Immigration: Policy by Neglect

Opinion
By John Hickey
For the United States to allow illegal immigration from Latin America to continue unchecked at current levels amounts to setting, by neglect, an immigration policy which is changing America in ways we might not choose.

One of the goals of U.S. immigration policy is “to ensure diversity by providing admission to people from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States,” according to the congressional publication Immigration Policy in the United States.

But if new immigrants from European, African, and Asian nations are to have an influence on this country comparable to the new Latin American immigrant influence, the United States would have to increase the legal immigration from those nations to a level which would dwarf America’s existing population, or reduce the actual levels of Latin American illegal immigration.

Congressional attempts to grapple with illegal immigration have been beset by pressure from several directions. The 9 million undocumented Latino immigrants who make up 75 percent of the illegal immigrants in this country are exerting political pressure for amnesty which would give them legal status. Their cause is popular with many Latino citizens and is supported by Latino politicians and cultural leaders, including the Spanish-language radio talk-show hosts who are said to have brought out hundreds of thousands of demonstrators recently. Amnesty is also supported by the employers of illegal workers, who want low-wage, hard-working workers and want to avoid becoming the enforcers of national immigration laws. Some of these businesspeople make campaign contributions to Republican legislators, who have espoused their cause as a business issue.

Some Republicans, however, cannot justify to their constituents the support of amnesty. And some constituencies on the Democratic side are also opposed to amnesty. Many African-American and other politicians see illegal immigration as a threat to wages and jobs for their constituents.

Congress is trying to find a consensus. My sense is that amnesty will only fly if legislators and their constituents are convinced that future illegal immigration will be dramatically reduced. And that can only happen if we take measures we don’t yet seem to have the stomach for. Adequate enforcement will require every employer in the country to go through yet another layer of red tape in keeping records of every employee’s citizenship documentation. And we probably need a national photo identity card, which in states like West Virginia, where I live, evokes in some people fears of “the mark of the beast.”

Some, concerned that America remain an English-speaking country with roots in English history, culture, and law, fear the cultural shift that would result from legal status being granted to 12 million unauthorized migrants, more than 9 million of whom come from non-English-speaking countries.

Many from European or African or Asian backgrounds don’t want immigrants from their own cultures of origin blocked from immigration because someone else sneaked in first, especially if the people that got in will radically change the culture they live in.

Some have security concerns. We want people to be here legally and transparently because of the security risk inherent in the presence of large numbers of people who are hiding from the law and helping other people to hide from the law.

Across the spectrum, many are torn by genuine issues of fairness. We don’t want to use laws to punish hard-working immigrants who just want to help their families. On the other hand, we want immigration to be a fair and legal process that doesn’t just reward cheaters, but reflects a considered policy formulated by our elected representatives.