Closing the Golden Door

By James Kelly

As the immigrant tide rises, so does the search for ways to stem it

In Chicago, school officials are scrambling to find teachers fluent in Hmong to deal with the children of some 2,500 Hmong tribesmen who settled there after fleeing the mountains of northern Laos. In Los Angeles an estimated two-thirds of the city's roofers are illegal aliens. In New York City, the population of refugees from El Salvador has swollen from 2,000 to 20,000 in less than three months, and the numbers are still growing.

Invited and uninvited, rich and poor --but mostly poor--foreigners are pouring into the U.S. in greater numbers than at any time since the last great surge of European immigrants in the early 1900s. Indeed, the U.S. today accepts twice as many foreigners as the rest of the world's nations combined. Thanks in large part to the flood of Cuban and Haitian refugees last year, more than 800,000 newcomers were allowed into the country legally in 1980, up from only 526,000 in 1979. In addition an estimated 500,000 to 1 million entered illegally. Although their turn-of-the-century predecessors were mainly Europeans, today's new arrivals are mostly from Latin America and, to a lesser extent, Asia and the Caribbean. They are transforming the U.S. urban landscape into something that it has not been for decades: a mosaic of exotic languages, faces, costumes, customs, restaurants and religions.

They have also touched off growing concern in Congress and elsewhere that the U.S.--the land beyond the Golden Door, the nation whose Statue of Liberty has beckoned generations of "huddled masses yearning to breathe free"--can no longer afford such generosity. Those huddled masses, it is feared, are robbing native Americans of jobs, straining community services and provoking new excesses of bigotry and xenophobia across the U.S. In Texas, for instance, Vietnamese refugees operating shrimp boats in Galveston Bay have stirred resentment among local fishermen and received threats from the Ku Klux Klan. Three of the refugees' boats have caught fire; though arson is suspected, no arrests have been made yet.

While nearly all Americans would --and should--abhor such actions, many are concerned that the nation is being overrun with foreigners. The teeming boatloads of Cuban and Haitian refugees who landed on Florida's shores last year only heightened those concerns. Democratic Senator Walter Huddleston of Kentucky estimates that, if present trends continue, immigration will add at least 35 million people to the current U.S. population of 229 million by the year 2000. "Those 35 million people will need land, water, energy and food," complains Huddleston. "Where are we going to find those resources, unless we ask our citizens to sacrifice more?"

A fierce political debate is now being waged on just how the untidy thicket of laws governing the nation's immigration policies should be reshaped and pruned. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy, chaired by Republican Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming, and the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and International Law, headed by Democratic Representative Romano L. Mazzoli of Kentucky, opened joint hearings last week on reforming those laws. Says Simpson: "Our policies have made us the laughter of the world. Immigration is a game of numbers, and somewhere along the line we are going to have to deal with those numbers, or else we will be overwhelmed." Indeed, hardly anyone disagrees that the laws are obsolete, arbitrary and unenforceable, and that reforming them is one of the most pressing tasks to face the Reagan Administration. Yet there is far less agreement on the specifics: What precisely is the impact of these immigrants on American life? Should the flow of newcomers be diminished? If so, how?

In 1978 Congress set up the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, a 16-member panel led by the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, president of the University of Notre Dame, to review the current laws and to recommend changes. In its report, delivered last March, the commission recommended raising the number of legal immigrants and refugees admitted to the U.S. and granting amnesty to most illegal aliens already here. Yet the panel also advised imposing sanctions against employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens, and adopting a reliable means of identifying persons eligible to work in the U.S. A Reagan Administration task force headed by Attorney General William French Smith is expected to present its own recommendations to the President later this month.

The topic is of great concern to many Americans. A Roper poll last year found that 80% of those interviewed want the number of immigrants allowed into the country legally each year to be reduced. A Gallup poll showed that 76% would ban the hiring of illegal immigrants. "There is anger out there," contends Roger Conner, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a Washington-based group leading the battle for more restrictive policies. "There is fear. There is outright paranoia."

Yet others worry that Americans may be exaggerating the effect of immigration on the U.S. -- and forgetting their historically generous nature. "This country was built on immigrants," says Juan Soliz, coordinator for the Midwest Coalition in Defense of Immigration. "Some are trying to create hysteria to gain sympathizers, to have someone to blame for unemployment, inflation and high prices." Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt cautions that many questions surrounding illegal aliens remain unanswered. "For example, do they take jobs from American workers or do they perform tasks benefiting the American economy?" he asks. "No one knows. There ought to be deeper understanding of these issues before we take radical steps to barricade the border."

Actually, the current laws post rather modest figures for legal migration: only 270,000 foreigners annually, with no more than 20,000 permitted from any one country. Family reunification provisos, however, allow U.S. citizens to bring in an unlimited number of immediate relatives -- spouses, children and parents. The law also permits 50,000 political refugees a year to enter the U.S., and both Congress and the President are empowered to bend that limit. Thus, since the fall of Saigon in 1975, Congress has admitted 450,000 Indochinese. When the first of 125,000 Cubans and 12,000 Haitians began descending on Florida shores last year, President Jimmy Carter declared them "entrants," a legalism that entitled the newcomers to less financial aid than refugees -- and allowed most of them to stay.

Of greatest concern to the restrictionists are those who enter the U.S. illegally, some 50% to 60% of whom come from Mexico. Most migrate to find a job, any job; at least 40% of the work force in Mexico is either unemployed or underemployed. Most of the illegal immigrants enter simply by crossing the Mexican border, either on their own or by paying up to $2,000 to a professional smuggler. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has only 2,100 agents stationed along the 2,000-mile border, and no more than 400 are on duty at any one time. Border patrol officials estimate that they manage to catch at best only one out of two illegal aliens who try to make it across. Once caught, an illegal alien can drag out deportation proceedings for months. Once deported, he can simply turn around and start the trip back to the U.S.

What exactly is the economic impact of illegal immigration? The A.F.L-CIO argues that every job taken by an illegal alien is a job lost by an American. Union officials blame not the aliens but their employers, who pay illegal workers less than Americans. Since most of the wages are in cash, employers also often avoid paying Social Security taxes and insurance.

Labor leaders contend that illegal aliens not only rob Americans of jobs but also lower wages and degrade working conditions, especially for workers at the low end of the payroll. The biggest losers, according to Otis L. Graham, professor of history at the University of North Carolina, are those who traditionally made their living in the sort of unskilled jobs taken by aliens. Dismiss those illegal workers, insists Graham, and not only will blacks win back their jobs but wages and safety standards will rise too. Says Graham: "I see illegal immigration as preventing the economic phase of the civil rights movement."

Those who defend the hiring of illegal workers contend that most Americans reject the kinds of jobs -- as farm workers, busboys, dishwashers, maids -- filled by aliens. "Many of the jobs wouldn't get done at all if aliens didn't take them," says Lloyd Hackler, president of the American Retail Federation. Some studies show that illegal Mexican workers, at least, do not work especially cheaply -- and thus do not worsen wages and working conditions for other workers. "The vast majority of the jobs now held by Mexican migrants -- even the illegals -- pay at least the minimum wage and usually a good deal more," says Dr. Wayne Cornelius, director of U.S.-Mexican studies at the University of California at San Diego. Moreover, illegal immigrants have become so much a part of the U.S. work force, some economists contend, that dismissing them would cripple certain industries. Admits Republican Senator S.I. Hayakawa of California: "If the illegal aliens were thrown out of Los Angeles today, three-quarters of the restaurants would be closed tomorrow morning."

A broader question than jobs is just how much of a burden immigrants place on social services and other government programs. The impact is perhaps greatest on school systems across the nation. In Chicago, for example, more than 38,000 students are receiving bilingual instruction in a babel of languages from Assyrian to Urdu and at a cost of $32.5 million. Even at that level of spending, school officials cannot find enough qualified teachers.

Still, odd as it may sound, illegal aliens may contribute more in taxes than they take away in welfare benefits, medical services and other programs. Many aliens do place their children in schools and receive free emergency medical care at hospitals. Yet relatively few sign up for welfare or food stamps. According to a study done by Economics Professor Julian Simon of the University of Illinois, few illegals receive Social Security, the costliest service of all, while a surprising 77% pay Social Security taxes and 73% have federal income tax withheld.

Many critics argue that the most alarming threat posed by immigrants, both legal and illegal, rests simply in their numbers. The newcomers are believed to be causing the population of the U.S. to mushroom at a time when there is concern that the country will some day no longer be able to take adequate care of its own citizens, let alone others. Immigration, according to Donald Mann, president of Negative Population Growth, Inc., already accounts for more than half of the nation's growth. "The economic pie is not growing and the day of the frontier is over," says Democratic Governor Richard Lamm of Colorado. "America cannot become the lifeboat of all of the excess population floating around."

The dilemma, intractable as ever, remains: How should the U.S. go about reforming its immigration policies? The Hesburgh commission recommended upping the number of legal immigrants admitted annually from 270,000 to 450,000 a year for five years, then cutting the annual total to 350,000. The panel also suggested that Washington continue to exempt immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from the ceilings as well as admit 50,000 refugees a year. As for illegal aliens, the commission recommended granting amnesty to most of those who arrived in the U.S. before 1980, thus allowing them to remain here and become citizens. To halt the flow of aliens entering the country in the future, however, the panel suggested imposing sanctions against employers who hire illegals and adopting a "more secure" form of worker identification to prevent illegals from passing themselves off as eligible to work in the U.S.

The amnesty provision enjoys a wide range of support, from Senator Simpson, the AFL-CIO and Hispanic groups. Yet critics argue that most aliens come to the U.S. seeking only temporary work and have no desire to settle permanently in the country. According to Dr. Jorge Bustamante, professor of sociology at the Colegio de Mexico in Mexico City, about 95% of the Mexicans who cross into the U.S. seek only seasonal work and return to their families each year.

With that argument in mind, some propose establishing a "guest worker" program under which visas are issued to aliens who wish to work temporarily in the U.S.--a proposal endorsed by Ronald Reagan during last fall's presidential campaign. Yet many Hispanic leaders are wary of the plan unless it includes regulation of wages and working conditions. Without these safeguards, says Soliz, "all the program does is legalize the exploitation of workers." Others argue that such a program would only encourage more Mexicans to come to the U.S. looking for work--and do nothing to diminish the stream of illegals.

The proposal to impose sanctions against employers who hire illegal aliens is also supported by Senator Simpson and such groups as the AFL-CIO and the N.A.A.C.P., but many employers vehemently oppose it. Aliens are needed to fill the jobs most Americans turn down, they say, and it is too difficult to check whether prospective employees are indeed U.S. citizens. Also opposed to the plan are Hispanic leaders, who fear that employers will use the excuse of the sanctions to discriminate against minority citizens. Says Arnoldo Torres, congressional liaison for the League of United Latin American Citizens: "Employers will say, 'I can't hire you because I'm not sure and I don't want to get caught.' "

Yet no proposal stirs as much concern as the commission's vague plan to adopt a "more secure" form of worker identification that would assure employers of the applicant's right to work in the U.S. Though the panel correctly pointed out that a Social Security card -- the proof of citizenship most often asked for by prospective employers -- is laughably easy to forge, the commission could not agree on whether the new system should consist of a "counterfeit-resistant" Social Security card or a new kind of identification card altogether. Some opponents fear that any sort of ID would be not only a nightmare to administer but, more important, too totalitarian for most Americans to tolerate. Simpson, for one, remains undaunted. Says he: "If there is nothing else I get done I intend to send a signal to the world that you have to have some kind of identification before you work here. Right now we are the patsies of the earth."

The commission also recommended beefing up the INS -- substantially increasing, for instance, the number of officers patrolling the Mexican border. Yet, in its budget-cutting fervor, the Reagan Administration has already proposed snipping the INS's appropriation from $371 million to $363 million. Many also argue that it is impossible for the INS to close the borders anyway, while others point out that increased surveillance may only trap some aliens in the U.S. who regularly cross back to their native land.

Some argue that the only way to curb illegal immigrants is to diminish their main reason for coming: a dearth of jobs and opportunities in their own lands. Some Hispanic leaders, for example, propose that Washington help promote "twin plants" along the U.S.-Mexican border, in which raw materials are processed in the U.S. and then shipped across the border for assembly in Mexico. But even if these schemes proved possible, the U.S. would still be confronted with millions of people from other countries eager to come to the land of opportunity. Though some Americans may feel their economy is ailing, the nation remains almost as bright a beacon of hope and prosperity for the world's downtrodden as it did at the turn of the century.

What is to be done? The U.S., long a nation of immigrants itself, can surely continue to absorb something close to the number of legal entrants it now accepts. But it must act swiftly and resolutely to make it more difficult for foreigners to come here illegally -- and for businesses to hire them. A national ID card is a bad idea. Tougher border enforcement is a good one, as are swifter deportation proceedings, a "guest worker" program with sufficient protections for the "guests," stiff penalties for those who employ illegal aliens, and amnesty for illegals already here. The U.S. must also seek ways to make other nations share in the task of accepting outpourings of refugees like the Cuban exodus of 1980. The Reagan Administration already has a boatload of ideas to choose from -- some good, some bad -- and the President's own task force has not even weighed in yet. When the time comes to act, that son of a son of an Irish immigrant would do well to keep in mind that now, just as when his own forebears arrived, America without immigrants would somehow not be America.

-- By James Kelly.

Reported by D.L. Coutu/Los Angeles and Eileen Shields/Washington

With reporting by D.L. Coutu, Eileen Shields

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.