Thread: IMMIGRATION MERRY-GO-ROUND MAKES ANOTHER ROTATION

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/20070306/c ... errotation

Georgie Anne Geyer
IMMIGRATION MERRY-GO-ROUND MAKES ANOTHER ROTATION
Tue Mar 6, 6:43 PM ET


WASHINGTON -- Anyone who has studied immigration history has probably heard or read Teddy Kennedy's arrogant comments made at the time of America's 1965 immigration reform law -- an unfortunate moment dangerously similar to the one we are living today.


Even as he fervently supported the bill, which would change America's ethnic, social and political makeup for all time, he derisively insisted to the bill's many critics: "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Second, the ethnic mix will not be upset."

In fact, his "assurances" were incredibly false and absurd on every level. The 1965 bill took traditional quotas away from skilled workers and Europeans, the founders of the American state, and gave them to the unskilled from the poor Third World.

As tens of thousands of Third Worlders from Latin America, Africa and Asia did indeed flood America, by 1986 the problem of illegal aliens in America had become so intense that, again, the country felt it had to act. Thus came the even more controversial IRCA, or Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record)'s second experiment with America.

The idea behind IRCA was stunningly similar to the one the ever-busy Teddy is pushing today, as the problem of illegal immigration again grows larger and more intense.

But first, let's be clear about that 1986 experience, because the future of our nation may well hang on how the reality of that law is now interpreted. It made possible the legalization and citizenship of approximately 2.8 million men and women, plus imposed employer sanctions, supposedly to stop such numbers from ever overwhelming America again.

The act was to be the end of illegal immigration; America would rationally contain itself and humanely, but firmly, control its borders and its citizenry, as all civilized nations do.

But by 1995, we were again hearing that the number of illegals in the country was 3 million, then 5 million -- until today, the numbers are calculated conservatively at between 12 million and 20 million.

And would you take bets on who is behind the new "amnesty" for them? Lawmakers don't want to call it that, but that is what it is. None other than that same old Teddy Kennedy is now pushing in the Congress, much of the time in secret meetings, for up to 20 million people, who entered this country illegally and whose backgrounds we know not, to become overnight citizens.

Worse, with failure after failure from Iraq to Afghanistan to our deficits and debts, immigration reform has become the issue du jour for both Republicans and Democrats. It's a way for both the administration and the Congress to show the American people that they're finally doing something, regardless of what it will do to the country.

In short, we are about to exchange real painful action on Iraq and our guilt for that hapless war with an amnesty for illegal aliens that will make certain circles in America feel good.

But what are we really talking about? First, the only sectors of American society that benefit from illegal immigration are the "cheap labor" big corporations. (Oh, it also benefits the Mexican rich, who are deliberately deporting their overpopulation in order to keep from reforming the country.) Otherwise, illegal immigration corrupts everything and everybody it touches.

Second, we are now a country of 300 million. If this amnesty goes through, we will not only be talking about legalizing between 12 million and 20 million foreigners. The "family reunification" laws in our immigration statutes also give citizenship to tens of thousands of children, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers of these people. The Heritage Foundation scholars analyze our population would grow by at least 103 million within 25 years.

This would mean, above all, a massive cultural change in America, and we should not have to feel guilty about saying this. One can love Mexico, as I do, and not want Mexico City in Portland, either Oregon or Maine. The Mexicans do not want Des Moines or Dallas in Mexico City or Merida. And indeed, why should they?

Interesting point: With the 1986 amnesty, which was to solve the problem forever, only one-third of those granted the "precious" privilege of American citizenship deemed it worth taking. Two-thirds did not apply for it. The explanation is actually a healthy one: Most illegals come here to work, make money and go home, not to become Americans.

But the U.S. Congress, led by the eternal Teddy and supported by a White House desperate for a victory -- somewhere -- seems to want to continue with the "Balkanization" of America.

There are other ways to deal with this problem, ways that are humane, clear and reasonable to all sides. Homeland Security has put forward the idea of a "temporary legal status" for illegal or temporary workers in place of citizenship. Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo says the problem could be solved by enforcing the laws against employing illegals, plus a natural attrition process. Our famous historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. argued until the day he died for immigration control, fearing, as in the title of one of his books, "The Disuniting of America."

Arthur Schlesinger died last week. Let's hope that the things that he believed in are not dying, too.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgie Anne Geyer is the author of the 1996 book "Americans No More: The Death of Citizenship" (Atlantic Monthly Press).

Great article jean.