Immigration

America, from its very beginning, has been a land of immigrants. People have come from all nations seeking free choice of worship, escape from cruel governments, and relief from war, famine, or poverty. All came with dreams of a better life for themselves and their families. America has accommodated these people of diverse backgrounds, customs, and beliefs, although not without considerable friction along the way.

Is Immigration a Serious Problem?
One of the issues often ignored in the immigration debate is the impact of immigration on sending countries. Some claim that immigration drains sending nations of their best minds and hurts their economies. Others argue that the money immigrants send to their families left behind and the economic ties they help establish benefit sending nations.
The most obvious loss to sending nations when their citizens emigrate, some analysts contend, is the loss of human capital, often called a "brain drain." People who emigrate are often the brightest and most enterprising.
Those concerned about immigration's impact on sending nations also point to the loss of tax revenue. In a study of the impact of emigration from India, Mihir Desai of Harvard University found that 1 million Indians lived in the United States in 2001. Although this number comprised only 0.1 percent of India's population, the immigrants' U.S. earnings were equivalent to 10 percent of India's national income. The study concluded that the net fiscal cost to India of losing these taxpayers was nearly 0.5 percent of India's gross domestic product in 2002.
Another benefit of immigration to sending nations is that global trade and business opportunities are often created as immigrants travel back and forth between the host and the sending nation. For example, Aissa Goumidi, who emigrated from Algeria to Marseilles, France, sold all of his textiles to merchants in Algeria. Another Marseilles immigrant, Mohamed Laqhila, an accountant, is bringing people from accounting institutions in the Maghreb countries to discuss business opportunities there with his colleagues in France. A recent phenomenon is the development of what are known as "knowledge networks." These networks often use the Internet to create networks of business contacts with similar expertise.
Those who have concluded that immigration can have a positive impact on sending nations contend that rather than a "brain drain," immigration can more appropriately be described as "brain circulation." Some commentators conclude that in the modern world, the benefits of immigration outweigh the risks to sending nations.
The impact of immigration on sending nations remains subject to debate.
Immigration Is Beneficial to the United States
America is a country of immigrants; throughout the years, people have come from every country in the world to settle in the United States. The diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and traditions of these newcomers has strengthened both American culture and the economy. Many commentators believe that immigration still plays a necessary role in allowing America to stay vital and competitive on a global scale.
Immigration benefits the United States in a number of ways. Culturally, immigrants have made a huge contribution towards producing the multicultural society to which Americans are accustomed. Music, literature, fashion, and art have all benefited from the diversity of voices, traditions, and perspectives that immigrants bring. Moreover, immigrants have made a significant impact on America's economy. The overwhelming majority of immigrants take advantage of greater opportunities in education and employment in the hopes of making a better life for themselves and their families. "There is a mass of evidence to show that immigrants actually make a big contribution to the wealth and prosperity of the countries they go to," asserts Teresa Hayter, an immigration activist and author. Immigration "also improves both the job prospects and the wages and conditions of workers," she notes.
According to Ben Wattenberg, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, immigration is necessary for America's national security. In many cases, immigration allows refugees to escape repressive and even life-threatening conditions. By settling in a place more tolerant of ethnicity, nationality, religion, and race, immigrants can become productive members of society. Immigrants "are the best spokespeople for democracy and other Western values," Wattenberg contends. Therefore, the "United States must continue to accept immigrants in order to strengthen American power and influence around the world."
After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States government began to severely restrict refugee and other immigration programs. Supporters of these policies argued that curbing immigration was an effective way to stop terrorists from entering the country and attacking it. However, critics argue that these measures have produced an opposite effect. "These policies instead hamper efforts to reduce terrorism, as they alienate immigrants who may be in the best position to help intelligence agencies gain access to communities they otherwise cannot infiltrate," contends Donald Kerwin, the executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network. "Anti-immigration policies will have the most deleterious effect on immigrants who love America rather than on those who intend to harm it." Instead of stopping terrorism, the restriction of American refugee and immigration policies will only persecute the defenseless---particularly innocent women and children.
Immigration to the United States Must Be Restricted
There have always been Americans who have wanted to curtail legal and illegal immigration to the United States. Concerns that immigrants would overwhelm American society, take jobs from citizens, and change the American fabric have been around since the early nineteenth century. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, immigration has once again been thrust into the forefront of American debate. Critics of current immigration policy argue that immigration reform, particularly tighter restrictions on the flow of legal and immigrations, is imperative in light of the numerous threats immigration holds for the future of America.
For some critics, immigration represents a threat to our economy, culture, and national identity. They contend that immigrants often take jobs from American citizens and overwhelm services such as medical care, schools, and law enforcement. Furthermore, there is a belief that immigration profoundly changes our culture as well as our sense of who we are. With the concept of multiculturalism, Americans are forced to learn about other cultures at the expense of American culture. By subscribing to ideas of multiculturalism and the freedom and sacredness of each individual, argues Lawrence Auster, we have lost what has made America great. According to Auster, freedom "translates into the equal right of all individuals to make their own choices and pursue their own dreams, even if we are speaking of tens of millions of people from alien cultures whose exercise of their individual right to come to America will mean the destruction of our cultural goods."
Security issues have also become a growing concern for immigration policy critics. After September 11, 2001, many Americans acknowledged the need for tightened security and rigorous immigration procedures. "The September 11 terrorist attacks have made immigration reform a matter of life and death," asserts Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center of Immigration Studies. "Cuts in both permanent and temporary immigration would contribute significantly to improved security by permitting more efficient management and by denying terrorists cover." Immigration reform is considered a vital front on the winning the War on Terror. "The actions of September 11th were acts of war carried out against our civilian population by foreign civilians who came here legally and who lived, played, worked, and went to school in the United States," argues former Colorado governor Richard Lamm. "Immigration reform will not solve the problem of terrorism, but this problem will not be solved without immigration reform."
With national security at the forefront of American debate, illegal and legal immigration has once again become a hot topic. Reform of current immigration policy is essential to keep the United States safe contend proponents of greater national identity and immigration control.
Most Immigration Is Beneficial for the United States
Immigration has long been a controversial topic in the United States. Most Americans acknowledge the contribution of immigrants and want to keep in place a process for legal immigrants to apply and become citizens after a rigorous screening process. While they realize the valuable contributions these American citizens could make to the American fabric, there has been disagreement on what kind of immigration should be welcomed in this country, how restrictive the procedures should be, and even on the impact immigration has had on our national psyche. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, critics of U.S. immigration policy called for more restrictive measures to protect the nation from further terrorist attacks. Illegal immigration also came to the forefront of national consciousness, as commentators pointed out that the flow of illegal aliens from Mexico was endangering our national security. The U.S. government struggled to find a middle ground that allowed immigration yet tightened restrictions on legal aliens so as to impede illegal immigration.
With the advent of the War on Terror, many critics immediately called for tighter restrictions on U.S. immigration policy. "One of the most pressing but neglected subjects in the war on terrorism is the relationship between immigration and terrorism," argues Richard D. Lamm, the former governor of Colorado. Perhaps the biggest concern for immigration reform supporters was the U.S.-Mexican border, which has been the site of thousands of illegal alien crossings per week. "We must understand that the border is a critical tool for protecting America and we have to recognize and admit to ourselves how vulnerable we are," suggests Lamm. Calls for a wall separating the United States from Mexico, military patrols of the border, and a virtual cessation of all immigration are among the most commonly offered solutions.
Supporters of immigration policy acknowledge that although some policies need adjustment, the United States should not become xenophobic and reactionary in light of these new threats. They argue that U.S. immigration policy is already too restrictive for some groups. For example, after the terrorist attacks, the U.S. government shut down the refugee program, which stranded more than 22,000 refugees traveling to the United States. "Many refugees were trapped in homeless limbo after giving up their old living quarters, unable to come to new homes or to join people who awaited them," reports the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. In addition, many Muslim men living in the United States legally were detained and eventually deported back to their home countries. "Immigration controls are explicable only by racism," claims Teresa Hyter, an immigration activist and author. "It is hard to see why people should not be allowed to move around the world in search of work or safety or both."
The United States must continue to balance national security concerns with an immigration policy that welcomes hard-working immigrants. Despite setbacks and criticism from both sides of the debate, officials must craft a policy that is fair to the hundreds of thousands of men and women who come to the United States in pursuit of the American Dream.
Illegal Immigration
Illegal immigrants, also known as undocumented aliens, enter a country secretly, without obtaining visas or passing through an official entry point. Because illegal immigrants do not readily identify themselves for fear of deportation, it is almost impossible to determine how many there are in the United States. Various sources have estimated between two and twelve million, but most estimates are little more than educated guesses and are often politically influenced.
Illegal Immigration
Illegal immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border face a new danger in their harrowing trip across the vast Sonoran desert of America's Southwest. Some U.S. citizens who live near America's southwestern border with Mexico are frustrated by what they see as an unrestricted flow of illegal immigrants. These Americans believe that they have the right to protect the U.S. border and have formed citizen militia groups to do just that. Immigrant rights advocates claim that these organizations put migrants at risk and hold these groups responsible for murders and attacks on migrants in the Arizona desert.
While Border Patrol officials do not directly oppose civilian militias, they do not encourage them.
Local leaders and human rights organizations, however, take an affirmative stand against what they call the militias' vigilante actions. Since 1999 human rights advocates in Arizona have been warning state officials about the threat these civilian militia groups pose.
One alleged example of violence against illegal immigrants occurred in October 2002 in Red Rock, Arizona. A thirty-two-year-old man told a sheriff's department investigator that he was standing in the desert with a group of twelve illegal immigrants when two men wearing camouflage fatigues pulled up in a vehicle and opened fire. The man escaped, but when the sheriff arrived, two men lay dead and the remaining nine had disappeared.
While local residents in the Southwest are frustrated with U.S. border policy, most do not support civilian militias. The boards of supervisors and city councils in the Arizona communities of Bisbee, Sierra Vista, Tombstone, and Douglas have passed resolutions that oppose the formation of civilian militias. Responding to discontent in their communities, political leaders have begun to ask for federal help. U.S. senator John McCain of Arizona has advised the Senate, "Vigilante groups have formed, taking up arms, and taking the law into their own hands because they do not believe the federal government is doing its job at preventing illegal immigration at the border. We simply cannot tolerate this type of violence at the border." He and Senator Jon Kyl, also of Arizona, support resolutions against civilian militias and ask that the federal government take responsibility for border problems.
Whether civilian militias are a threat to migrants or an effective tool in controlling the U.S.-Mexico border remains controversial. The authors in the following chapter debate other issues concerning how the United States should respond to illegal immigration.
Immigrants Who Enter the United States Illegally Need More Expansive Protections and Opportunities to Gain Legal Status
Illegal immigrants need both opportunities to gain legal status in the United States and protections consistent with the values inherent in the American judicial system, regardless of their status as noncitizens. Laws put into place in 1996 unduly disadvantage illegal immigrants by imparting restrictions and penalties that keep them from pursuing the advantages of U.S. citizenship. Bipartisan initiatives to allow for illegal immigrants to enter the country and work toward acquiring citizenship are needed to relieve the burden placed on an overtaxed system. A growing number of border patrol groups, some of which have been known to harass immigrants, subvert the American legal system and operate without consistent approaches to interacting with people entering the country. Driver's licenses should be issued to illegal immigrants to discourage people from creating forged forms of identification and to prevent unlicensed drivers from taking to the road.
In 1996, the United States adopted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. These two measures have made it easier for the courts and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to send illegal immigrants out of the country by expanding the range of offenses that allow for deportation. They also grant agents of the INS broader authority to determine whether a person should be detained. The number of illegal immigrants impacted by the two laws dramatically increased after their passage. With regard to these detainees, William G. Paul, former president of the American Bar Association, asks about those who have not had their stories documented: "What about the lives and the plight of thousands of others being jailed and deported? What does it say about us, that we cannot promise them a fair hearing? The U.S., a nation of immigrants, cannot be free if it takes freedom from those who believe in the promise of justice for all."
Some have called for policies and programs that allow for the introduction of illegal immigrants into the country with the ultimate promise of citizenship. These immigrants often come into the country to earn a higher wage than the one they can receive in their home country. If they are caught illegally entering the country, they are sent back to Mexico only to try again. It remains to be seen whether a measure to extend a fence along a portion of the border will effectively stem the flow of illegal immigration into the United States. Homegrown border patrol groups—operating outside of the legal system—have been accused of harassing and inflicting violence on illegal immigrants. Organized crime has also operated along the border, charging a premium for smuggling services. While several promising initiatives to handle illegal immigration at the border had been proposed before 2001, the 9-11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., forestalled many of these measures. Jacoby believes that President George W. Bush's advocacy of a guest worker program, with benefits including driving privileges and health care, is a bold step toward a solution but criticizes the plan because it does not allow for the eventual granting of citizenship. "[W]hat kind of democracy depends for its livelihood on a vast pool of noncitizen nonpersons who cannot participate in civil society?," he asks.
Immigrants Who Enter the Country Illegally but Pose No Threat to National Security Should Be Afforded More Protections
Immigration policy should be tailored to allow entry to people who do not threaten national security or impose a burden on the American economy. Laws put into place in 1996 unduly disadvantage illegal immigrants by imparting restrictions and penalties that keep them from pursuing the advantages of U.S. citizenship. Many immigrants are detained and held in facilities across the country without adequate protections and privileges. Although various alternatives to detainment have been successful, they have not been implemented on a widespread basis. Furthermore, initiatives like George W. Bush's proposed guest-worker program are needed to ensure that illegal immigrants employed in the United States receive some recognition and benefit for their contributions to the national economy.
In 1996, the United States adopted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. These measures granted broad authority to agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) giving them responsibility for determining whether immigrants should be detained. Immigrants without proper documentation, many seeking political asylum in the United States, have been sent to facilities across the country to await decisions on their status. A quarter of the children whose paperwork is compromised have been held in facilities that also house juvenile criminals. Some of these waylaid immigrants are unable to be deported because the United States does not have diplomatic relations with their home countries. Government-run and private detention centers routinely exceed their capacity, so detainees are often sent to city and county jails without opportunities to argue for their freedom. While less restrictive approaches to detainment have been successful, such initiatives have either not gained widespread support from the INS or have been difficult to implement. Despite the continuation of prohibitive detention policies some strides were made in 2000 when the INS agreed to standards that allowed for access to legal services for many detainees. More should be done to ensure that detainees are afforded protections consistent with the accommodating spirit of the American judicial system.
Despite attempts to restrict illegal immigration, people—especially at the U.S. southern border—routinely enter the United States with the intention to gain employment. Recognizing the dependence that the American economy has on this workforce, President George W. Bush proposed a guest worker program in 2004. The plan called for legal status for temporary workers that could be renewed every three years and benefits including driving privileges and health care. Many members of Congress expressed concern about the plan, especially in light of potential breaches of national security by people entering the country. Citing a book by Michelle Malkin, commentator Cathy Young notes, "Given the realities of the global economy and the U.S. labor market, the flow of migrants into this country will be a fact for the foreseeable future. Making legal entry easier for people who want to better their lot in life is a much more feasible solution than making entry `a fiercely guarded privilege,' as Malkin suggests in her book. It is also far more feasible than the fantasy of deporting the 9 million to 11 million illegal immigrants who are already here." Young advocates the redistribution of resources away from restrictive border control and toward strategies that target immigrants from countries with an established connection to terrorist activity.
Immigrants Who Enter the United States Illegally Should Be Obligated to Follow the Proper Legal Channels to Gain Rights and Privileges
More should be done to restrict illegal immigration and ensure that people entering the country illegally are not afforded the protections and rights provided to citizens. President George W. Bush's 2004 proposed program to offer legal status to undocumented workers disadvantages those going through the proper channels to gain citizenship. Municipalities across the country have policies in place that prevent law enforcement officials from making arrests based solely on illegal immigration status. As many as eleven states have allowed illegal aliens to acquire driver's licenses. Efforts to enter the country illegally have the potential to compromise national security and contribute to a sense that illegal actions have no negative consequences and may in fact reward those who subvert the law.
In 2004, President George W. Bush announced his intention to sponsor a program that would provide illegal immigrants with the opportunity to work legally in the United States for three-year renewable periods. The president was careful not to label the program amnesty for illegal immigrants, although some viewed the proposal as an open invitation for people from Mexico to enter the United States and undercut the wages of workers in low paying jobs. William Norman Grigg, editor for the New American, claims, "Open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, subsidies for Mexico's economy, exporting manufacturing capacity south of the border, expanded welfare benefits for foreigners who entered our nation illegally—these are all part of the same seamless design. As [Mexican President Vicente] Fox himself put it, that design is the `integration' of the U.S. and Mexico into a hemisphere-wide political unit."
Cities such as Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Austin, San Diego, and Houston have "sanctuary" programs in place that handcuff law enforcement groups from arresting illegal immigrants. Under such programs, illegal immigrants must first commit a crime before they are arrested—even though their status as illegal aliens is reason enough to report them to immigration officials. Many in the law enforcement community believe, illegal immigrants, some of whom return to the United States after being deported and subsequently contribute to gang activities, are afforded too many protections. Although the immediate removal of illegal immigrants already deported after committing crimes would arguably serve a benefit, sanctuary programs prevent law enforcement officials from taking immediate preemptive action. Heather MacDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, reports that the overwhelming number of illegal immigrants makes it difficult for sanctuary programs to be discontinued. She notes, "The population of illegal aliens and their legal brethren has grown so large that public officials are terrified of alienating them, even at the expense of annulling the law and tolerating avoidable violence."
In order to provide for national security, policies should be put into place to prevent illegal immigrants from getting driver's licenses and voting. The 9/11 hijackers were in possession of more than sixty driver's licenses. Reports also exist of convicted terrorists being on the voting rolls of various states. More careful measures to ensure that only legal immigrants and citizens receive government-issued documentation and voting privileges would restrict illegal immigrants from having the ability to harm its citizens and possibly impact elections.