Immigration: not fixed yet

National Review, June 26, 1995

THE report of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform is now being selectively leaked to the media. Superficially, the message is a dramatic vindication for NR senior editor Peter Brimelow's conclusion, in his just-published book Alien Nation, that ``America's immigration system is broke and needs fixing.

The only issue is: how much?'' The Commission, which last year recommended a serious crackdown on illegal immigration, now recommends reducing the legal influx by one-third, partly by eliminating some of the more remote types of family-preference categories. The diagnosis is a triumph for Commission head Barbara Jordan (formerly D., Tex.), who has been able to elicit a direct condemnation of the expansionary 1990 Immigration Act from her panel members even though several of them are immigration lawyers, including the 1990 Act's chief sponsor, Bruce Morrison (formerly D., Conn.). And by implication, the Commission condemns the entire system set up by the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act (chief sponsor: Edward Kennedy, still -- alas -- D., Mass.). However, the Commission has a long way to go. According to the New York Times, the Commission wants to reduce the slots guaranteed for skilled immigrants, from 140,000 to 100,000. The grounds: ``No more are needed.'' That's true. Immigration is not necessary to the U.S. economy; the economic benefit to Americans from the current immigrant presence is minimal. But the same argument applies to the continued inflow that the Commission would allow. In what sense is this ``needed''? Similarly, the Commission suggests eliminating the 10,000 visas currently reserved for unskilled immigrants. The grounds: ``These immigrants compete directly with unskilled American workers.'' And that's true too. Displacement by the unskilled influx resulting from the 1965 Act is plainly one reason for the expansion of the American black underclass that began about the same time. But those 10,000 unskilled immigrants obviously can't displace Americans as much as a continued inflow of 500,000 or so with family connections -- who are generally in the lower-skilled category themselves. The Commission's prescription is inadequate because it is still attempting to appease the special-interest groups that have controlled American immigration policy in the last three decades. Hence, spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens will still be allowed to enter without numerical limit. Many of these U.S. citizens are actually immigrants. Their families are the result of marriages contracted back in the old country. And the evidence is now clear that a high proportion of this influx will become a charge on the U.S. taxpayer. This daisy-chain effect is a problem; until we work out how to deal with it, we need an overall moratorium. Worse, the Commission recommends that the current 1.1-million backlog of spouses and minor children of permanent resident aliens be admitted through special legislation. This is a typical Beltway solution: begin restricting immigration by admitting more immigrants. Somehow, it never seems to work. Thus the amnesty extended to illegal immigrants in 1986 did not stop illegal immigration. Indeed, 850,000 members of the current backlog are the relatives of those amnestied illegals, who are thus to be further rewarded for breaking American law. If no action is taken, the amnestied illegals will soon qualify for U.S. citizenship and be able to bring in immediate relatives without restriction anyway. Public policy should encourage them to reunite their families by returning home. By resuming mass immigration in 1965 after a forty-year lull, the U.S. Government effectively embarked on a gigantic social-engineering experiment. It is encouraging a cultural Balkanization of America through public policy, in a way that is unprecedented in the history of the world. And it is second-guessing the American people's collective decision about population size -- without immigration, the Census Bureau projects, population would stabilize at 250 to 260 million; but with immigration, it would reach at least 390 million and possibly 500 million by 2050. These basic issues are not being addressed in Washington. Which is why we find House Majority Leader Dick Armey making this astonishing claim at a recent Cato Institute meeting: ``I'm hard pressed to think of a single problem that would be solved by shutting off the supply of willing and eager new Americans.'' Answer: at the very least, increasing the population by 130 million over the next 55 years will require more money for schools, prisons, and other amenities. It will also render pointless the vast amounts Americans have been induced to spend to protect their environment, on which population growth places the greatest pressure. Must California cease to be the Golden State and become the Golden Subdivision? Open immigration is actually a highly interventionist government policy, and like most such policies, it has highly perverse results. Why should Republicans play that game?