Beware of moderates bearing gifts - proposals to control immigration to the United States - Demystifying Multiculturalism - Cover Story

National Review, Feb 21, 1994 by Peter Skerry

AS THE nation's attention has turned to its borders, immigration has emerged as an issue that poses both opportunities and risks for conservatives. To be sure, there are a number of entirely legitimate concerns over the record number of newcomers arriving here. Yet conservatives must avoid being stampeded into rash policies that will be not only ineffective, but politically counterproductive.

In no small way, the current backlash against immigration is a direct result of the studied indifference to the issue among political elites"conservatives and liberals alike--during the 1980s. Among liberals, a smothering tolerance ruled out any serious examination of the potentially negative impacts of the largest influx of foreigners America had experienced since the turn of the century. As for conservatives, they smugly reassured themselves that the market would take care of everything. One consequence of this conspiracy of silence is that we don't know as much as we should about the impact of immigration on American society.

But we do know some things. We know, for example, that immigrants place enormous burdens on already strapped local and state governments. There is also troubling evidence that immigrants are growing dependent on social-welfare programs. And while we don't know much about the cultural impact of all these newcomers on our nation's values and institutions, I would argue that such concerns are not necessarily racist or xenophobic, but reflect the legitimate anxieties that any nation would have as its way of life shows signs of changing.

In any event, Americans are now demanding drastic action. In a recent Los Angeles Times poll, 86 per cent of Californians describe illegal immigration as a major or moderate problem; 52 per cent say that even legal immigration should be cut back; and 73 per cent favor sending the National Guard to the border, a proposal that was viewed as extreme until liberal Senator Barbara Boxer came out in support of it last summer. Her fellow California Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein, has advocated the somewhat less controversial policy of charging a $1 border-crossing fee to beef up the resources of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

OF COURSE, the politician who has pursued this issue with the greatest zeal is Governor Pete Wilson. In his "Open Letter to the President" in August, Wilson called for repeal of federal mandates making illegals eligible for education, health care, and other social programs. He also called for a constitutional amendment to overturn the long-established policy of granting citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal-immigrant parents.

It is not clear how effective any of these policies will be. The less controversial proposals of Senators Feinstein and Boxer are based on the questionable assumption that putting more resources into an historically troubled and poorly managed agency will result in more effective border enforcement. As for Governor Wilson's proposals, there is no reason to believe that greater stringency in the provision of social services will significantly reduce incentives to come to the United States. While an increasing number of immigrants may get caught up in a web of dependency, there is no evidence that significant numbers are in the first instance lured here by the prospect of such benefits. Nor is there evidence that curtailing the availability of benefits to such newcomers will cause them to return home. It is certain, however, that such a policy would cut off immigrants and their children from services--e.g., education and health care--they need to become productive Americans.

The same criticism can be made of Governor Wilson's most drastic proposal: eliminating the constitutionally mandated policy of granting citizenship to anyone born on American soil. This measure in particular would risk creating what many now believe--incorrectly--we already have: an immigrant-origin underclass cut off from the mainstream. For while such a policy would undoubtedly save the taxpayers money and gratify the understandable urge to control our borders and give clearer, stronger meaning to our notion of citizenship, it would also create a group generation after generation of which would have no hope of ever becoming full participants in American society.

Immigrants are drawn to this country fundamentally by disparities in employment opportunities and wage levels between the United States and their home countries. If we are talking about illegal immigration, then the disparity between Mexico and the United States is of prime importance. And this is not soon to change. Similarly critical (and also not soon to change) are the social networks that have developed over the generations as Mexicans have migrated into the United States, and that now sustain a continuous influx by reducing the inconveniences and risks of long-distance migration to relatively uneducated, unskilled people.

Quite aside from these underlying economic and sociological factors, it is not clear that Americans can muster the political will even to try what might work to stem the influx. Despite obvious restrictionist impulses, America's self-image as a nation of immigrants is deeply rooted in our national psyche. Also, many of us have gotten used to the economic benefits of immigration--whether we are harassed professionals looking for child care, small-businessmen looking for unskilled workers, or consumers looking for inexpensive services.