Posted on 05/28/2007 12:50:06 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
As the Senate is mulling the details of a compromise immigration bill hammered together by the odd couple of Sens. Edward Kennedy and Jon Kyl, and as members of Congress hear from their constituents over the Memorial Day recess, it may be worthwhile to put the issue in historical context. For most of our history, the United States had no restrictions on immigration at all. I am told that my Canadian-born grandfather was a "nickel immigrant": He took the five-cent ferry from Windsor, Ontario, north to Detroit roundabout 1896. This situation resulted from America's strong demand for labor, coupled with its weakness at managing its borders. The government could screen and register immigrants arriving at large ports but couldn't patrol thousands of miles of border.
World War I enlarged and strengthened the federal government, and Congress voted for severe restrictions on immigration in 1921 and 1924. The labor market (and health inspectors) would no longer determine who came here; quotas were imposed on immigration from specific countries to reflect the ethnic composition of the nation in 1890. The apparatus of state was strong enough to enforce these restrictions, and, in any case, there was no market demand for immigrants during the depression of the 1930s and no way for them to come during World War II.
By the time immigration became an issue again, the political impetus for the immigration act of 1965 -- floor-managed by Edward Kennedy -- came from those who expected an influx from Italy, Greece and, if possible, the "captive nations" of Eastern Europe. Few seem to have expected a surge from Latin America or East Asia, although country quotas were applied to immigration from Latin America for the first time.
Why, then, have we had so many Latin immigrants, many of them illegal? Because the apparatus of state has proved weaker than market forces: The old Immigration and Naturalization Service (now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) and the understaffed Border Patrol have been among our least competent federal bureaucracies. And because the family unification provisions of the 1965 act allowed legal immigrants to bring in not just young children but also other relatives ("chain migration"), and because the Fourteenth Amendment makes anyone born in the United States a citizen.
The Kennedy-Kyl bill is built on the assumption that the federal government can effectively channel the flow of immigration. It has country quotas and would admit fewer relatives and more high-skilled workers. It would set a limit on the number of guest workers and a time limit on their stay -- two years in, one year out. It allows for Z visas that would let current illegals remain if they pay certain fines (but not, astonishingly, back taxes), but provides that heads of household must return to their country of origin to be eligible for a green card and get on the path to citizenship.
Amnesty? The thing that is arousing so much fiery opposition to this bill -- embittered cries of "amnesty" -- is that we have tried something like this before and it didn't work. The immigration act of 1986, signed by Ronald Reagan, purported to strengthen the border and to sanction employers of illegal immigrants; in return it gave an amnesty to illegals already here. The amnesty worked, and the Clinton administration scurried to naturalize tens of thousands of immigrants in time for the 1996 election. But border security has not worked. And it turned out to be easy for illegals to buy forged identification papers and unfeasible to prosecute employers who accepted them in apparent good faith.
The advocates of this new bill must convince voters that their plan will work better. They have a decent case to make, such as their call for an identification card with biometric information. Technology has made this more feasible than it was 20 years ago, and the phobia against a national identification card has been weaker since 9/11. Advocates must now convince the critics that such a card would make sanctions against employers enforceable. They must also show that border security will improve: that the 700-mile fence mandated by Congress last fall will actually be built; that unmanned aerial vehicles will reduce illegal crossings; that the larger Border Patrol will be effective; and that the apparatus of state will prove strong enough to prevail against market forces.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that voters aren't dead set against legalizing current illegals. But they must be convinced first that this time, border security is for real.
Michael Barone is a senior writer with U.S. News & World Report and the principal co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, published by National Journal every two years. He is also author of Our Country: The Shaping of America from Roosevelt to Reagan, The New Americans: How the Melting Pot Can Work Again, the just-released Hard America, Soft America: Competition vs. Coddling and the Competition for the Nation's Future.
BTW, what language is your username from?
we don’t need any new laws...
enforce the laws on the books
secure BOTH borders
fine employers who hire illegals
and DEPORT ALL ILLEGALS...
gezzzzzzzz enough of all this BS already!
11/2008 can’t come soon enough for me!
2. I am of Polish and Italian ancestry, yet speak English as my first language.
3. Canadians are culturally "different" from those in the lower 48, no matter what their ancestry is. Personally, I think this is a good thing.
What are you so upset "aboot?" ;-)
ROTFLOLOL!
That’s GREAT!
Nothing worth mentioning...;o)
...not upset. I’m trying to promote some thought. What is it that makes us American in the USA sense? It’s loyalty—allegiance to the USA. How long does it take people various cultures to get there?
I lived in a community that flew thousands of windsocks with Italian flag colors after five generations in our nation (not to mention other emphases of loyalty to the same ethnic group). There were no Italian names in the local National Guard company. Organized crime was more of a problem there than in most other communities.
Canadians of former colonial Canadian heritage are nearly assimilated when they land and do so fully within months. If your comments had something to do with a consideration of Frankophones from Canada, even they assimilate fully to US loyalty within a few months.
As for Polish people, those who came to the USA generations ago showed exclusive loyalty to the USA very quickly. Some of the more recent immigrants from Poland are having a harder time with that (due to domination of Poland by Russian culture for so long).
In the past, Mexicans became loyal fairly quickly, but we bore the nuisances of their language and/or culture for some time. Now, many of the newer ones are rather stubborn against assimilating—very expensive.
BTW, my first ancestor of the same surname landed in America during the 1600s. I’ve often been described by people of European heritage and loyalty as being a “Heinz 57.”
Lol, very cute! Did you try to composite the gif without success?
It would make a huge filesize and the car had to be upsized for this 600x350 .gif too - It’s only 47K
The animated version would lack the lettering on the door and also raises the tires from bottom level of the SW corner of the Mex Flag
I’ve got others I drawing up with variations
Yes, I thought about the ‘name’ not showing on the animated one after I posted.
Always cooking up other things!
So he says we should consult La Raza and Ted Kennedy, so we can correct our wrongheadedness.
.
Arrogance is not cute
Hostility is not cute
Calling you all dumb bigots who don’t want to do what American needs by Bush, Congress, and the MSM is not cute
-
Picking a fight with well over 200 million Americans is not smart
Rush Limbaugh came out strong, loud, and clear opposing the WH, Congress, MSM today on their crooked “Mexican Welfare Act”
They will try harder than ever to shut down talk radio and the internet now
Let me get this straight -
Is this the Kyl-Kennedy Bill?
Or is it the Bush-Soros-La Raza Bill?
This medium sometime leaves a lot to be desired and can cause a "conclusion jumper" a lot of grief!!!
.
Sometimes I have my own sensitive subtle style
[Arrogance is not cute]
I hate arrogance in people. I also hate our “public servants attitude that only they know what’s best.
With emphasis on the "sub" part of that word... (grin)
Good graphic Phil.
Love the taxi!
Good stuff!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.