Bookmark www.milnet.com Contact milnet@milnet.com
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Only a weeks after announcing major changes in the structure of the
INS, Congress and U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft have announced they wish
to kill the old INS and bring to life two separate agencies under the Justice
Department. How this will effect immigration in the U.S. will depend
on the Bush Administration's work with the U.S. Senate in finalizing how
the two new agencies will be built.
INS to become a two headed monster
The Immigration and Naturalization Service looks to be headed for a quick and painful death. Hurrah, the king is dead, long live the King -- and oh yeah, the other King too! Lawmakers with what appears to be enthusiastic support from the Justice Department, will be designing two new agencies to replace the huge bureaucracy that is now in charge of two basic missions:
Immigration Policy In Trouble
No matter which political party one tends to vote with, few U.S. citizens seem satisfied with the current U.S. INS policies or activities. While it would be hard to expect the service to satisfy every critic, it is surprising that nearly everyone wants major changes. This is further illustrated by the speediness of changes moving through the House and Senate -- nothing demonstrates non-partisan disgust with the current INS more.
Today's problems include the immigration operation's slow movement on applications for citizenship -- currently a wait over one year, and enforcement/border patrol operation's nearly non-existent pursuit strategy for known visa violators and a sweep operation that has become so inconsistent that it appears not to be operating at all.
The apparent goal of two new agencies would be to separate the border patrol and enforcement/detention duties from the task of inviting and helping new émigrés into U.S. citizenship, tasks clearly at odds from each other.
What is not clear is how the regulations for each new agency will be drafted. Will they be taken in huge chunks from the current immigration law set which INS cannot manage to follow today or will there be new laws written to conform to some new ideals in immigration controlled ostensibly by a liberal majority in the U.S. Senate.
Conservatives across the U.S. are already up in arms over various Bush proposals for amnesty to illegals already in this country are not likely to greet the news that a Liberal U.S. Senate will be drafting new immigration regulations.
Hard liners in the conservative wing clearly enunciate their mantra
of Language, Border, and Culture, while the Liberal hard liners shrill
out the call for greater Diversity and praise the melting pot that is America's
cultural heritage. Thus the stage is being set for divisive battles
for the moral and economic high ground of immigration debate.
The Immigration Debate
Clearly, there will be those offering the concept of open borders and others pointing to 9/11 and offering closed borders with minimal, highly controlled immigration. And unfortunately both sides of the argument will have valid points and compelling reasons for adapting both. The compromises made may very well, and quite literally, change the face of America over the next thirty years. The debate will be over costs of social services, effects on education and enrollements at all levels, as well as voting demographics.
Why is the debate so crucial and divisive? Perhaps U.S. citizens living in States NOT along the border with Mexico will not have a clue. But certainly those living in California and Texas for example understand the debate. Both states have attempted to take steps at the State level to solve the problems created by current U.S. immigration failures.
The conservative proponents for immigration change point to rising medical costs in cities where illegal aliens flood emergency rooms requesting medical aid due to a lack of insurance and where lately INS cannot be found sweeping for illegals. Twenty or Thirty years ago, INS sweep teams made emergency room visits one of their mainstays for gathering up illegals. A kinder, gentler Liberal approach to government has led INS officials to stop the practice in defiance of the law and the INS was all too willing to comply. In fact sweep teams began to focus on business sweeps, to the consternation of the conservatives. Thus, today, sweep teams, while still in operation, do not appear to be staffed or inspired enough to after any illegals in very obvious places.
Liberal proponents of immigration change point to illegals used in businesses for labor approaching that of slave labor, paying illegals 10 cents on the dollar that their legal brethren would receive for the same work. Thus, say the liberals, the effort to continue the illegal status quo are based upon conservative support for rich businesses, nothing more. Liberal proponents of change rally for increased diversity made possible by larger immigration pools, however conservatives view this a nothing less than an attempt to encourage liberal socialists from Mexico to come to this country and cast more votes for Democrats..
While denying business reasons for keeping the status quo, conservatives say the opposite is true and point to the costs of schooling and medical aid for the illegals and their children. In decades past, proof of citizenship was required to enroll children in a new school. However, State regulations have slowly eroded the entry requirements to needing only a birth certificate to show proof of age, and not allowing schools to verify citizenship or proof of the parents legal status in the U.S. Several counties in southern California for instance, will accept Mexican identification documents in lieu of U.S. citizenship documents. This includes the Orange Country Sheriffs who have been instructed to accept a Mexican ID card and driver's license as proof of identity, something new and which overturns practices hundreds of years old. California lawmakers are considering a similar identification change for use in registering vehicles and applying for a driver's license. Since many overworked U.S. Social Security offices accept Driver's License as proof of citizenship, this may create invalid Social Security number distribution. Liberals say this whole issue is a smokescreen for racial discrimination.
Combined with ineffective Visa monitoring, all levels of educational
institutions have become victim to high volumes of new enrollees that not
only overwhelm the system, but have resulted in school closings due to
a mismatch between school funding requirements and non-existent tax base.
This is especially the case in elementary and middle schools who are seeing
the direct effects of the surge in enrollment due to immigration.
Liberal immigration proponents point to the figures to show that more funds
need to be allocated, while conservatives point at the figures and say
immigration must be better controlled. Especially in the case of
illegals, for which the conservative leaders attempt to take the moral
highground by emphasizing that illegal immigrants are law breakers and
shouldn't be rewarded. This feeds liberal ideals by giving them ammunition
for immigration law reform to allow more aliens into the country.
Low Income Programs Suffer
Low income programs have also met with a similar deluge as illegal, poorly educated immigrants striving to provide income for their families find it difficult to make a wage above the poverty level. The result is a heavy burden on the already over burdened welfare and social services system.
Rising minority percentages also effects census numbers, and College entrance boards are debating how to balance entry requirements versus State and Federal laws for balanced minority student counts in both college entry and graduate studies. Low income programs are deluged by college entry applications both at the full degree institutions as well as junior colleges.
Corporations are also finding themselves in a bind where their community's census figures swell minority hiring guidelines to favor Hispanic employees.
The results, according to conservative immigration reform proponents,
is widespread failures mounting in Social Services throughout the border
states and eventually, throughout the country as illegal immigrants migrate
"inland". While liberal proponents cite more funds are needed to
help out, conservatives rail at these unplanned expenses forcing
agencies into cutting the more classical programs for current U.S.
citizens in favor of immigrant programs. Not to mention the competition
for better uses of such funds and curbing the immigration "flood"
so that agencies are not bankrupted before citizens receive their needed
benefits. Liberals counter with shouts of racial bias against immigrants.
Demographics and Politics
And finally, conservative hard liners in the immigration reform movement cite the changes to American demographics due to illegal aliens. Immigrants from south of the U.S. border as well as from East and West, tend to come to the U.S. for opportunity or relief from tyranny, just as many of our forefathers did. In the case of the southern border, however, the culture base they are coming from leaves them looking for the golden opportunity, escaping from a highly socialist country with a dismal economy. Many hope to be supported while they make their try for the gold. However, a large number of legal and illegals fail to find that economic opportunity. The result is a reliance on Social Services, an expectation already fostered in their previous home. The culture from south of the border includes social services, albeit few and far between, and that expectation is transferred into America.
A natural consequence of being a member of minority is dissatisfaction -- peoples of racial minorites fights prejudice and lack of economic parity. This results in overwhelming statistics that show immigrants, legal or illegal, supporting more liberal civil rights issues as well as command socialistic causes than conservative cuases. Thus the conservatives worry that the flood of immigrants from the south of the border will create millions of new Democratic voters if they are legalized through amnesty.
Liberal efforts to soften the immigration regulations and be more sensitive to the immigrant "plight" has enforced this perception. Conservatives counter by citing "immigration kits" being given to citizens of Mexico by the Mexican government, with directions on how to apply for aid after crossing into the U.S. Included in the kits, according to many hard liners, are instructions on how to engage the free services of liberal civil rights groups and immigration support groups who can arrange for free legal services in fighting incarceration and deportation.
The result of this perception and indeed a wealth of free services to immigrants includes a large proportion of illegals believing that once they cross the border, it is only a matter of time before they will be accepted into the American dream. And if they cannot find work or meet their subsistence level, the government will step-in and provide needed support. And while no one wants to see those at the poverty level starve, or go without medical treatment, conservatives point to the incredible rise in costs for such services as an indicator of the hidden cost of open borders. There is also the perception that large immigration numbers create a much more than gradual change in American culture as the culture of overwhelming large immigration creates counter-culture forces that begin to shape rather than conform to the existing culture in the U.S.
Moreover, conservatives also worry about the political ramifications
of illegal immigrants receiving amnesty and then voting along classic liberal
lines, hoping to ensure that the social services that are required for
continued stay in the U.S. do not vanish. The result, according to
hard liners, is the natural increase in the liberal voter base. This
is demonstrated by the statement, "...giving 30 million illegal aliens
amnesty will produce 30 million democratic voters in the very next election."
Clearly, the political divisiveness of the issue is already polarizing
the left and the right to a severe degree.
The Immigration Multiplier
Fortunately, many immigrants legal or illegal, do find work and proudly manage to support themselves. However, the next step in the immigrant evolution takes place, producing yet another heart rending dilemma. Once supporting themselves, immigrants now plan for bringing their families into the U.S. Illegals most likely fund the spouse and children's travel via similar methods that the illegal used to enter the U.S. Thus for every single illegal, there is an opportunity to multiple the number of illegals by two, three or four. Sensitive liberals and some conservatives are now faced with not only deporting a single illegal, but perhaps separating them as the wheels of the legal system apply first to the original illegal, while the rest of the family awaits their turn in the deportation process.
Liberal lawmakers want to solve this problem by supporting the families
stay, as well as delaying the deportation of the original illegal.
Some have proposed granting immunity to the family and the illegal, and
according to conservatives, deciding to ignore the original "sin"
and rewarding the family for successfully avoiding and evading immigration
laws. Thus it is not hard to imagine liberal lawmakers simply striking
down much of the border restrictions that create the problem in the first
place. Warnings from conservatives focus on the risks of open borders
that the liberal lawmakers will force upon the States along the Mexican
border, citing already failing policies and enforcement as indications
of where the liberals want to take the immigration regulations. And
of course, since 9/11, both sides wrestle with the issue of preventing
the border from being a sieve to would be sabotuers.
What's Next
Campaigns are already springing up to question conservative credentials of any Republican official who supports amnesty and lobby groups are beginning to target liberals supporting further erosions of the closed border concept.
As a result of mismanagement at the INS, More than one bill in the U.S. Senate have begun to outline the laws for the new agencies. With the House passing its own measure, the debate is sure to come to head quickly in the Senate. Liberals will look at this as an opportunity to correct old injustices and conservatives will look at this as an opportunity to correct liberal softening and toughen up immigration regulations to match their views on immigration.
Thus it is no wonder that the issues before the U.S. Senate, their solutions to the issues, and the current administration's support or non support will create a new battlefield -- a battle at a time where immigration violations and attacks on our country from persons outside entering our country promotes fear and concern in all Americans on the right or left politically.
This issue will be the breakout issue, ending finally any vestiges of political cooperation between the two parties. The issue is also a key issue for conservatives, who have pinned much of the society's ills on supporting illegals. Look for heated arguments from the right and most likely just as incredible excesses desired from the left as the debate begins.
And it is no coincidence that Democratic party has chosen to trot out
Clinton and Gore at this juncture to begin voicing the liberal issues list.
The gloves are off and we can now look forward to the head butting between
liberals and conservatives between now and the next presidential election.
© Copyright, 2002, Michael Crawford, MILNET
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
distributed worldwide
by AFI Research
afi@supanet.com