Below is a letter to the editor of the Journal submitted on April 13, 2010. It was published in the April 20 Journal.
It is noteworthy that Mr. Reich in his editorial “The Jobs Picture Still Looks Bleak” (April 12) makes no mention of the effect of legal and illegal immigration on our unemployment numbers. Most of our legal and illegal immigrants are not well-educated and therefore end up competing for low-level jobs with our lower income citizens who also typically have limited education.
Our immigration is no doubt a contributing factor to the very high unemployment rate cited by Mr. Reich for those with only high school diplomas or less. But politically correct academics such as Mr. Reich rarely mention immigration’s impact on our nation’s unemployment picture.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Federal Agents Make Arrests of Immigration Smugglers (Dubbed Operation In Plain Sight)
These raids, according to information released by the government about April 16, resulted in the arrest of 47 alleged leaders (mostly small operators) of a loosely connected human-smuggling chain dealing with only illegal immigrants from Mexico. In fact these human smugglers are like hydras and drug smugglers, you arrest some and others quickly fill the void. Like drug smuggling, the problem will continue unabated as long as there is a strong demand for the smuggler's services. Nevertheless, actions which lead to a reduction in immigrant smuggler activity, no matter how temporary, or which lead to an increase in the fee for smuggler services are of some benefit in the fight against illegal immigration.
At the same time, it should be noted that the Obama administration has done nothing to make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to work and live in the U.S. In fact, it has gone in the other direction and is actively encouraging illegal immigration by completely decriminalizing living and working in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant. Today, the only illegal immigrants living here who are deported are ones who have been convicted of significant crimes here. The message to illegal immigrants is clear: if you can somehow get past the border area, you can stay and enjoy all the benefits of living here as long as you do not become a major criminal. As it is, at least half of our illegal immigrants are entering the U.S. legally (mostly at airports) from all over the world as visitors with valid visas and passports whose visitation time limits are ignored. And while being informally permitted to live and work here illegally, many immigrant couples have children here who are automatically legal citizens of the U.S. under our current law, thereby making their families eligible for a variety of welfare programs for low income citizens.
Like the raids on employers of illegal immigrants (see blog dated July 9, 2009 entitled "Kinder, Gentler Obama Immigration Policy") these one-time raids on smugglers are in large part politically motivated, trying to make it appear that the Obama administration is trying to do something about illegal immigration when in fact the opposite is true, they are more in favor of unskilled and little-educated illegal immigration than even the misguided W. For some rationale for the Obama immigration policy, which hurts our own poor who must compete with illegal immigrants for jobs and social benefits, see blog of October 2, 2009 entitled "The Elephants in the Democrats Back Room." In addition, Obama would like to appear tough on immigration to improve his chances of getting Congress to pass immigration legislation this year which contains some form of amnesty for most illegal immigrants.
At the same time, it should be noted that the Obama administration has done nothing to make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to work and live in the U.S. In fact, it has gone in the other direction and is actively encouraging illegal immigration by completely decriminalizing living and working in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant. Today, the only illegal immigrants living here who are deported are ones who have been convicted of significant crimes here. The message to illegal immigrants is clear: if you can somehow get past the border area, you can stay and enjoy all the benefits of living here as long as you do not become a major criminal. As it is, at least half of our illegal immigrants are entering the U.S. legally (mostly at airports) from all over the world as visitors with valid visas and passports whose visitation time limits are ignored. And while being informally permitted to live and work here illegally, many immigrant couples have children here who are automatically legal citizens of the U.S. under our current law, thereby making their families eligible for a variety of welfare programs for low income citizens.
Like the raids on employers of illegal immigrants (see blog dated July 9, 2009 entitled "Kinder, Gentler Obama Immigration Policy") these one-time raids on smugglers are in large part politically motivated, trying to make it appear that the Obama administration is trying to do something about illegal immigration when in fact the opposite is true, they are more in favor of unskilled and little-educated illegal immigration than even the misguided W. For some rationale for the Obama immigration policy, which hurts our own poor who must compete with illegal immigrants for jobs and social benefits, see blog of October 2, 2009 entitled "The Elephants in the Democrats Back Room." In addition, Obama would like to appear tough on immigration to improve his chances of getting Congress to pass immigration legislation this year which contains some form of amnesty for most illegal immigrants.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Illegal Immigration Population "Drop"
On February 9 the Department of Homeland Security released an estimate which showed that the illegal immigrant population declined by about 1 million in the two years from January 2007 to January 2009. However, there is no direct government or other reliable survey of the number of illegal immigrants living in the United States, and any conclusion that DHS draws from other data is subject to misinterpretation.
It is no doubt true that the current rate of illegal immigration inflow is lower than it has been (but not negative!) because jobs are scarcer due to our severe economic downturn. However there is no logical reason to expect that the reduced availability of jobs will cause many illegal immigrants to give up all the advantages of living in the U.S. and return to their native countries where the job prospects are even worse than in the U.S., where corruption and crime are rampant, where public services are poor or are absent, where public welfare is very limited or unavailable, and where public education and the life prospects for their children are dismal.
If anything, the reduced availability of jobs is pressuring some illegal immigrants to move to those sections of our country where there are fewer competing illegal immigrants in order to obtain low-end jobs. For those immigrants who are temporarily out of work, there is also the possibility of doubling up in living space with their many friends and relatives also living here. In either case, more immigrants would be on the move but they would not be moving out of the country!
To quote from a March, 2009 publication of The Inter-American Development Bank entitled "Remittances in times of financial instability": "Evidence from focus groups and surveys commissioned by the MIF [multilateral Investment Fund] and the Inter-American Dialogue suggest that immigrants are extremely capable of coping with adversity. These coping strategies include reducing the amount of money they spend on themselves, working longer hours or multiple jobs in the face of decreasing wages, shifting sectors because of declines in sectors such as manufacturing and construction, moving to areas with higher labor demand.... migrants, especially the undocumented, move from one state to another in response to local enforcement measures. Despite the cumulative effects of the economic, housing, and credit crises, it is only as a last resort that immigrants will return to their home countries. They will first exhaust all other options." [blogger's emphasis added]
It should also be noted that there are some strong motivations for the Obama administration to underestimate the extent of the illegal immigration problem. Understating the extent of illegal immigration helps to convey the impression that the Administration is enforcing our immigrations laws when in fact the opposite is true (see November 21 blog entitled “Obama’s Immigration Law Enforcement Farce”). It also makes it seem that illegal immigrants will deprive fewer less educated Americans of low-end jobs if there are fewer illegal immigrants in the country. The administration would also like to further these deceptions in an effort to get Congress and the public go along with its major objective of getting Congress to approve an amnesty for nearly all of today’s illegal immigrants. As noted in the October 2 blog entitled “The Elephants in the Democrats’ Back Room” there are a number of unstated political reasons for the Democrats to favor amnesty and non enforcement of our immigration laws.
It is no doubt true that the current rate of illegal immigration inflow is lower than it has been (but not negative!) because jobs are scarcer due to our severe economic downturn. However there is no logical reason to expect that the reduced availability of jobs will cause many illegal immigrants to give up all the advantages of living in the U.S. and return to their native countries where the job prospects are even worse than in the U.S., where corruption and crime are rampant, where public services are poor or are absent, where public welfare is very limited or unavailable, and where public education and the life prospects for their children are dismal.
If anything, the reduced availability of jobs is pressuring some illegal immigrants to move to those sections of our country where there are fewer competing illegal immigrants in order to obtain low-end jobs. For those immigrants who are temporarily out of work, there is also the possibility of doubling up in living space with their many friends and relatives also living here. In either case, more immigrants would be on the move but they would not be moving out of the country!
To quote from a March, 2009 publication of The Inter-American Development Bank entitled "Remittances in times of financial instability": "Evidence from focus groups and surveys commissioned by the MIF [multilateral Investment Fund] and the Inter-American Dialogue suggest that immigrants are extremely capable of coping with adversity. These coping strategies include reducing the amount of money they spend on themselves, working longer hours or multiple jobs in the face of decreasing wages, shifting sectors because of declines in sectors such as manufacturing and construction, moving to areas with higher labor demand.... migrants, especially the undocumented, move from one state to another in response to local enforcement measures. Despite the cumulative effects of the economic, housing, and credit crises, it is only as a last resort that immigrants will return to their home countries. They will first exhaust all other options." [blogger's emphasis added]
It should also be noted that there are some strong motivations for the Obama administration to underestimate the extent of the illegal immigration problem. Understating the extent of illegal immigration helps to convey the impression that the Administration is enforcing our immigrations laws when in fact the opposite is true (see November 21 blog entitled “Obama’s Immigration Law Enforcement Farce”). It also makes it seem that illegal immigrants will deprive fewer less educated Americans of low-end jobs if there are fewer illegal immigrants in the country. The administration would also like to further these deceptions in an effort to get Congress and the public go along with its major objective of getting Congress to approve an amnesty for nearly all of today’s illegal immigrants. As noted in the October 2 blog entitled “The Elephants in the Democrats’ Back Room” there are a number of unstated political reasons for the Democrats to favor amnesty and non enforcement of our immigration laws.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Australian Immigration Policy
Following Great Britain’s 1983 legislation to eliminate birthright citizenship, in 1986 Australian significantly curtailed birthright citizenship by illegal immigrants. After 1986 to qualify for Australian citizenship at birth a newborn had to have at least one parent who was an Australian citizen. If neither were, a child born in Australia could still obtain citizenship on his 10th birthday if he spent the first 10 years of his life in Australia.
Ireland eliminated birthright citizenship in 2005 and New Zealand in 2006. Today few developed countries other than the United States automatically award birthright citizenship to children whose parents are both illegal immigrants.
On February 8th the Internet edition of the Wall Street Journal carried an article with an Associated Press byline entitled “Australia Tightens Immigration Rules.” The gist of the article is that the current administration in Australia is imposing new immigration rules to more favor immigrants whose skills are in short supply in Australia. The opening line of the article states: “Australia tightened its migration rules Monday in favor of English speakers and professionals [whose skills are needed], saying the country has been attracting too many hairdressers and cooks and too few doctors and engineers."
The present U.S. legal immigration system discourages the immigration of individuals with advanced educational backgrounds and skills that would benefit our country. Instead of giving preferences to the best and brightest immigrants whose talents are in short supply here, since 1965 our legal immigration system gives most preferences to the close relatives of citizens. Since it is the recently legalized citizens, including many millions of formerly illegal immigrants legalized by amnesties and other means, who have by far the largest number of close relatives living outside the United States, the typical characteristics of our legal immigrants are now mirroring that of our illegal immigrants – poor, low-skilled, and little educated. Moreover, the amount of permitted legal immigration, including the admission of refugees and asylum seekers who also tend to be poor and unskilled, has been trending up over time and is now running about twice the level it had been prior to the 1990s. The American born children of illegal immigrants, after they reach 21 years of age, also have the right to sponsor foreign relatives for legal immigration into the U.S.
When will the government of the U.S. wake up and largely restrict legal immigration to those having the skills we need, as well as shut off the illegal immigrant magnet of automatic birthright citizenship?
Ireland eliminated birthright citizenship in 2005 and New Zealand in 2006. Today few developed countries other than the United States automatically award birthright citizenship to children whose parents are both illegal immigrants.
On February 8th the Internet edition of the Wall Street Journal carried an article with an Associated Press byline entitled “Australia Tightens Immigration Rules.” The gist of the article is that the current administration in Australia is imposing new immigration rules to more favor immigrants whose skills are in short supply in Australia. The opening line of the article states: “Australia tightened its migration rules Monday in favor of English speakers and professionals [whose skills are needed], saying the country has been attracting too many hairdressers and cooks and too few doctors and engineers."
The present U.S. legal immigration system discourages the immigration of individuals with advanced educational backgrounds and skills that would benefit our country. Instead of giving preferences to the best and brightest immigrants whose talents are in short supply here, since 1965 our legal immigration system gives most preferences to the close relatives of citizens. Since it is the recently legalized citizens, including many millions of formerly illegal immigrants legalized by amnesties and other means, who have by far the largest number of close relatives living outside the United States, the typical characteristics of our legal immigrants are now mirroring that of our illegal immigrants – poor, low-skilled, and little educated. Moreover, the amount of permitted legal immigration, including the admission of refugees and asylum seekers who also tend to be poor and unskilled, has been trending up over time and is now running about twice the level it had been prior to the 1990s. The American born children of illegal immigrants, after they reach 21 years of age, also have the right to sponsor foreign relatives for legal immigration into the U.S.
When will the government of the U.S. wake up and largely restrict legal immigration to those having the skills we need, as well as shut off the illegal immigrant magnet of automatic birthright citizenship?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Haitian Immigration
Without a vote of Congress, President Obama has unilaterally* extended special immigration status to all Haitians living illegally in the United States. Haitians receiving the status known as temporary protected status will be able to obtain documents allowing them to live and work here legally for a period of 18 months. According to the New York Times of January 15 at least 100,000 Haitians are believed to be living in the U.S. illegally in addition to 30,000 living here who have been ordered deported in the past (but who did not leave the U.S.). Those ordered deported (probably consisting primarily of Haitians denied asylum) will also be eligible for temporary protective status.
The temporary protective status may open up some new job opportunities for the Haitians who are granted the status. But most are little-educated, making it likely that they are seeking low-level jobs that can be obtained just as easily, or possibly more easily, as illegal immigrants.
The “temporary” part of the temporary protective status is misleading. All children born in the United States to those covered by temporary protective status will be granted automatic citizenship as usual and if the past is any guide, those covered by this temporary status will never be forced to leave the U.S. and will eventually be given extensions of their status and finally amnesty.
It is likely that the 130,000 estimate significantly understates the number eligible to take advantage of the temporary protective status (many of those eligible will just continue with their illegal immigrant status). Along with other goals like seeming to make a humanitarian gesture and getting one step closer to the objective of amnesty for all illegal immigrants, the Obama administration’s announcement is trying to perpetuate the fiction that it is enforcing our country’s immigration laws. In reality, early on the Obama administration established the de facto policy of not deporting illegal immigrants found living in the United States unless they were convicted of substantial criminal activity in the U.S. (see November 21 and October 2 blogs).
Part of creating the appearance of immigration enforcement were these statements in the Times article: "'To send Haitians back to that country right now would be nothing short of inhumane,' said Senator Charles E. Schumer." and "On Wednesday Ms. Napolitano [Secretary of Homeland Security] suspended deportations of Haitians." While the Obama administration and its devotees try to further the fiction of immigration enforcement, the truth is that prior to the earthquake in Haiti no Haitians or any other illegal immigrants found living in the U.S. were being sent back to their home countries except certain convicted criminals.
Ms. Napolitano, is quoted by the Times as saying that the status would only be extended to those Haitians already in the U.S. as of Tuesday January 12 – another piece of the immigration enforcement charade. It is likely that for some time all fleeing Haitians who make it to U.S. soil will be eligible for the temporary protective status since there will be no way of proving that they arrived here after January 12. In any event, as long as Obama is President, no illegal immigrants of any nationality will be forced to leave the U.S. unless convicted of a significant crime here.
* The Times notes that: "The administration's decision followed a rising chorus of calls for temporary status after the earthquake on Tuesday. On Friday, 80 representatives and 18 senators, including Democrats and Republicans, sent appeals to the administration to grant the status, as did the conference of Roman Catholic bishops."
The temporary protective status may open up some new job opportunities for the Haitians who are granted the status. But most are little-educated, making it likely that they are seeking low-level jobs that can be obtained just as easily, or possibly more easily, as illegal immigrants.
The “temporary” part of the temporary protective status is misleading. All children born in the United States to those covered by temporary protective status will be granted automatic citizenship as usual and if the past is any guide, those covered by this temporary status will never be forced to leave the U.S. and will eventually be given extensions of their status and finally amnesty.
It is likely that the 130,000 estimate significantly understates the number eligible to take advantage of the temporary protective status (many of those eligible will just continue with their illegal immigrant status). Along with other goals like seeming to make a humanitarian gesture and getting one step closer to the objective of amnesty for all illegal immigrants, the Obama administration’s announcement is trying to perpetuate the fiction that it is enforcing our country’s immigration laws. In reality, early on the Obama administration established the de facto policy of not deporting illegal immigrants found living in the United States unless they were convicted of substantial criminal activity in the U.S. (see November 21 and October 2 blogs).
Part of creating the appearance of immigration enforcement were these statements in the Times article: "'To send Haitians back to that country right now would be nothing short of inhumane,' said Senator Charles E. Schumer." and "On Wednesday Ms. Napolitano [Secretary of Homeland Security] suspended deportations of Haitians." While the Obama administration and its devotees try to further the fiction of immigration enforcement, the truth is that prior to the earthquake in Haiti no Haitians or any other illegal immigrants found living in the U.S. were being sent back to their home countries except certain convicted criminals.
Ms. Napolitano, is quoted by the Times as saying that the status would only be extended to those Haitians already in the U.S. as of Tuesday January 12 – another piece of the immigration enforcement charade. It is likely that for some time all fleeing Haitians who make it to U.S. soil will be eligible for the temporary protective status since there will be no way of proving that they arrived here after January 12. In any event, as long as Obama is President, no illegal immigrants of any nationality will be forced to leave the U.S. unless convicted of a significant crime here.
* The Times notes that: "The administration's decision followed a rising chorus of calls for temporary status after the earthquake on Tuesday. On Friday, 80 representatives and 18 senators, including Democrats and Republicans, sent appeals to the administration to grant the status, as did the conference of Roman Catholic bishops."
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Obama's Immigration Law Enforcement Farce
In an effort to help set the groundwork for some form of legislative amnesty for nearly all illegal immigrants, the Obama administration is stepping up the appearance of enforcing our nation’s existing immigration laws. The appearance is contained in the crackdown on larger employers of illegal immigrants (“More Employers Face Immigration Audits,” Wall Street Journal (November 20, 2010). A small percentage of these employers will be prosecuted as the larger employers of illegal immigrants generally rely on false documents supplied by the hirees. Even more farcical is the fact that any immigrants caught working illegally will not be prosecuted since the Obama administration has in effect decriminalized the act of illegal immigration and all related identity theft and falsifying of declarations and papers. The only resident illegal immigrants that are now deported are those convicted of “significant” crimes while living and working here.
Nearly all illegal immigrants who lose a job as a consequence of any employer crackdown will not return to their home countries where jobs are scarce and low-paying, corruption and crime are rampant, and public healthcare and education are unavailable or of poor quality. They will remain here and obtain other employment. They may start working for small employers who do not come under government scrutiny or they could join their brethren in our vast underground economy by working off the books or as independent contractors who do not report their income. Other options include obtaining their own Social Security number by fraudulent means or buying the name and Social Security number of a citizen from a stolen ID vender which can be used to avoid detection by employers using E-Verify.
For more on this topic see blog of July 9, 2009 entitled "Kinder, Gentler Obama Immigration Policy."
Nearly all illegal immigrants who lose a job as a consequence of any employer crackdown will not return to their home countries where jobs are scarce and low-paying, corruption and crime are rampant, and public healthcare and education are unavailable or of poor quality. They will remain here and obtain other employment. They may start working for small employers who do not come under government scrutiny or they could join their brethren in our vast underground economy by working off the books or as independent contractors who do not report their income. Other options include obtaining their own Social Security number by fraudulent means or buying the name and Social Security number of a citizen from a stolen ID vender which can be used to avoid detection by employers using E-Verify.
For more on this topic see blog of July 9, 2009 entitled "Kinder, Gentler Obama Immigration Policy."
Friday, October 2, 2009
The Elephants in the Democrats' Back Room
Given that many believe that the interests of lower income Americans are most strongly represented by the Democrats, one might expect that the Democratic Party would be opposed to our illegal and legal immigration consisting largely of poor and little-educated immigrants. This follows from the fact that our poor and blue collar citizens bear a disproportionate burden from our unskilled immigration. (See Blog of June 20 – “Our Immigration Policies Are Hurting Our Poor.”) The burden on our lower income citizens becomes even greater in periods of high unemployment such as the present.
Poor and less-educated Americans have typically been a bastion of support for the Democrats and the better off Democrats have typically supported government programs to help our poor. Yet today’s Democratic Party favors amnesty for most illegal immigrants and no meaningful enforcement of our immigration laws for the foreseeable future. These are the key tenets of current Democratic immigration policy despite the fact that the majority of all voters oppose a general amnesty and an open door for illegal immigrants, and despite the fact that these policies are not in the best interests of our poor and less educated citizens. (For more discussion on the current policy of the Obama administration see blog of July 9 entitled "Kinder, Gentler Obama Immigration Policy.)
In times past, Democrats have stood tough on illegal immigration. Under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson the bracero program of Mexican guest farm workers was closed down in the 1960’s on the grounds that it deprived American farm workers of jobs and higher wages. When it became evident that the guest farm workers just changed status to illegal immigrants, President Carter tried to introduce more effective legislation to crack down on illegal farm workers but was single-handedly rebuffed by Senator Eastland of Mississippi who was a champion of agricultural interests at that time.
Traditional allies of the Democrats are the labor unions which at one time uniformly opposed large-scale immigration as increasing the pool of low-wage non-union workers who could compete for jobs. For example, closing down access to illegal immigrant laborers was a key part of Cesar Chavez’s plan to improve conditions for farm workers through the United Farm Workers union. His advances for farm workers were subsequently undone by illegal immigration (footnote 1).
After years of shrinking membership, some unions are beginning to become immigrant advocates with the objective of adding immigrants to their membership. “In February 2000, the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO announced it was changing its historic position – it would now support expanded immigration, lenient enforcement of immigration laws and the legislative agenda of immigrant advocacy groups. Subsequently, AFL-CIO officials publicly explained that the organization was ‘championing immigrant rights as a strategic move to make immigrants more enthusiastic about joining unions.’” (See footnote 2)
Black Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan was chair of the U. S. Commission on Immigration Reform from 1993 until her death in 1996. The Commission made a number of carefully crafted recommendations to reduce illegal immigration and legal immigration of the poor and unskilled. Jordan explained: “in an age in which unskilled workers have far too few opportunities opened to them and in which welfare reform will require thousands more to find jobs, the Commission sees no justification to the continued entry of unskilled foreign workers” (footnote 3). Unfortunately, with Jordan’s death in 1996 the Commission lost political influence and its more significant recommendations were never enacted.
Given that American blacks are disproportionately disadvantaged by the addition of large numbers of poor legal and illegal immigrants to our country, why is it that President Obama and his fellow Democrats do not stand up for the interests of poor blacks and the other poor American citizens? The answer likely lies in the fact that President is very much out of touch with reality and highly motivated by the calculus of back room politics. The bottom line of the latter is that today’s poor and little educated legal and illegal immigrants are tomorrow’s Democrats. And with every year that passes, the numerical importance of the Latino population grows making their voting impact more of a factor in some elections (see prior blog of September 10 entitled "Three Reasons Why the Impact of Our Illegal Immigration Is, Has Been, and Will Be Greater Than One Might Expect").
Moreover, the children of these immigrants and their children also tend to vote for Democrat candidates since their education, income and wealth achievements also tend to be below average and their use of welfare programs tend to be above average. In the words of one researcher: “The undeniable truth is that most Latinos reside in locations that are thoroughly monopolized by Democratic Party operations – places that have been the residence of Democratic voting populations for decades, even generations – typically in dense urban counties….” (footnote 4).
The Democratic Party appears to have an alliance with the tort bar which which has likely used its influence to obtain legislative favors such as not including any meaningful reform of malpractice litigation in the Democratic national health proposals. Similarly, the immigration bar is a prosperous and influential group which naturally favors and lobbies for more immigration, legal and illegal, which in turn leads to higher volumes of profitable business for them. Since the immigration bar's objectives now coincide with those of the Democrats, this attorney group is likely to be contributors to the Democratic Party, its candidates, and its causes, which in turn gives the immigration bar even more influence.
There is also a feeling among many Democrats of the liberal persuasion that we should help the world’s poor by opening our doors wide to them, rich nation that we are. President Obama shows every evidence of being one of this group of left leaning Democrats. In their egalitarian approach, they believe that all immigrants have equal potential to boost our country and that it is noble of us to take in the world’s poor and uneducated – in the inspiring words of Emma Lazarus: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” The Lazarus poem was, of course, more appropriate for its time -- the 1800s when our economy had a great need for unskilled laborers and there were no government welfare programs. These Democrats will not acknowledge that in today’s economy highly educated and skilled labor has taken the place of unskilled labor as the dominant part of our workforce. Thus certain immigrants, such as the “best and the brightest,” are likely to make more of a contribution to this country and assimilate more easily than the unskilled and little educated, to the advantage of all of our existing citizens.
Moreover, liberal Democrats will usually not acknowledge that the immigration of large numbers of the poor and little educated makes life more difficult for our existing poor citizens. They do not see that it is contradictory policy to make great and costly efforts to eliminate poverty in this country and import much more poverty at the same time. This contradiction is also played out in the distribution of income objectives which many left leaning Democrats focus on -- they want a more even distribution of income in this country and yet they are strongly in favor of high levels of poor and little educated immigration which makes for a less even distribution of income.
Footnotes
1 See Philip L. Martin, “Promise Unfulfilled,” Center for Immigration Studies, January 2004.
2 Quote is from Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., “Immigration Policy and Organized Labor: A Never Ceasing Issue,” Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Immigration, May 24, 2007.
3 U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, “ Statement of Professor Barbara Jordan, Chairman,” News Release, Washington, DC, June 8, 1995.
4 James G. Gimpel, “Latino Voting in the 2006 Election: Realignment to the GOP Remains Distant,” Center for Immigration Studies, March 2007.
Poor and less-educated Americans have typically been a bastion of support for the Democrats and the better off Democrats have typically supported government programs to help our poor. Yet today’s Democratic Party favors amnesty for most illegal immigrants and no meaningful enforcement of our immigration laws for the foreseeable future. These are the key tenets of current Democratic immigration policy despite the fact that the majority of all voters oppose a general amnesty and an open door for illegal immigrants, and despite the fact that these policies are not in the best interests of our poor and less educated citizens. (For more discussion on the current policy of the Obama administration see blog of July 9 entitled "Kinder, Gentler Obama Immigration Policy.)
In times past, Democrats have stood tough on illegal immigration. Under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson the bracero program of Mexican guest farm workers was closed down in the 1960’s on the grounds that it deprived American farm workers of jobs and higher wages. When it became evident that the guest farm workers just changed status to illegal immigrants, President Carter tried to introduce more effective legislation to crack down on illegal farm workers but was single-handedly rebuffed by Senator Eastland of Mississippi who was a champion of agricultural interests at that time.
Traditional allies of the Democrats are the labor unions which at one time uniformly opposed large-scale immigration as increasing the pool of low-wage non-union workers who could compete for jobs. For example, closing down access to illegal immigrant laborers was a key part of Cesar Chavez’s plan to improve conditions for farm workers through the United Farm Workers union. His advances for farm workers were subsequently undone by illegal immigration (footnote 1).
After years of shrinking membership, some unions are beginning to become immigrant advocates with the objective of adding immigrants to their membership. “In February 2000, the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO announced it was changing its historic position – it would now support expanded immigration, lenient enforcement of immigration laws and the legislative agenda of immigrant advocacy groups. Subsequently, AFL-CIO officials publicly explained that the organization was ‘championing immigrant rights as a strategic move to make immigrants more enthusiastic about joining unions.’” (See footnote 2)
Black Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan was chair of the U. S. Commission on Immigration Reform from 1993 until her death in 1996. The Commission made a number of carefully crafted recommendations to reduce illegal immigration and legal immigration of the poor and unskilled. Jordan explained: “in an age in which unskilled workers have far too few opportunities opened to them and in which welfare reform will require thousands more to find jobs, the Commission sees no justification to the continued entry of unskilled foreign workers” (footnote 3). Unfortunately, with Jordan’s death in 1996 the Commission lost political influence and its more significant recommendations were never enacted.
Given that American blacks are disproportionately disadvantaged by the addition of large numbers of poor legal and illegal immigrants to our country, why is it that President Obama and his fellow Democrats do not stand up for the interests of poor blacks and the other poor American citizens? The answer likely lies in the fact that President is very much out of touch with reality and highly motivated by the calculus of back room politics. The bottom line of the latter is that today’s poor and little educated legal and illegal immigrants are tomorrow’s Democrats. And with every year that passes, the numerical importance of the Latino population grows making their voting impact more of a factor in some elections (see prior blog of September 10 entitled "Three Reasons Why the Impact of Our Illegal Immigration Is, Has Been, and Will Be Greater Than One Might Expect").
Moreover, the children of these immigrants and their children also tend to vote for Democrat candidates since their education, income and wealth achievements also tend to be below average and their use of welfare programs tend to be above average. In the words of one researcher: “The undeniable truth is that most Latinos reside in locations that are thoroughly monopolized by Democratic Party operations – places that have been the residence of Democratic voting populations for decades, even generations – typically in dense urban counties….” (footnote 4).
The Democratic Party appears to have an alliance with the tort bar which which has likely used its influence to obtain legislative favors such as not including any meaningful reform of malpractice litigation in the Democratic national health proposals. Similarly, the immigration bar is a prosperous and influential group which naturally favors and lobbies for more immigration, legal and illegal, which in turn leads to higher volumes of profitable business for them. Since the immigration bar's objectives now coincide with those of the Democrats, this attorney group is likely to be contributors to the Democratic Party, its candidates, and its causes, which in turn gives the immigration bar even more influence.
There is also a feeling among many Democrats of the liberal persuasion that we should help the world’s poor by opening our doors wide to them, rich nation that we are. President Obama shows every evidence of being one of this group of left leaning Democrats. In their egalitarian approach, they believe that all immigrants have equal potential to boost our country and that it is noble of us to take in the world’s poor and uneducated – in the inspiring words of Emma Lazarus: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” The Lazarus poem was, of course, more appropriate for its time -- the 1800s when our economy had a great need for unskilled laborers and there were no government welfare programs. These Democrats will not acknowledge that in today’s economy highly educated and skilled labor has taken the place of unskilled labor as the dominant part of our workforce. Thus certain immigrants, such as the “best and the brightest,” are likely to make more of a contribution to this country and assimilate more easily than the unskilled and little educated, to the advantage of all of our existing citizens.
Moreover, liberal Democrats will usually not acknowledge that the immigration of large numbers of the poor and little educated makes life more difficult for our existing poor citizens. They do not see that it is contradictory policy to make great and costly efforts to eliminate poverty in this country and import much more poverty at the same time. This contradiction is also played out in the distribution of income objectives which many left leaning Democrats focus on -- they want a more even distribution of income in this country and yet they are strongly in favor of high levels of poor and little educated immigration which makes for a less even distribution of income.
Footnotes
1 See Philip L. Martin, “Promise Unfulfilled,” Center for Immigration Studies, January 2004.
2 Quote is from Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., “Immigration Policy and Organized Labor: A Never Ceasing Issue,” Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Immigration, May 24, 2007.
3 U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, “ Statement of Professor Barbara Jordan, Chairman,” News Release, Washington, DC, June 8, 1995.
4 James G. Gimpel, “Latino Voting in the 2006 Election: Realignment to the GOP Remains Distant,” Center for Immigration Studies, March 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)