Policy point-counterpoint: should illegal immigrants and their children receive federal and state social services

International Social Science Review, Spring-Summer, 2006 by Robert M. Sanders, Melissa Marietta, Lakeisha Porter

The United States has been built primarily by immigrants, most seeking a better life for themselves and their families though some type of industrious behavior. Until the late nineteenth century, anyone could emigrate to the U.S., and thousands did to escape poverty, persecution, or war. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, the federal government tried to control this population growth through various legislative acts. Traditionally, Western and Northern European nations received the lion's share of the benefits of such regulation. Non-whites were the targets of the earliest immigration policies. Chinese nationals, for example, were excluded from entering the U.S. for sixty years following the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This legislation resulted from lawmakers' attempts to prevent the entry of Chinese and Japanese prostitutes and criminals into the U.S. as well as complaints from Westerners that Asian workers were taking most of the railroad and mining jobs at lower wages. Almost two decades later, President Theodore Roosevelt negotiated a "gentlemen's agreement" with Japan to suspend immigration from that country in return for nonsegregated education for Japanese children in California. (1)

Influenced by the resurgence of nativism stemming from anti-Catholic, anti-radical, and Anglo-Saxon nationalism sentiments, Congress, during the 1920s, enacted three laws to preserve the "character" of the nation. The Emergency Immigration Act of 1921 sought to curtail immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe as well as from Asia. Immigration from a specific country was limited to three percent for each nationality of the foreign-born population living in the United States as reported in the 1910 Federal Census. An overall maximum quota of 357,000 would be imposed annually. Congress hoped that this would shield the country from "undesirables," particularly anarchists from Russia's Bolshevik Revolution. In an effort to restrict immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe further, Congress enacted the National Origins Act of 1924 which lowered the quota to two percent for each nationality of the foreign-born population living in the U.S. according to the 1890 Federal Census. Since fewer Eastern and Southern Europeans resided in the country at that time, this law clearly tried to reduce the number of those immigrants while allowing for more immigration from Britain, Ireland, and Northern Europe. The law also stipulated that those ineligible for citizenship would be denied entry. This essentially terminated the "flow" of workers from Mexico and Asia. In 1929, Congress replaced the two percent rule with an overall cap of 150,000 immigrants annually from all countries, only thirty percent of which could come from Southern and Eastern Europe. (2) After the Second World War, the Displaced Persons Act allowed for many homeless Europeans to relocate in the U.S., but the McCarran-Walter Act, a product of the "Red Scare" of the 1950s, made ideology a major criteria for entry. (3)

The Immigration Act of 1965 made immigration more equitable by allowing for almost equal numbers of aliens from all areas of the globe to enter the United States. However, this reduced the number allowed from Latin America, creating an influx of illegal aliens from Mexico as well as South and Central America seeking a safe haven from civil strife, poverty, and political persecution. The Refugee Act of 1980 granted many of these individuals legal entry to the United States to escape persecution, yet the law placed a severe strain on the social service program budgets of Southwest border states and some coastal states. In response to anti-immigrant sentiments fueled by these economic difficulties, Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This law established sanctions against employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. To reduce the cost of arresting and prosecuting many illegal aliens, this statute also established an amnesty program allowing for the legalization of those who had been living in the U.S. for a minimum of four years. (4) After the Immigration Act of 1990 allowed for a forty percent increase in immigration, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1996 which dramatically addressed the effects of illegal immigration in the United States. As a response to the nation's current flat employment rate and strained federal and state social service program budgets, this law tried to stem the tide of entry of illegal aliens from Mexico by increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and adding more perimeter security fencing? It also sought to curtail employment opportunities and social service benefits to these aliens?

Illegal immigration has a profound impact on public agencies and society in general. In a free society such as the United States, its 5,000 miles of borders (including 2,000 with Mexico) and hundreds of air and seaports are easy targets for those seeking to enter the country illegally. Whereas some one million people are admitted legally into the United States annually, approximately 400,000 enter it illegally. Indeed, it is estimated that that there are some four to twelve million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States. (7) Over the past few years, both federal and state governments have passed laws to deny benefits to these immigrants. When President Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law in 1996, illegal immigrants were denied virtually all benefits, including Supplemental Security Income. They can receive only temporary housing, emergency medical assistance, and disaster relief. (8) At the state level, California voters, in 1994, passed the Save Our State Amendment. The proposition denies public social and welfare services, public non-emergency healthcare and public education to illegal aliens. Employees in these fields must notify immigration officials if they encounter illegal aliens at public facilities. (9) The law is currently being contested on grounds that it violates federal immigration law, calls for the deportation of residents without due process, and conflicts with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying free education to children of illegal aliens. Despite this legal challenge, supporters of the proposition have vowed to introduce a similar initiative on a future ballot. (10)