March 5, 2014
Netanyahu's inaction to Obama's provocations sends powerful message
Kerry, after apparent criticism by Schumer, seeks to allay skepticism on diplomacy
How to ruin a perfectly good kid in 10 simple steps
2014 Oscars played it safe, but was faith lost in the shuffle?
Apple joins Hobby Lobby in touting corporate values beyond profit
March 3, 2014
Alina Dain Sharon: In the Hebrew calendar, a leap year has extra month, not day
Latest Obama appointment to prove Prez set on emasculating so-called Israel Lobby
Jewish World Review
Dec. 1, 2005
/ 29 Mar-Cheshvan, 5766
Our immigration imbroglio
This week in a speech to border and customs agents
in Tucson, Ariz., President George W. Bush fastened the nation's attention
on our immigration imbroglio. That should come as no surprise. Many
Americans are very concerned about immigration policy. Nation of immigrants
that we are, our appraisal of the problem has changed once again.
During periods of the 19th century the nation was ambivalent
about immigration. A whole political party, the Know-Nothings, was against
it in the 1850s. Toward the end of the century, when large groups of Irish
and Italians were swarming in, the nation's older immigrants were against
it. Yet, as the 20th century took on years and the economy became more
industrialized and prosperous, Americans viewed immigration more benignly. A
majority came to a positive acceptance of it.
That is not true today. Certainly it is not true with regard to
illegal immigration. For the first time since the Gallup Poll began, a
majority of Americans think immigration is bad rather than good. Thus
politicians of all persuasions are promising action. The Bush policy is to
address border security and illegal immigration. The president has reversed
his emphasis. Last time around he suggested addressing illegal immigration
first with a guest-worker program, and tough enforcement of border control
second. Those in favor of tough enforcement of border control and of action
against illegal immigration think the President is not being tough enough,
and these "restrictions" are drawn from both ends of the political spectrum.
Both sides in this debate fail to note the obvious. There is a
market for immigrants in this country. The president is more cognizant of
this than those who would restrict immigration, but turn to consider the
market for a minute: 1) producers need immigrants; 2) immigrants are coming
here because there is work that enriches them. This market has been helpful
to the economy. It is growing robustly and without one of the feared
downsides of immigration or even illegal immigration, unemployment. We are
almost at full employment, and with two to three times as many illegal
immigrants in the country as in the mid-1980s, when Sen. Alan Simpson last
addressed the immigration issue, that is pretty much proof that the economy
can accept immigration and prosper.
The real problem is border security and an orderly society. We
need to know who is entering the country and that they abide by the laws. So
Congress is preparing a series of get-tough measures. The toughest of which
is probably that envisaged by Tom Tancredo of Colorado and J.D. Hayworth of
Arizona. Their legislation would deputize state and local police to arrest
the millions of illegal immigrants (possibly 12 million) and deport them.
Some argue we should somehow drop the arrested immigrants into the interior
of their countries. How would this be done, by a gigantic parachute drop?
Any prudent law has to be based on what James Madison in "The
Federalist Papers" called the "genius" of the people. The American people
are by nature generous, optimistic and tolerant. It is apparent, at least to
me, that as we began arresting illegal immigrants the process would soon
come to a sorry end. Wretched immigrants would be held up by many Americans
now favoring the tough approach as the victims of unjust law enforcers.
Civil libertarians would step in. The approach would be brought to ruin, and
the "hate-America" crowd would have more spurious evidence that this is a
racist and intolerant country. There is a better approach.
We have the capacity to close off the border and we should. We
also have the capacity to encourage many of the illegal immigrants to enroll
in a program aimed at amnesty, but one that does not make chumps of legal
immigrants who have played by the rules. The legislation of the 1980s ended
in amnesty and well over half the illegals became law-abiding citizens. The
burden on the president and Congress is to close off the border and get the
present immigrants to enter amnesty programs.
This is not an easy thing to accomplish, but it is certainly
more practical and feasible than the "tough" approaches now being bandied
about. The market for immigrants is here and will not evaporate. The
Know-Nothings faded away but the bad repute they settled on the country
endured unfairly, but it endured.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Bob Tyrrell is editor in chief of The American Spectator. Comment by clicking here.
© 2005, Creators Syndicate