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.
GOOD post.
I tell ya’, I resent the heck outta everything that’s going on now.
As you said...it ain’t cute...or smart.
Yup.
LOL!
T’is true! ;o)
That one is EXCELLENT!
Bumperoo!
I promise you, there won't be any Illegals in this country that say they came here after Dec. 31st 2006.
Even the ones who came in today.
sw
double bump
"From each acording to his means, to each acording to their needs" Commie Manefesto... "Suffer all the little "victims" to come unto me," Hitlery Clinton
Hey, you!
Long time, no see.
I remember that Beatles’ tune very well.
It is even more scary now, than it was then.
That is precisely because of Hillary.
She gives me nightmares.
Yeah, that sucky Socialism has slithered into our society in spite of our best efforts. We gots ta stamp it out at least twice a week and twice on Sunday!!! Dang!!!
LOL! You made me smile. ;o)
If I weren’t so tired, and upset at recent events, I’d post a witty response to you.
I just don’t seem to have it in me at the moment.
I’m very concerned about this great country, and our offsprings’ future.
It’s so good to see you!
Thank you for making me smile. ;o)
BRAVO!
My biggest fear is that you are right.
;o(
I like yer tagline better than mine. He also said: "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya! It's what'cha know that ain't so, that hurts ya!"
Well it's too bad we hooked up so late at night... sweet dreams!!! (grin)
I'm off to bed in a minute.
I want to tell you about my tagline.
I've tried like the dickens to get rid of it for the past two years!
Everytime I try to..."they" do something SO stupid that I can't bring myself to do it.
"My tagline is undergoing a vowel movement since the conservative movement is being stifled by Repubs"
ROTFLOLOL!
Fabulous!
AND...you made me LAUGH!
Thank you. ;o)
Nite!
Another picture worth a thousand words!!!
;)
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.