
aliens and a family-rcunitication policy no one wonder why the baby-boomers, school dropouts. According to data from
which admits more than half a million almost 311of them either white or black, the Anne E. Casey Foundation, Califor-
immigrant relatives yearly without re- had Hispanic and Asian children? nia has the largest number of children in
gard to their educational attainment. But bwenucrats have no monopol) the nation-one of every four--living
Many people resist the connection on confilsion. Joel Kotkin of Pepperdine with parents who dropped out of high
between immigration and these negative University repeatedly asserts that “Im- school. And student success is often tied
trends-but it is clear. Thus the Census migrants are making a big contribution to the level of parental education. The
Bureau released its annual poverty sta- economically. During the 19x0s danger of course is that an underclass,
‘1 tistics in September 1996, showing that the number of families with incomes uneducated and unskilled, is now going
‘{/ between 1994 and 1995, the median over $35,000 in Los Angeles grew mote into its second and third generations.
Ii/ housrhold income of blacks increased than four-fold among Asians and grew Common sense says that millions of
ul; by 3.6 per cent, while Hispanic housc- five times among Latinos, far outdis- uneducated immigrants do not benefit
:I;; hold income declined by 5.1 pet cent. ran&g whites” (“Nativists on the Left,” America and rhat their hard work will
7 And over the longer period IYYO to WaN Stmt Journal, July 25, 1995). As not ncccssarily bring financial success to
II 1995, when the poverty population in- Mr. Kotkin fails to provide the base num- them. Immigration optimism feels&rod,
creased by 2.X million, Hispanics ac- bet of famiiics, one could easily be mis- but it is a feeling, not a fact.
!
2, -~ counted for 90 per cent of the increase led into thinking that California immi- -LINDA THOM
‘j and Asians for 20 per cent. (This adds granu arc prospering.
e, up to more than 100 per cent because The table above shows the income Miss Thorn is a retired budget analyst fir
I the poverty of ocher groups declined.) distribution as of 1995 of California die Sonto Barbnm Corr,ltr Adminisrrator.
I
I] 38 NATIONAI. RE”lEW , IUNE 16. ,997

Country Time
An excessof immigration urrdermines the
kational culture.
GLYNN CUSTRED
IT
HE historian Benedict Andcr-
son observes that a nation is “an
imagined political community.”
By this he means that 3”‘~ nation, even
the smallest and most homogeneous, is
so large and complex rhar its members
must collectively imagine what holds
them together, as against the many con-
flitting inrcrests pulling them apart.
Such a collective image includes shared
meanings, myths, and values conveyed
in a common language, realized in na-
tional symbols, and supported by formal
instirurions, especially public education.
Illegal Means a Lcit
ARTICIPANTS in the immigra-
tion debate often promote mea-
II ures to conrrol illegal immigra-
tion as necessary to preserve public
support for legal entries. The image usu-
ally employed is “closing the back door
of illegal immigration to keep open the
front door of legal immigration.”
Though such support for the rule of
law is heartening, they betray a funda-
mental misunderstanding of how immi-
grarion works. The ineluctable fact is
that legal and illegal immigration are
two parts of the same process.
Despite various undulations, legal and
illegal immigration have increased sin,-
~l~aneously avet three decades, Legal
lmmigrarion grew from 3.3 million in
the 1960s to 4.5 million in rhe 1970s m
7.3 million in the 1980s. At the same
rime, apprehensions of i,llegal aliens by
the Border Patrol (an imperfect mea-
sure, but the only one available) in-
creased from 1.6 million in the 1960s to
8.3 million in the 1970s to 11.9 million
in the 1980s.
Mr. Krihorian is executiw director of the
Ccnter,b Imnihrralion Studies.
The greater the cultural consensus, the
more effective the political process and
rhc more stable rhe social order. Thus
thr nation is as much a culrurai as ic is a
political community.
Immigration, especially ar high levels,
has a natural tendency ro disrupt this
relationship. Yet rhe United Sratrs has
successfully absorbed millions of irnmi-
grams throughout ifs history despite
bouts of nativism. Peter Salins, rhc
auhor of Arrirnilarim Amsricm Sglc,
describes this process as a contract
brnveen the newcomer and dlc nation
While overlapping graphs don’t prove
anything in themselves, it is no coinci-
dence that legal and illegal immigration
have risen in tandem. Communities of
legal immigrants serve as incubators for
illegal immigration, providing housing
and jobs for their compatriots who
haven’t yet managed fo procure a green
card. In fact, legal and illegal aliens
often live under the same roof, members
of the same family.
Let’s look ar rhe countries immigmnts
come from. Mexico is the number-one
source of legal immigrants-and of dle-
gal immigrants. Of the top 20 source
countries of illegal aliens, 13 are in the
top 20 source counrcies of I@ immi-
grants. What’s more, ilIe@ aliens make
up, a significant proportion of many
major immigrant groups: 40 per ccnf of
Mexican immigrants, almost half of Sal-
vadorms, 18 pet cent of Canadians, 14
per cent of Dominicans, 10 per cent of
Jamaica, and 8 per cent of Filipinos,
0°C of the perverse clcmrnts of our
legal-immigrarion system is xmazingly
long wdring lists for green cards. The
Stare Department reporrs rhtr thrrc xc
3.6 million people qualified for imn$
JUNE
1
whcrcby immigrants arc expected to
accrpt the national lnnguagc and culture
in rcn~n for full membership in the
political and the cultural community.
Beginning in the 196Os, however, a
new and aggressive way of imagining
the nation emerged from the univcrsi-
ties and began ro spread to ocher ins&
tutions. “Multiculturalism” emphasizes
nor what holds a nxion together, bur
rather what drives ir aparr. Mulriculrur-
alists attack rhc very concrpr of linguis-
tic and cultural wiry as simply a way of
oppressing ethnic and racial minorities.
To a multiculruralisr the world is a
place of perpetual grirvancr in which
justicr is achieved only by srrcngrhcning
the scare so that it can better distribute
benefits along racial and ethnic lines.
The success of multiculrunEsm can bc
Mr. Custred, a professor of anthropolo~ at
California Stale University at Hopmod,
was one of the originutom of Pmposirion
209.
gration to the U.S. but who have nor
yet received one of the limired number
of visas. The wait can bc decades long-
Filipino siblings of Americxl citizens
now entering have waited almost twenty
years, and the same people applying
today might wait more than forty years.
Obviously waits of this kind suggest a
seriously flawed mechanism for select-
mg immigrants--and they encourage
those who have been selected but asked
to wait, simply fo settle with their relay
twes illegally.
The late Barbara Jordan’s Commis-
sion on Immigration Reform said these
“extraordinary backlogs undermine
the credibility of ou? policy.” By reduc-
ing respect for our law, the absurd wait-
ing lists rncourage people to flout other
rules. Also, political gimmicks like the
Visa Lowry contribute to the climate
of contempt for the law.
Last year, about one-quarrcr of “lrgxl”
immigrants were, in fact, illegal aliens
using the legal immigration system to
launder their sfatu--a figure more than
triple Immigration and Naturalization
Service expectations. And wirh regard to
Mexico specificx~ly, an internal Srace
Department surrey has found that
upward of 90 per cent of legal immi-
grants horn that largest source of ne\v-
corners are illegal aliens.
Clearly cutting lcgnl immigrntion is a
prerequisite to controlling rhc latter.
-MARK KKKOP.IW
16, 1997 / NATIONAL REVIEW 39
!,
rneasurcd by rhc cxrent to which it has
pcncrrated the schools, univrrsitics,
go~rmmcnr, 2nd large corpanrions. A
/I The hi& inwv&ration
I Levelsof 1880-l 920
prodcued sindar
1 problems.
I demoralized Nathan Glazer rccenrly de-
1 clarrd, “We’re all multiculruralists now.=
i In fact, most Americans still firmly hold
to the values that define the American
I national culture. Onr of the most pow-
Criui weapons of multiculturalism,
preferences, has come under attack in
the mum xnd, more .spccracularly, from
racial
Proposition 209.
~Me~nwhile, rhe rerms of immigration
have changed. Newcomers incrrasingly
assimilate not into 3 common cultural
and political community, hut rather into
;Ii 1 society where the state is separated
from thr nation, and where the nation is
I’/z: fingmcnting into contending ethnic and
racial inrrrest groups. In addition, elites
1: in husinrss, government, and education
either acquiesce in or actively promote
:his halkanization.
Those, like Prter Salins, whose slogan
is “Immigration Yes, Multiculturalism
No!” mu% confront the painful qurs-
tion of whether continuing high levels
of immigration create thr conditions in
which this multiculturalism thrives.
Common sense suggests so. High immi-
gration fostrrs ethnic enclaves in which
immigrants retain their original lan-
gllagc and cultum; this provides ethnic
pressure groups with apparently rcason-
able grounds for bilingual arrangements
in schools, voting, the workpi>cc, etc.;
and ordinary Americans, swing thcsc as
temporary concessions co immigmnts
adjuring to American lift, rcalizc only
lxe in the day that rhcy are 11,~perma-
ncnf rules of a halkanizcd socicry. A
series in rhe San Fran&o Eramincr
rwcaled that 86 languages are now wed
in California’s schools, that 25 per ccm
of pupils are “limited English pro&
cient,” and that rcsring in orher lan-
guages will soon he introduced.
The high immigration levels of
1880-1920 produced similar problems
,, ..I -._.
~“0 me Sllnllar loeology at “Cultural
Juialism”--until rcstrictionisr legisla-
%on produced more assimilable immi-
grant numbers and grenter culrural co-
hcsion. So WC m”s[ now pay closer
40 NATIONAI. RE”lEW, ,“NE
aff~nfmn to immigration, not only sion will mean less social stability and
clamping down on illegal z&ens, hut more cd~nic and class tension-none of
also rnking a more rntional oolicv TV-
I ,
which bodes well for the marker.
ward legal~mmigration. Then there are lihcrtarians who object
Some consrrvarives whonc world view I” law c0nrr01ling free passagr across
extends only to the free market com- hordsrs. Yet sovcrcignry includes rhe
plain rhar immigration rrsrricrion is right of a nation to control its borders
economically imsomld. This ignores the for the benefit of rhose who liar within
fact rhar economic well-being dewlops them. To undermine that sovereignty
in a Gcier social and culrurai context. and to ignore rhc nrcesaary congruence
Immigration today is the importation brtwccn the national cr~lrurc and the
nor just of labor, hut also of clients for state is to crcafe for oursclvcs a quite
the “diversity” industry, whose cxpan- unnrcrssary dcgrer of instability. 0
Migrating Species hI
Environmentalists worry that emsystems may be
affected by immigration.
JOHNA. BADEN & DOUGLAS S. NOONAN
E
NVIRONMENTAIISTS have Frederic Wagner writes, “Today WC
long held that mvironmental have rrmoved fhosc constraints, hut the
prohlcmn come down to one is- hrrcding urges remain.”
sue: population All our environmental In human and animal ecology, popu-
woes, from specirs extinction to global lation and environmcnral quality arc
warming. can ulrimatcly be traced hack intimately linked. Moreover, populn.
co human population pressures. Con? inqxxt on rhe environment is
In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrofc rhc hesr- often very site-specific. The United
selling Population Bomb. Despite his in- States is not suffrl-ing from foe many
XCIK~K predictions of doom, tradirion- bison; Ycllowsronc Park is.
al greens still zralously cling to his And, when it comes to local Ihuman
thesis. According to Claude Martin, di- populations, few would deny the lpcomi-
rector of World Wildlife Fund Intcrnz- “cnr 1.01~ of immigration. The L1.S.
rional, “Conventional wisdom has it Ccnsrls Xurrau prrdicrs thx immi-
that the world’s rapid increase in popu- grants, legal 01 othewi~c, will hr rc-
laiion is largely rcrponsihlc for its cnv- sponsihlc for two-thit-ds of- the (net U.S.
~.on~ncrml dcgr3dariol>.” Bvcn self-pro- polxd:xirm gro\vfh by 2050. Thnnhs
claimed optimist Gregg tasterbrook lsrgcly fo inlmigmtion, California’s
snys, “Human population growrh is nt populnrion is projcctcd co jump anothcl
once rhe most importanr and worst 67 per cent in jusr 13 years. And, when
understood of ecological issues.” the pqmlarion changes, so will rhc
The problem is nor solely with human attendant en\~ironmcnral co~~ccrns. Lasr
spcaes. Consider Yellowsrone National year, a report of rhc Prcsidcnr’s Council
Park. Searly all independent observers on Sustainahic Devrlopmcnt bluntly
decry rhc severr dercrioration of rbar stated, “This is a scnsirive issue, bur
ecosys~n~ caused by overpopularions of redwing immigt-ation levels is a ncccs-
elk and bison. Generations ago, preda- sxy part of populxion stabilizxion 2nd
tars like wolves and Indian hunters hal- the drive toward sustainability.”
Jncrd wildlife populations. Ecologist Garrrr Hardin, professor rmerims of
CCOlOgy at the University of Califoplia
3f unta Harbara, UTItcs, “Once a” rnv;.
Mr. Endm ia chainnon cd‘ the Foundation
for Rerenreh an Economies and the Bnuiron- romncntalisr faces the issIx of popnia-
mcnt. Mr. Noonan is ” rerrnrch ossimnt al fion growth, he finds he cannof avoid
FREE and the Gallofin Institute, bath in the immigrarion probicm.” It would
&zrman. .wontana. make sense, thcrcfbrc, if cnvironrncnral
16, 1997
 gnnps were to incorporate immigrarion
issues into their policy platforms, just 3s
they do with population. What is
Greenpeace’s policy on immigration? Or
THE SOCIAL CONTRACT’
PRESS
rhe Sierra Club’s? They have none. Even Our Four Most Popular Titles
Zero Popularion Growth demurs.
Why is immigration policy so inrrac-
table for green groups?
For one reason, green groups are ryp-
idly associated with modern liberal
politics. Their prefcrrcd strategy for
resolving environmental problems has
been IO rely heavily on government
coercion. Surely Al Gore and Carol
Browner (at the Environmentd Protec-
tion Agency), cm usher us toward a The Case Against Immigration
new, greener society--if only we give by Roy Beck (W.W. Norton, $24.00)
them sufficient power. Stalking the Wild Taboo
There is a further consideration. The by Garretf Hardin (The Social Contract Press. pb $13.00)
greens’ usual politics of protecting flies I a
The Camp of the Saints
over people and swamps over jobs byJean Flaspail (The Social Contract Press, pb $12.95)
comes dangerously close to elitism. F&Charting America’s Future
Greens strive nervously to differentiate by Roy Beck (The Social Contract Press, pb $9.95)
themselves from elitists. Their cause,
they tell themselves, is the plight of the Call toll free I-800-352-4843
common man: the tired, the poor, the Free catalog avaIlable. Visit us at www.tscpress.com.
wretched refuse. Emma Lazarus’s words We also publish The Social Contract, a quarterly public policy ioumal
arc a clarion call to Nanny Scare aduo- focusing on population, immigration, language and national unity questions.
cates within enviro groups. $25 per year. Call for a free sample copy.
Thus, in 1994, when California’s THESCCUL CONTQAclPRUS, 3,611 E. Mnehell St.. suite 4. Pmoskey, MI 4.wm
Proposirion 187 sought to cur off pub-
lic services from illegal immigrants, it
drew fierce opposition from the Calif-
ornia League of Conservation Voters.
Executive Director Sam Schuchar ex-
plained char, although Prop. 187 wasn’t
primarily an environmental issue, “We
felt like we had to do it just to make
sure we were on the righr side of history
on this one. Environmentalists
wanted fo show that we are on the side
~of people, not just cndangcred species.”
Bleeding hearts trumped sustainability
The same is true for the Sierra Club
-perhaps the nation’s most influential
environmrnfal group-which takes po-
licy stances on everything from play-
grounds to popularion. In the 197Os,
the group committed irsrlf IO zero pop-
ulation growth in thr United States. Yet
after years of internal debate, in Febm- lmrodudnghe richerrounding,rwote-condd BoresA~-o”rdcWa”r~
musicrystm stereoReview j
ary 1996 the Club rcsolvcd to “rake no calledk “...p&bly the besr-q&wed swnd manypeaplchavecvcrheard.”Rurthardidn’tstop $
position on immigration.” With its u frommakingtheAcaurticWave’muskiyncm wyenberm we rraned by making rhc round even
richer, dem, and mwe naturaL Xx sound fram ax patented waveguide rpcaker r&wlo~
members divided during an election
is so &like, ya~‘lI want to run if 9. Sa we madethat ensirr as WEII,by adding a crrdir card~ied
year, Sierra Club leadership meekly said, remore cond rhar I& yau operate rhr ~yrtcm horn yw~ hvuritc chair. Whedxr you’re lirrrning
“No ~omnent.” to theAhUFMradioor yuurhvrxirr CD,icad& up IObig irnprwmenrr, in a vev ~maliryrtem.
Immigration has not gone gently into
that good night, however. In the words Call today E800-89%BOSE, ext. A595
of retired engineering professor Alan MimdM,.
N.,,IU?,~.”
I,i”., bd,+ L,Ti,+ I
Kuper, a long-time Sierra Club member
from Ohio, “We can’t win if the popula-
tion keeps growing.” He argues char the I”..
EL w h Ca~,~ran.
Lk..COD~*lsl,ml
\lo”n”“rh&m. &,m9,,,. a= 1
well-being of immigrants and everyone
i

,“NE 16, ,997 , NATlONAL REVIEW 41


clsc is ulrimatcly jropardircd by popula-
tion growth due to immigration. Dr.
Kupcr has initiated a referendum f” re-
‘We can’t win if
the populntion
keepsgrowing.’
verse the Club’s 1996 policy. If it suc-
ceeds-and it may-the Sierra Club will
have c” acknowledge the realities of bal-
ancing immigration and population
with other values, such as individui
weil-being
Inreresongly, a similar dilemma faces
Overriding Elites
Political leaders whodefend rzlrrent levels of immigration
substitute their own will for that of their constituents.
ROY BECK
HEN Congress considered
reform of 3” immensel)
popular immigration policy
in 1965, a Harris poll found the public
opposed by a 2 f” 1 margin. Americans
objected t” any change in the composi-
tion of the immigrant scream, and even
more TO any increase in the numbcrs.
Congress changed the lxw anyway,
promising that numbcrs wuuld not rise.
Immigration bega” r” rise immediatc-
Iy. But Congrrss ncirhcr ‘“rrecrcd its
misrake nor backed up its promise. For
rhree drcades, Congress has consistently
prorrcrcd higher and higher numbers
while national polls hzvc found larger
and larger majorities of Americans
wntin~ those numbers cut back.
Last year, the IVali Sweet Juvmzl
found Americans preferring curs in
immigration by a 3 to 1 margin. Con-
ycss spill turned back a major effort at
immigration reform and protcctcd a
numerical level that is n”w quint@ the
annual immigration of the prr-1965 era.
Indeed, polling suggests rhcrc is nt,
Mr. Beck has written tw, books about immi-
~~nlion and is Washinglon Editor o,f The
Social Contract, n quarterly journal.
42 NATIONAL REVIEW, JUNE
mvironmcnral groups on ovcrgmzing in
Yrllomstone. While elk and bison rcs”~c
to stalvaiion rations like frrr bark and
pine ncedlcs, the Narional Wildlife t%d-
eration shrinks from culling the herds.
Ovcr”opuiation is a bie Drohlem. it
con&s: but limiting & ‘number’ “f
newcomers--he they elk or immigranrs
-is nor an option
Or is ii? There may c”mr a time when
they rccognizc tie inevitability of tradc-
offs to ‘“nscrvc scarce ~cs”uccs. Afrcc
all, their position is that you can’t have
unlimited growth without destroying
the planet. It will be inreresti”g to see
how they grapple with the question of how
to save the planet and evcryonc who
wants to bc on it at the same time. 0 And Amct&ns
demographic segment in which the ma-
jority favors current policy. But this
broad public opposition has not trans.
larcd into citizen action. Perhaps it is
not inrcnse enough t” m”vc people to
apply direct pressure un Congress. Or
perhaps social taboos bold Americans
back from expressing anti-immigration
opinions. For whatever reason, few
members of Congress have rcceivcd a
heavy enough volume of mail or pcrsis-
will cnougll ohjcctims nt few-hdl
meetings I” convince them that they
have much co lose polirically by sup-
porting high immigrzrion lcvcls.
Narional lobbying groups, on the
orher hand, havr been anything but re-
luctant t” voice their support for high
immigrarion. And their power co cause
political trouble might ewn confuse
ron~ressmen about what grassroars
opinion is.
It is difficult t” think of any other
issue on which the national “rganiza-
Cons have so uniformly spoken for a
position that is opposite the opinions of
their own members. Considrr pcrbaps
the two loudest voices against immigra-
tion reform last year: business organiza-
tions and Hispanic groups. A Kopcr
16, 1997
1
poll showed rh:a when offcrrd severill
types of curs, 70 per ccm of Amrricans
said total immigration should bc
brought down 1~ Icasc t” b&w 300,000
a year. The “pinions of Hispanics dif-
fcrcd sharply from the “Hispanic” posi-
rims advocated in Washington. Roper
found Hispanics favored deep cucq in
current immigrarion levels, by a 7 IO 1
margin over those who favored smaller
cuts, today’s lcvrls, or wen higher im-
migrarion.
Roper did nor have a carcgory that
prccisrly corresponded t” the consricu-
er~ies of rhc business groups. Hut a
category of L‘er~~~ti~~s and profcssion-
als” favored deep cuts by a 12 r” 1 ratio.
in the highcsc ifzomc
category (above $75,000 a year) favored
deep cuts by a 15 to I ratio. Yet, m”sr
observers say rhat rhc power of the Na-
tionxl Association of Manufacrurcrs,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other
business groups was key to scuttling last
year’s provisions f” end family chai”
migration--a rrform ndvocnted by the
lrirdan Commission and by the leader-
ship of House and Senate panels on im-
migration.
Even m”re confounding was the lob-
bying “f-the national office of rhc AFL-
Cl0 against reform of chain migration.
Though narional labor icadcrs have his-
torically led opposition ro the importa-
tion of foreign labor, rhcy recognized
on this occasion that as a business, the
AFL-CIO was sreing its membership
(and dues) grow only becausr of for-
eign-born workers. S” the uni”” leadcr-
ship ignored the views of m”st bluc-
collar workers, who Koper found
supported deep cuts by a 20 to 1 ratio.
In the House, the chain-migration
reform would have succredcd with chc
cllnllg’ of only 2x V”fCS. The i&l-,,,
lost p~~imarily hccausc of net “pposirion
Corn one Midwcstcm and three Norrh-
caswrn dclcgations: New York (ncr of
25 wfcs againsr rrfnl-m), Michigan
(14), Pennsylvania (lo), and Massachu-
sctts (9). Yet Ropsr found rhe residrnrs
“f rhc Midwest and Norrhcasr were rhe
mm supportive of reform. The ratios of
supporr for deep CUESwcrc: Northeast,
24 ro 1; Miduw, 21 ro 1; South, 12 ro
1; and Wcsr, 10 to 1.
Washington’s religious lobbies haur
been relcntl~ss in opposing nearly aq
measure that nm,ld reduce legal or ill&
gal immigrarion. Their influcncc is rspc-
:ially importanr hccausc ir lends a moral
CaSr to 1 position rhlt orhcrwisr might
bc see” ns a selfish nrtcmpt by industry
 co profit from chap labor, for immigm-
rio” lawyers IO benefit from “lore busi-
ncss, fur land speculators co profit from
nlnssive popdatio” growth, and for eth-
“ic organizations fo gain political influ-
&cc. But thr religious lobbies have wry
lircle support from rhc pews. No lobby
.har bcrn more passionare about keeping
immigration high than the Jewish and
Catholic Washington ofiicrs, yet Roper
found that Jews by an 8 IO 1 margin
and Catholics by.an 11 ro 1 margin sup-
ported deep ems.
~Similarly, Ralph Rcrd may have
turned a number of Rrpublican vow in
the House last year with his last-minute
lccter from the Christian Coalition ad-
vising against ch:iin-migration reform.
A”d liberal mainlinr Protestant lobbies
also actively resisted cuts. Yet Roprr
found 21 fo 1 support for deep cue
among all Prorestants. I” fact, the more
devour an America”, the more likely his SARKES TARZiAN /NC
support for CUIS. The ratio t-or deep curs
among people who described thcm-
Selves as “not vc$ religious was 13 to
1; among those who said they were Sarkes Tanian Television
“very” religious, it was 17 co 1. Sarkes Tarzian Radio
As for the Congressional Black Cau-
cus, ir overwhelmingly rejected immi~
grarion reform. But rhar was not tbc
way black Americans saw the issue.
Roper found non-Hispanic blacks want-
ed deep cuts by an 11 to 1 margin.
Besides measuring supporr for deep
cuts among Hispanics (7 to 1) and “on. HOI~ORINGEXCELLENCEINHIGHERED~~CATIO
Hispanic whites (16 to I), Roper found
support at a 6 to 1 ratio among “orh- THE1997-1998TEMPLETON
HONORROLLS
AWNS
us,” a category primarily consisting of
Asian-Americans. Groups purportedly
representing Asian-Americans arc wide- FormerTreasuy Secreraly\vi,,iam
ly crcditcd with winning Presidcnr Clin- Simon, who chaired rhe blue-ribbon r&c-
ro” back from his endorsement of Bar- rim panel for rhc awards, has said:
bara Jordan’s reforms. And this reversal Cerrrude Hiwnelfar~have bm “The Honor Rolli are AT r&i of
WPEcrucial. Until the President abiuprly honored for rhrir iwriiburionr II) a rigorous and drmanding process
announced his opposition to reform scholar&p by rhe Jahn whereby rhe lending inxiturion..
after some now-questionable fund- Trmplrron I%undarion. ncholarr, and books iu &n&u
raising among Asian-Americans, Texas Dr. Fricdmrn x&cd rhc higher educarion hrvr been
Democrat John Bryant (mnking mcm- $25,000 Liferimc Achievement idenrificd sod &scribed.”
her of the House panel on immigration) Award and DC. Himmelfirb ieccivcd receive rhr ZOO-pagebook d,;lr
had anticiparcd support from more than
he $25.000 award for Ouutanding describes rhe honorcrr, c~n~aa ,he
enough Democrats ro end chain-mi-
Conrempon~ Uook fur her C,< Srudics insrirutc, which
gration.
Dc-Momlimrion 0fSmiq
In short, every segment of Americans
The awardr ax given out in
is being misrrpresented by its national
lobbying voice in Washington. Fill in conjunction wirh rhc Templeron Send CO1% PO, Box 4431. W,lmingron,
the blanks differently and Harvey Rob- Honor Rdr program, which recog 1X307-0431. Or phone
ufs of the Miami T;mer might have nizes ex~ellrncr in four wrcgoiier wirhin l-800-526-7022. E-mail orden may be
ken speaking for any scgmenr of Amer. higher education: colicgrr and uniwenirirr: iem co: rcmpleron@isi.org. Oidcri can dso
hns last year whrn he wrofe: “Ap- deparrmenrs and sprcial programs; rch&rly be faxed IO 1-302-652-1760.
parrntly, in recent decades, our Black booh and rextbooks: and prafeson.
leaders and other prominent Black pub-
lic speakers have been most timid in
 speaking up for our own interests on
this issue We American Blacks must
once again bs vigilant and again dili-
pldy “lOU”f an intense protest mow-
menc against high immigration so thar
Un-American Activities
If immigration destroys America, does that make
the people who favor it urr-American?
PETER BRIMELOW
New York City Mayor Rudolph Giulimi
bar hrmtd m bir fi/fow Repwblicnm in
Cqqrcsr, calling tbcir welfnl lnw ‘5~2.
Amwican” bscmrrr it de& m&mmto
l& immi&nftr. -LPI, May 8
A
H, the immigration dcbarc-
that’s what I love abour it.
There’s nonr of this nonsense
about “My distinguished colleague” and
“WiU the gentlemao from Armpit yleare
yield?” WC don’t rake prisoners here.
All in good fun, of course. Civilians
starrlcd by the abuse that is quite mu-
rinely exchanged by us immigration de-
barcrs need co bear in mind Samuel
Johnson’s definition, in his Dictionq,
of “[expletive dclercd]“: “a turn of
endearmenr between sailors.”
Personally, I don’t even find Rudolph
Giuli&s tergiversations (see above) cs-
pecially distrrssing. Needless ‘io say, leg-
islation to ensu~c rhar immigration is
nor being perversely subsidized by the
American raxpaycr annof possihlp bc
regarded ils “un-American.” lndccd, the
atmnpt to keep immigrants from being
“public charges” is one of the most co,,-
sistent rhcmcs of American immigration
policy. The Bay Colony legislated abour
ir in 1639, only 19 years afrrr the
Pilgrims landed. At rhe height of rhe
last great wave of immigration in the
rarly lYOOs, more than half of the 2 per
ccnf of arrivals sent hack after insprc-
tion on Ellis Island we~c suspected po-
tential charity cases. American aurhor-
itics have ah+ struggled to kcrp O”f
rhc indigent, criminal, and discasrd-
1ntil now.
But hey, New York was an alien place
fo morr Americans rvcn bcforc rhc
influx accidentally tl-iggcrcd by rhe 1965
44 NATIONAL,. REViEW, ,UNE
tic next Congress of 1997-1998 will
openly discuss and fully incorporatr all
of oui conceu,s when it decides rrherhcr
10 reduce the excess number of immi-
grants coming to this country.” 0 thrnt~, VI in adhcvbtg to r&r cmmiar,
Immigration Act, which has driven the
foreign-horn proportion ‘of its popula-
tion to the cul~nt incredible 40 per
cent Anyone arrrmpring to get elecicd
as .a Republican there must br viaved
with the clinical derachmenr you would
bring to studying an ~unusually ambi-
tious performing ilca.
At least, I should say, I nisu~le the
abut is sll in good fun I’m indulging
in the usual police fiction when I say
that immigration debaters “erchangc”
abuse. Wr don’t. As any fair-minded ob~
srner must agree, all ctx abuse comes
from thr immigration enthusiasts, and it
is dirccrcd at those of us usho think the
current system is less than perfect.
This is nof, God knows, because wc
don? feel like hurling abuse hack. Bui
the major media arc so pro-immigration
thar only the ,mxI squeaky-clean facts
and logic on OUTside have any chance of
making ir through
Still, there’s a certain lack of symme-
trv \vhcn one side in 3 d&arc can mu-
t&ly make chnrgcs that would see,,, de-
signed to drive rhrir opponenrs out of
public discourse nnd cvcn destroy thcil-
chances of making a living if they nrork
in journalism or acadcme. Is there a
mm1 eqoivaleor fo rhcir charges of
xenophobia, nativism, racism, nco-
Xazhn, MC.? [Just fo rclccr a few from
“ly O,V” experience.)
Yes. The morally equivalent charge is
this: XVhat the immigrarion enrlrusiasrs
arc doing is, in rhr Ian analysis, f~cason.
Tmmv~? Well, I don’t literally man
they should bc al-rested and tried. 1
mean it in tire same \vuaml, cuddly, fun
xnsc in ushich rhey dc&jK. us as xcno-
phobcs, nativirrs, racists, nro~Nnzis
and “un~Amcricsn.”
16, ,997
Treason is defined quite specifically in
the U.S. Constitution (Arriclc III, Sec-
tion 3): T~earon ~,pin~t the United Starer
rhnll cirnrirt only in levyiizg *a~ yqninrr
&irtg them aid and romnfn% The
Founders were specific bccaurc they
Kerr z~wareof the danger of what Oliver
North was later memorably co describe
as “criminalizing policy diffaenccs.”
But the Founders did not mean chat
only armed attack consritutrd fxason.
The Suprcmt: Court, in Cramcu, quoted
a definirion of treason as “an act which
weakens “I rends fo weaken rbc pourrr-
of ihe [United Sratesj .” Treason
reqmrcd an act and conscious intent;
but non ncccssarily war. i.d
And this definition of treason musr he
read in tbr ~ontcxf of uzhar the Found-
ers bciievcd they wrx doing. The prr-
amble to the Constitution begins: “WC,
the People of the United Starts, in
order co form a mar pcrfecr union,
establish jusdcc, insure domestic fran-
qnillity, provide for the common de-
By 2050, the U.S. will
be ‘uplace that
George Washhgton
would not reco&nize. 9
fcnsc, and sccuc the blessings of librrry
‘io 0urseIves ntzd OUTporteritjl .‘I [Ital.
its mine.]
Not ~osrcrity in gmernl, nocc--bin
the specific posterity of those men vzbo
signed that document. Thcg represcnrcd
a full-fledged nation. Newcomers mighr
he assimilated. Hut thcrc ~a no
thoughr thar they should transform.
Today, houu~c~, immigt-arion trig-
gel-cd by the 1965 .4cr is changing ths
U.S. in I way unprcccdcnrcd in bicrory.
Tbc Ccnsur UUIC~U puojccts that by
2050, the population n,ili be ncady 400
million, of lvhom 130 million xvdl be
post-1970 immigrants and rhcir dcsccn-
dants-virtually ail from non-tradirional
SOU~CCEof U.S. immigration. So by
2050, the U.S. r\,ill bc ‘5 place rhat
George Washingron would nor recag-
nix,” as historian John Hope Franklin
rcccntly gloated IO Duke Univcniry
freshmen. :
‘l‘hers is an oI>vious and undcniahie
risk thx B conniry ~vhich in 2050 vill
be, for cx~mplc, onc-quvfc~ Latin”,
LIIUST 310 he, 111SOITIC dCgrcc, Latin
American in irb politics ;Ir,d CUITUTU.
I
1 Will it then be tranquil domestically?
Will the blessings of liberty be secured?
And do supporters of current immi-
I gration policy how and intend that it
will “weakcn” the United Stares?
I%radoxically, the political correctness
that has protected immigration enthusi-
[ SD for thirty years hurts them hcrc. It
has lulled them into saying some inrer-
esting things:
--“We are transforming ourselves.“-
Doris M&net, INS Commissiorlrr.
--“The last gasp of white Americ= in
California.“-State Democratic Party
Chairman Arc Torrcs, describing Cali-
fornia’s Proposition 187.
,~Or~eStep Foward,
L
AST year Congress de&with
illegal immigration and welfare
reform, and so it seems reason-
able to expect that it would now move
on to a debate of the larger problem-
legal immigration, which accounts for
about three-quarters of total immigra-
tion to the United States. But the mood
in Washington has shifted. The Admin-
istration is free to ignore the-problems
of legal immigration since Texas
‘Democrat’Barbara Jordan is no longer
around to raise the issue. May Repub-
licans, are convinced that last year’s
immigration debate hut them in the
1996 elections, despite all the evidence
to rhe contrary (see A’R, Dec. 23, 1996,
p. 41).
Not only is Congress not moving for-,
ward, it is not even content to maintain
the status quo. Instead, it is scrambling
CO reverse the laws enacted last, year,
notably the welt&-reform law.
The debate over welhre restrictions is
especially interesting since both the
immigrant-advocacy Left and the liber-
tarian Right have assured Americans for
years that immigrants don’t use wclfare~l
So what’s ,the problem with making
them inelqble? Not surprisingly, these
folks (Abraham, Brownback, DeWine,
et al.) have either changed their tune or
gone into hiding for the current debate.
To be sure, a few voices in Congress
point out that all prospective immi-
Miss Jenks is an immigration consultant
Washington, D.C.
Or (this just in) how about Clinton-
appointed US. Civil Rights Commis-
sionrr Yvonne Lee, in the May 16
ArinnWcrk newspaper:
--“People are forecasting that
[Asians] are the fasrcst-growing minori-
ty group due largely to immigration.
But [given the restrictions against wel-
fare use by future immigrants] how
many people are going to take the risk
of sponsoring someone and what long-
fcrm impact will that hzve on our social
status and political empowerment?”
Hrre Miss Lee openly says that her
agenda is to build an ethnic faction-
wth taxpayer money to finance ,t.
,TJVOBack
granrs (except refugees, who are exempt
from the welfare restrictions) pledge not
to become public charges in the United
States and that most have sponsors who
promised to provide for them in hard
times. Nonetheless, the House and Scn-
ate have both passed FY 1997 supple-
mental fumling bills chat extend all legal
immigrants’ eltglblhty for Supplemental
Security Income through September 30,
1997. And the new budget-balancing
deal includes billions of dollars to
restore permanently SSI ehgtbdq for
disabled immigrants, while at the same
time cutting Medicare by $115 billion
over the next five years.
But reversing immigrant welfare re-
- form apparently is not enough. Bills
have also been introduced to undo por-
tions of last year’s illegal-immigration
act. The most egregious came to light
during President Clinton’s recent trip to
Costa Rica, where he nssured the people
of Central America chat they arc in a
“rather special category” when it comes
to immigration to the United States. He
did not apparently mean “illegal,” be-
cause he went on to annouxe that his
Administration hopes to amend a provi-
sion in the new law that makes it more
diff~culr for illegal immigrants to avoid
deportation if they have avoided bring
caught long enough to establish families
here. The new law also limits to 4,000
the number of iliegai immigrants whom
the Administration may cxempr &om
in deportation annually on these grounds.
But the cap of 4,000 is nowhere near
,“NE
Why not? Mexican Prcnidcnt Ernesro
Zedillo told Mexican-Americans in
1995 that they were “Mexicans-Mrxi-
cans who live north of the border.” He
proposed to allow than to retain Mcx-
iran citizenship while exerting influence
here. Wnshington said nothing.
All thcsc immigration cnthusiasrr ap-
parently wish, quite consciously, to end
the U.S. as it existed in 1965.
Does this make them guilty of rrea-
son? 1 don’t think so. No doubt they
truly do not realize rhr implications of
their position. Once the hcts arc point-
ed out, they will hasten to tecant.
Won’t they! 0
high enough to accommodate the
illegal Salvadoran;,> Guate-
300,000
malam, and Nicacaguans the Admin-
istration does not want to deport.
“4nd just as we were quite generous
in welcoming Vietnamese people to
our shores after the termination of our
involvement in Vietnam,” Clinton told
rhc Central Americans, “it seem% to me
we ought to be sensitive to the disrup-
cions chat were caused [in Central
America] during chose tough years .”
Never mind that we lost in Vietnam,
which fell to Communism, while we
won in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and
Guatemala, which are now democracies.
Never mind that the Vietnamese came
to our shores legally, while most Cen-
cd Americans fleeing civil wars entrrrd
illegally. And never mind that while WC
have admitted 650,000 Vietnamese in-
migrants, we admitted legally 950,000
Central Americans during the same
period. But we have still apparently not
done enough, and so Rep. Luis Gutier-
rez (D., Ill.) has introduced a bill to
eliminate the cap.
According to I?rcsident Cnldcr6n Sol
of El Salvador, however, Mr. Clinton
doubted he could persuade Congress to
xccpt nn all-out amnesty for Central
Americans illegally~ here. It’s not clear
why the President was so modest. After
all, he played a leading role in scuttling
legal immigration reductions last year.
He held up final passage of last ye&
immigration bill until the Kepublicm
majority in Congress agreed to remove
certain provisions. And it now seems
certain that he will manage to ~esto~c
immigrants’ ehgltxhry for SSI.
So dm’r be too surprised if you start
hraring more Ihetoric about the pow”-
rid benetiits of an amnesty.
--ROSE~I~RY JEXKS
16, ,997 , Nh~rIONnL REVlEvI 45