Home / Letters to Editor / Announcements / Columnists / Archive / Subscribe / About Us / Contact Us

Guest Column

Immigration: QuickClips (News Analysis and Digest)

From National Immigration Forum

The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal (pasted below), and Los Angeles Times each report on apparent negotiations within the Republican Senate caucus to build support for comprehensive immigration reform that includes earned legalization.

 Meanwhile…Newsweek/Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria cautions America to maintain our commitment to citizenship and integration, and not follow the immigration model of Europe in a Washington Post column:

 Many Americans have become enamored of the European approach to immigration -- perhaps without realizing it. Guest workers, penalties, sanctions and deportation are all a part of Europe's mode of dealing with immigrants. The results of this approach have been on display recently in France, where rioting migrant youths again burned cars last week.… Compared with every other country in the world, America does immigration superbly. Do we really want to junk that for the French approach? (“To Become and American,” April 4, 2006)

 Key Constituencies and the Immigration Debate:

·        Evangelical Christians, a mainstay of the Republican coalition, are addressed in a column by Dallas Morning News editorial board member William McKenzie (Pasted below);

 ·        An editorial in Christianity Today, an “evangelical communications ministry,” asks evangelicals to consider Maria, a Guatemalan immigrant: “Let's figure out some way, please, to let Maria and others like her sojourn among us.” (“Blessed Are the Courageous,” April 3, 2006) (Pasted below);

 ·        Word comes to the Forum that a Wednesday Washington press conference of evangelical leaders is being organized (tentative time/location: 9:00 a.m., Holiday Inn, 550 C Street SW Washington, DC, watch this space for more details);

 ·        BlackAmericaWeb reports: “NAACP, Barack Obama Call for Earned Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants.” (Pasted below);

 ·        The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus examines the strange political bedfellows and alignments in the immigration debate, focusing on Nebraska in “Immigration's Scrambled Politics.” (Pasted below);

 ·        In case you missed the Saturday Wall Street Journal, former Republican Chairman Ed Gillespie’s op-ed cautions his fellow GOPers against simplistic, populist approaches to immigration reform:

 The Republican Party cannot become an anti-immigration party. Our majority already rests too heavily on white voters, given that current demographic voting percentages will not allow us to hold our majority in the future. Between 2000 and 2004, President Bush increased his support in the Hispanic community by nine percentage points. Had he not, John Kerry would be president today. (“Populists, Beware!,” April 1, 2006, pasted below)

 And finally, today’s Well-Deserved-Swipe-At-CNN’s-Lou-Dobbs Award goes to John Tierney of the New York Times who imagines Lou broadcasting from the sealed North Korean border:

 Good evening from North Korea. We had to go halfway around the world, but we've finally got good news for the working men and women of America angry about illegal immigration. Tonight you'll hear our exclusive report from the nation that proudly calls itself the Hermit Kingdom. (“Border of Insanity,” April 4, 2006, pasted below)

 Should be an interesting day…

 Douglas G. Rivlin

Director of Communication

National Immigration Forum

50 F Street, NW, #300

Washington, DC  20001 USA

http://www.immigrationforum.org/

rivlin@immigrationforum.org

 WALL STREET JOURNAL: Senate Tackles Katrina Bill Add-Ons And Illegal Immigration

By DAVID ROGERS

April 4, 2006; Page A4

 

WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee is moving to add more than $4.6 billion to President Bush's request for Gulf Coast hurricane aid, including $700 million to relocate a CSX Corp. rail line in his home state.

 

Sen. Thad Cochran (R., Miss.) has wrapped the appropriations into a $96.7 billion Katrina relief and Iraq war bill slated to be voted on by his panel today. The extra money represents a 24% increase on the administration's request and could prove the opening shot in a bidding war that may raise the cost of the Senate bill above $100 billion.

 

The spending measure will dominate the Senate agenda after Congress's two-week spring recess beginning Saturday, and as lawmakers prepare to go home, its emergence is a reminder that time is running out for a major immigration bill now pending in the chamber. Republicans have called for a special party caucus this morning on the issue, and new compromises were being considered last night to get the 60 votes needed to cut off debate.

 

The major focus is on how to legalize the status of an estimated 11 million to 12 million undocumented workers here now. A bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee would create an arduous, but clear path toward earned citizenship for these workers, who would have to wait more than 11 years in most cases and pay fines and back taxes. But however tough, critics argue that it still smacks of a controversial amnesty in 1986 that conservatives say only encouraged more illegal immigration.

 

Republican leaders bluntly warned Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) that his bill will get no more than 58 votes to cut off debate. And Mr. Specter said later "We're going to add some more hurdles to move farther away from the concept of amnesty."

 

Specifically, the leadership was promoting ideas put forward by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.) that would treat those illegal immigrants -- who have entered the U.S. in the past five years -- more as guest workers, without a clear path to citizenship. The posture last night was to make what deals are needed to avoid an embarrassing impasse this week and get a bill to conference with the House without further damaging Republicans politically.

 

"The objective is to have a bill by the end of the week that is not amnesty and does not alienate the Hispanic community," Mr. Hagel said.

 

The White House is watching anxiously since a Senate bill is the president's last hope of any comprehensive immigration legislation this year. But the fight is costing Mr. Bush political capital within his party even as he is struggling to rein in Republican demands for spending -- as seen in the Katrina-Iraq bill before Appropriations today.

 

Prominent senators in both parties have drafted amendments adding billions of dollars for border security, avian-flu preparedness and aid for farmers hurt not just by Katrina, but also by storms and drought in the 2005 crop year.

 

Mr. Cochran's Katrina list begins with housing-related add-ons, including $1 billion for community development funds to ease tension between Louisiana and Texas over federal aid. An additional $600 million would go to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide more stable interim housing for evacuees.

 

An estimated $628 million is added to improve levees in New Orleans, and the city would get a big share of $200 million in emergency transit aid. Rural communities in Gulf Coast states would get about $395 million for development programs, and $176 million goes to the Department of Veterans Affairs to rebuild a retirement home in Gulfport, Miss.

 

The CSX rail-relocation plan surely will be the most contested of the chairman's add-ons, and critics argue that Mississippi is using Katrina -- and Mr. Cochran's power -- to leverage a project that Gulf Coast communities wanted long before the storm. A CSX spokesman confirmed last night that talks were under way with state officials, and for safety and economic reasons, local communities have wanted the rail line moved.

 

In essence, the $700 million would enable the railroad to surrender its right-of-way across three southern Mississippi counties and possibly enter into working arrangements to use existing lines from New Orleans, northeast to Meridian, Miss., and then across to Montgomery, Ala. The money would help pay for track improvements and shared costs with the owners of the rail lines.

 

Write to David Rogers at david.rogers@wsj.com¹

 

 

WASHINGTON POST (Zakaria Column): To Become an American

By Fareed Zakaria

Tuesday, April 4, 2006; A23

 

Seven years ago, when I was visiting Germany, I met with an official who explained to me that the country had a foolproof solution to its economic woes. Watching the U.S. economy soar during the 1990s, the Germans had decided that they, too, needed to go the high-technology route. But how? In the late '90s, the answer seemed obvious: Indians. After all, Indian entrepreneurs accounted for one of every three Silicon Valley start-ups. So the German government decided that it would lure Indians to Germany just as America does: by offering green cards. Officials created something called the German Green Card and announced that they would issue 20,000 in the first year. Naturally, they expected that tens of thousands more Indians would soon be begging to come, and perhaps the quotas would have to be increased. But the program was a flop. A year later barely half of the 20,000 cards had been issued. After a few extensions, the program was abolished.

 

I told the German official at the time that I was sure the initiative would fail. It's not that I had any particular expertise in immigration policy, but I understood something about green cards, because I had one (the American version) myself.

 

The German Green Card was misnamed, I argued, because it never, under any circumstances, translated into German citizenship. The U.S. green card, by contrast, is an almost automatic path to becoming American (after five years and a clean record).

 

The official dismissed my objection, saying that there was no way Germany was going to offer these people citizenship. "We need young tech workers," he said. "That's what this program is all about." So Germany was asking bright young professionals to leave their country, culture and families; move thousands of miles away; learn a new language; and work in a strange land -- but without any prospect of ever being part of their new home. Germany was sending a signal, one that was accurately received in India and other countries, and also by Germany's own immigrant community.

 

Many Americans have become enamored of the European approach to immigration -- perhaps without realizing it. Guest workers, penalties, sanctions and deportation are all a part of Europe's mode of dealing with immigrants. The results of this approach have been on display recently in France, where rioting migrant youths again burned cars last week. Across Europe one sees disaffected, alienated immigrants, ripe for radicalism. The immigrant communities deserve their fair share of blame for this, but there's a cycle at work. European societies exclude the immigrants, who become alienated and reject their societies.

 

One puzzle about post-Sept. 11 America is that it has not had a subsequent terror attack -- not even a small backpack bomb in a movie theater -- while there have been dozens in Europe. My own explanation is that American immigrant communities, even Arab and Muslim ones, are not very radicalized. (Even if such an attack does take place, the fact that 4 1/2 years have gone by without one provides some proof of this contention.) Compared with every other country in the world, America does immigration superbly. Do we really want to junk that for the French approach?

 

The United States has a real problem with flows of illegal immigrants, largely from Mexico (70 percent of illegal immigrants are from that one country). But let us understand the forces at work here. "The income gap between the United States and Mexico is the largest between any two contiguous countries in the world," writes Stanford historian David Kennedy. That huge disparity is producing massive demand in the United States and massive supply from Mexico and Central America. Whenever governments try to come between these two forces -- think of drugs -- simply increasing enforcement does not work. Tighter border control is an excellent idea, but to work, it will have to be coupled with some recognition of the laws of supply and demand -- that is, it will have to include expansion of the legal immigrant pool.

 

Beyond the purely economic issue, however, there is the much deeper one that defines America -- to itself, to its immigrants and to the world. How do we want to treat those who are already in this country, working and living with us? How do we want to treat those who come in on visas or guest permits? These people must have some hope, some reasonable path to becoming Americans. Otherwise we are sending a signal that there are groups of people who are somehow unfit to be Americans, that these newcomers are not really welcome and that what we want are workers, not potential citizens. And we will end up with immigrants who have similarly cold feelings about America.

 comments@fareedzakaria.com

 

DALLAS MORNING NEWS (McKenzie Column): GOP could lose Hispanic evangelicals

 

Top leaders have a lot riding on immigration

William McKenzie: 05:42 AM CDT on Tuesday, April 4, 2006

 

Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert should paste these numbers on their bathroom mirrors and think about them each morning while they shave:

 

•32 percent of Hispanics voting in the 2004 presidential election identified themselves as Protestants, up from 25 percent in 2000.

 

•56 percent of those Hispanic Protestants voted to re-elect President Bush, up from the 44 percent supporting him four years earlier.

 

Why memorize this data? Because by going the wrong way on immigration reform, congressional Republicans could easily alienate a natural GOP constituency.

 

Many Hispanic Protestants are evangelical in their faith, too, which makes them even more likely to lean Republican. "They vote primarily on cultural issues, like protecting traditional marriage," said Matthew Wilson, a Southern Methodist University political scientist who studies the interplay of religion and politics.

 

But if Mr. Frist, the Senate majority leader, and Mr. Hastert, speaker of the House, steer their party over the cliff on this volatile issue, Hispanic Protestants could walk away from the GOP.

 

Ask Pete Wilson about that cliff. As California governor, he wrapped his arms around his state's anti-immigrant proposition in the 1990s and drove Hispanics from his party the way top GOP leaders once pushed away black voters by relying on a "Southern strategy" that relied on white conservatives.

 

The next several months will tell whether Mr. Frist and Mr. Hastert update those sorry chapters in their party's past. Mr. Frist champions a crackdown on the border, while Mr. Hastert oversees a House full of angry conservatives who voted to build a fence between the U.S. and Mexico.

 

Both have made noises about coming up with a broad immigration bill, so we'll see. So far, their tack has been different from that of Mr. Bush. Since his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush has taken a humane stand toward immigration. Now, he wants to allow in more foreign workers while adding agents along the border.

 

Members of the National Hispanic Association of Evangelicals are with the president and have communicated their views directly to Mr. Frist and Mr. Hastert. The association's president, the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, said from Sacramento last week that he told those two leaders that Republicans already are "batting 0-for-1," referring to the House bill with its get-tough stands on enforcement that has galvanized Hispanics nationwide.

 

Hispanic Protestants are among the galvanized. Baptist Pastor Lynn Godsey of Ennis was so shocked by the House bill that he and other Hispanic ministers across North Texas formed a coalition in December.

 

Two weeks ago, they held a large prayer service, and they will keep drawing attention to proposals like the House's that intend to make it a crime to assist illegal immigrants. "This could affect us as pastors ministering to people's spiritual needs," Mr. Godsey told me.

 

Mr. Godsey and Mr. Rodriguez also formed a national group to press for "comprehensive immigration reform" – or a bill that allows in more foreign workers annually, secures the border and holds employers accountable.

 

To Hispanic Protestants, immigration is a profoundly religious issue. "We look at this through a biblical rubric," Mr. Rodriguez emphasized.

 

The issue also is a wild card for the GOP. The coalition Mr. Godsey formed with Mr. Rodriguez claims to represent 20 million Spanish-speaking evangelicals.

 

Unquestionably, though Mr. Frist and Mr. Hastert are feeling pressure from loyal Republicans who believe it would be horrendous to allow in more immigrants. This sect of the voting public wants a tighter border, period.

 

A balanced bill is the only way to answer this teeter-totter.

 

Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Godsey, by the way, recognize the need for compromise. The question is whether the Republicans running Congress will insist upon one. If they don't, they risk shutting the door on one of their fastest-growing constituencies.

 

"There's higher voter turnout among Hispanic evangelicals than among Hispanics in general," says John Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

 

Or, as Mr. Rodriguez put it, "The Republican Party cannot win another presidential election without the Hispanic evangelical vote."

 

I don't know whether he's right, but I'd think twice if I were Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert, studying those numbers in the mirror.

 William McKenzie is a Dallas Morning News editorial columnist. His e-mail address is wmckenzie@dallasnews.com.

 

 CHRISTIANITY TODAY (Editorial): Blessed Are the Courageous

When it comes to immigration policy, let's remember who we're talking about.

A Christianity Today editorial | posted 04/03/2006 09:45 a.m.

 

The usual array of arguments marshaled to support or hinder immigration tends toward the abstract. The arguments often obscure rather than clarify. It's helpful to remember who we are talking about when we discuss "undocumented workers."

 

We're talking about people like Maria. Daniel Groody, immigration scholar, author, and Catholic priest, tells Maria's story like this:

 

"I remember meeting Maria, who came north from Guatemala and wanted to work in the United States for only two years, then return home to her family. I met her on the Mexican side of the border just before her third attempt. In the previous 10 days, she had tried twice to cross the border through a remote route in southern Arizona. On her first attempt, she was mugged at the border by bandito gangs. Though bruised and beaten, she continued her journey through the desert and ran out of food. Just before she reached the road, she was apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol and put in an immigration detention center. A few days later she tried again. This time, her coyote smuggler tried to rape her, but she managed to free herself and push her way through the desert once again. After four days of walking, she ran out of food, water, and even strength. The border patrol found her, helped her, and then sent her back to Mexico."

 

Dignity for Aliens

On the one hand, some advocates tell us to remember that immigrants are made in the image of God and have an essential dignity. That is true. But basic human dignity also belongs to the border agents, the coyote smuggler who tried to rape Maria, and legislators who seek to further restrict Maria from coming to the United States.

 

On the other hand, some complain about "lazy Hispanics" who desert their families and come to this country to take advantage of social welfare programs. But given human nature, all kinds of people abuse our welfare system—including Anglos.

 

Some Christians pull a verse out of Leviticus like a trump card—let's say Leviticus 19:33–34: "When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born." They use it as a bludgeon: "The Bible commands us to welcome the stranger."

 

Indeed, we should. But that does not help us decide, ultimately, what to do with "illegal aliens." Nor whether we should give amnesty to the up to 12 million undocumented persons in our midst, or deport them, or something in between. Nor does it tell us how to screen out drug dealers and terrorists in a way that protects human rights and dignity.

 

There is also the argument that says we should care about immigrants, legal or not, because they are poor, oppressed, and defenseless—"the least of these." As one well-meaning cleric put it, we Christians are called "to attend to the last, littlest, lowest, and least in society and in the church."

 

Such talk can be patronizing and demeaning. Immigrants aren't mere victims, but historic actors. Most of the suffering they experience they know about well in advance, yet they venture forth in courage nonetheless. They are not weak, but strong; not "the least of these," but our betters in many ways. They have the initiative and courage that is emblematic of being American. They traverse deserts. They walk 50 miles or farther in treacherous conditions that have killed (so far) 3,000—all to enjoy greater economic and political freedom.

 

Once here, they toil in labor-intensive work that most Americans consider demeaning but that immigrants imbue with dignity, because of the work ethic they bring to it. That ethic—when combined with thrift and care for family and extended family—has earned them a significant place in American culture.

 

Deep Faith

We suspect that they are also people of deep Christian faith in many cases.

 

Groody continues his story about Maria:

 

"I was curious about how Maria dealt with these trials before God. 'If you had 15 minutes to speak to God,' I asked her, 'what would you say?' I thought she would give him a long litany of complaints. Instead, she told me, 'I do not have 15 minutes to speak to God. I am always conversing with him, and I feel his presence with me always. Yet if I saw God face to face, the first thing I would do is thank him, because God has been so good to me and has blessed me so abundantly.'"

 

Immigration policy is a mass of complexity. A wise policy will balance compassion for individuals and separated families with national security and economic ramifications. Respect for law is not negotiable, but it is not everything. And creating criminal penalties for those who aid illegal immigrants falls far short of solving our problems. Those responsible for crafting immigration reform surely need our prayers.

 

We should remind our lawmakers and advocates that when all is said and done, we're not talking about "the poor" or "deadbeats" or "undocumented workers." We're talking mostly about people like Maria.

 

Any policy that treats her the same way we treat drug smugglers and foreign terrorists is foolish. Any policy that makes it harder for Maria to come here, temporarily or permanently, is a policy that says that courage, industry, and faith no longer matter.

 

Let's figure out some way, please, to let Maria and others like her sojourn among us.

 

BLACKAMERICAWEB: NAACP, Barack Obama Call for Earned Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants

Date: Monday, April 03, 2006

By: Michael H. Cottman

 

The NAACP is calling on Congress to enact sweeping immigration reform that does not include enforcing a mass deportation campaign and a provision to build a 700-mile security fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.

 

"Our nation's immigration policy must be consistent with humanitarian values and with the need to treat all individuals with respect and dignity," Bruce Gordon, president of the NAACP, said in a statement.

 

"We must move away from the politics of ostracizing immigrants and instead look at the demographic shifts and needs of our nation in a larger context," Gordon said. 

 

A U.S. House bill passed in December -- which has drawn fierce opposition from Latino groups -- would make illegal immigration a felony, impose new penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants, require churches to check the legal status of parishioners before helping them and erect fences along one-third of the U.S.-Mexican border.

 

Last month, more than 500,000 people gathered in downtown Los Angeles to protest the House legislation and tens of thousands rallied in Phoenix and Milwaukee. In Detroit, protesters waving Mexican flags marched from the southwest side of the city where many Hispanics live.

 

Senate majority leader Bill Frist said the Senate will likely begin debating the issue this week and craft its own immigration legislation, a prospect that has heightened the discussion about immigration reform and renewed calls for protests and letters to congressional leaders.

 

Democrats like Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) say immigration reform is a divisive issue but contend that lawmakers should work collectively to assist immigrants living in the U.S.

 

"I know that this debate evokes strong passions on all sides," Obama said in a statement to BlackAmericaWeb.com. "The recent peaceful but passionate protests of hundreds of thousands around the country are a testament to this fact, as are the concerns of millions of Americans about the security of our borders."

 

"But I believe we can work together to pass immigration reform in a way that unites the people in this country," he said, "not in a way that divides us by playing on our worst instincts and fears."

 

Obama said the Judiciary Committee’s bill would strengthen enforcement, "but while security might start at our borders, it doesn't end there."

 

He said millions of undocumented immigrants live and work in America.

 

"We need to strike a workable bargain with them," Obama said. "They have to acknowledge that breaking our immigration laws was wrong. They must pay a penalty, and abide by all of our laws going forward.

 

"But in exchange for accepting those penalties," he added, "we must allow undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and step on a path toward full participation in our society. In fact, I will not support any bill that does not provide this earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population."

 

Gordon said that legislation to address genuine immigration reform should include proposals that would allow people to earn the right of citizenship through hard work, the commitment of several years and meeting several monetary, security and related requirements. He said the NAACP "strongly opposes any efforts to criminalize undocumented immigrants."

 

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said while he believes border security is essential, Republicans have passed a series of immigration bills over the years that have been ineffective.

 

"Let me say at the outset that Democrats believe that a strong border security policy is an absolute necessity for this nation," Conyers said during a recent speech on the House floor. "We must ensure that terrorists do not simply walk into this country and lurk in the shadows of our society until they attack our people."

 

"But this bill is mostly not about border security," Conyers added. He said Republicans repeatedly use the fear of terrorism to push their anti-immigrant agenda.

 

"We do not need to adopt policies of jailing, deporting, and criminalizing immigrants to protect ourselves from the real threats of terrorism," Conyers said. "More importantly, we are giving the American people a false sense of security if we tell them a bill like H.R. 4437 will help keep them safe."

 

Political commentator Earl Ofari Hutchinson said civil rights leaders overall have been "virtually mute" on the subject of immigration. He said there are no position papers, statements or press releases on the websites of the NAACP, National Urban League or SCLC on immigration reform. And, he added, "The Congressional Black Caucus hasn’t done much better."

 

"The CBC and civil rights leaders tread lightly on the immigrant rights battle for two reasons," Hutchinson said in a recent column. "They are loath to equate the immigrant rights movement with the civil rights battles of the 1960s. They see immigrant rights as a reactive, narrow, single-issue movement whose leaders have not actively reached out to black leaders and groups."

 

Meanwhile, the NAACP released a set of principles for revised federal immigration legislation:

 

•  

  Support of family unification by not subtracting the visas given to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from visas available to all family immigrants thereby reducing the backlogs in which people wait for many years to reunite with their closest family members;

•  

  Support of protections for agricultural workers and a path to legal permanent residency and citizenship for college age students;

•  

  Support of due process rights for immigrants facing deportation, including access to fair, humane and common-sense procedures such as a speedy trial and adequate counsel;

•  

  Opposition to efforts to penalize anyone for providing humanitarian assistance to their fellow human beings, regardless of the citizenship status of the person in need of help;

•  

  Opposition to any efforts to require, encourage or deputize state or local police to enforce federal immigration laws;

•  

  Opposition to Department of Homeland Security detention of individuals indefinitely;

•  

  Opposition to low-level Citizenship and Immigration Service personnel exercising unreviewable authority to judge good moral character of an applicant for citizenship;

•  

  Opposition to mandatory detention of undocumented immigrants without individualized consideration of whether detention is necessary.

 

"Problems with the immigration system cannot be resolved without looking at the larger economic needs of the nation," Gordon said, "such as the creation of job training programs and small business programs, as well as federal education assistance so that all Americans can have enhanced opportunities."

 

WASHINGTON POST: Immigration's Scrambled Politics

By Ruth Marcus

Tuesday, April 4, 2006; A23

 

In Washington last week, the immigration debate descended at times to the level of a schoolyard dispute over the semantics of amnesty. Is too! Is not! Talk radio and cable shows worked themselves into a lather over Mexican flags at pro-immigration rallies. On CNN, Chief Nativism Correspondent Lou Dobbs even came out against St. Patrick's Day.

 

In bright-red-state Nebraska, meanwhile, the legislature (technically nonpartisan but in fact two-thirds Republican) voted to let the children of illegal immigrants get in-state tuition breaks at state colleges.

 

Forget "What's the Matter With Kansas?" What's up in Nebraska?

 

Several things. First, Nebraska illustrates the new geographic reality of illegal immigration: They're not just in Texas (or California or Florida) anymore. In recent years the most rapid growth in the population of undocumented migrants (as well as legal immigrants) has taken place in states that previously had only a handful of foreign-born residents.

 

In 1990, according to an analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center, the number of undocumented migrants in states outside the six biggest in terms of illegal immigration (California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey) was 400,000 -- just 12 percent of the undocumented population. By 2004 that number had grown tenfold, to almost 4 million -- 39 percent of the undocumented population. In Nebraska, the population of illegal immigrants -- drawn by jobs in meatpacking plants -- quadrupled, from 6,000 in 1990 to 24,000 in 2000; now, it may be as high as 40,000.

 

Second, Nebraska underscores the scrambled politics of immigration: Where a politician will come down on the issue isn't necessarily predictable based on party affiliation or geography. Nebraska's Republican senator, Chuck Hagel, is a leader in backing comprehensive immigration reform. The state's Democratic senator, Ben Nelson -- up for reelection this year -- has been taking an enforcement-comes-first line; he touts a "get-tough border security bill" that features a fence extending from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico. On the tuition bill, the state's Republican governor said he'd have "great reluctance" about signing it, yet two of the Republicans challenging him expressed their support for the measure in a debate last week.

 

Elsewhere, too, politicians of the same party in the same state find themselves on opposite sides of the immigration divide: See Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl in Arizona. And the strongest feelings against illegal immigration may not be where the immigrants already are but where they're just arriving. Republican Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico voted against the punitive House bill. Not a huge surprise: Wilson's Democratic-leaning district is 43 percent Hispanic.

 

But in the race to succeed Republican Rep. Jim Nussle in a swing district in northeastern Iowa, immigration has emerged as a major topic in the Republican primary, despite the district's minuscule but growing immigrant population. The three GOP candidates are vying to out-tough each other on the issue, with Brian Kennedy traveling to the banks of the Rio Grande for a "fact-finding mission" and state Rep. Bill Dix pushing legislation to cut off home mortgage loans for illegal immigrants.

 

Perhaps the most intriguing, and gratifying, aspect of the Nebraska debate, though, is the suggestion that the rising tide of illegal immigration can produce rational policy rather than unthinking backlash. Granted, this isn't the majority reaction. The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that at least 36 bills have been introduced in 20 states this year involving government benefits for illegal immigrants, most to restrict them. In addition, eight states are considering measures to prohibit in-state tuition benefits for illegal immigrants or to repeal those already in place. This includes Virginia, where then-Gov. Mark Warner vetoed such a bill in 2003. Only four states are weighing legislation that would go in the same direction as Nebraska.

 

The Nebraska measure -- the state would be the 10th to grant in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants -- would apply to students who have lived in the state for at least three years, graduated from a Nebraska high school and will sign affidavits swearing they will seek to become permanent legal residents. Proponents argue that giving such students a tuition break reflects the reality that they are here to stay in any event and that the state will be better off the better educated they become. And with the state losing native-born residents, advocates make the case that there is an upside to immigration. As one state senator, a rural Republican, told a GOP colleague who's running for Congress, "You wouldn't have a seat to run for if it wasn't for immigration."

 

D. Milo Mumgaard, executive director of the Nebraska Appleseed Center, a public-interest law group that has been lobbying for the measure, says he's hopeful that the Nebraska experience can be replicated. "We have worked hard to cast public dialogue in a way that says beating up on immigrants is very shortsighted," he says. "What we try to do here in Nebraska is remind everyone that Nebraska in particular is a state of immigrants. We're just seeing the same old, same old. It's just this time it happens to be a bunch of brown-skinned people from south of the border."

 

marcusr@washpost.com

 

WALL STREET JOURNAL (Gillespie Commentary): Populists, Beware!

By EDWARD GILLESPIE

April 1, 2006; Page A6

 

In coming weeks, Republicans in Congress must choose either a comprehensive immigration reform package including a guest-worker program or a narrowly focused border-security bill. The former would improve homeland security, help our economy and build greater Republican majorities. The latter, conversely, would ignore fundamental problems, hurt our economy and risk the party's majority status.

 

Lawbreakers should not be rewarded with citizenship, but respect for the rule of law need not conflict with two other pillars of conservative philosophy: freedom and economic growth. A rational immigration policy that allows workers to enter and exit this country for temporary employment will make us more secure. Law enforcement will face fewer problems with undocumented workers and will be better able to focus on the true threats to our nation from criminals and terrorists.

 

Much of the resentment toward immigrant labor is based on the misperception that it is a drain on our economy and resources. However, researchers at the Academy of Sciences for the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform have demonstrated that immigrants add about $10 billion annually in net economic output due to the increased supply of labor and resulting lower prices. Furthermore, a typical newcomer pays $80,000 more in taxes than he takes out in benefits over the course of a lifetime.

 

From low-wage workers who pick oranges to high-tech workers who lend their engineering expertise to American companies, immigrants provide critically important human resources. Eliminating them from the labor force will not result in more Americans filling those jobs. Our nation's unemployment rate is at 4.8%, and 243,000 new jobs were created last month. Without comprehensive reform, we are likely to see Florida orange groves being sold to developers as citrus companies plant new groves south of our border, and U.S. technology companies moving employment centers from Boston and Silicon Valley to Bangladesh and Shanghai.

 

Polling done last year by the Tarrance Group showed that 75% of voters strongly support a comprehensive approach on immigration that increases border security, toughens enforcement of current laws, registers current illegal immigrants, and allows illegal immigrants to earn legal status by working, learning English, paying taxes and living crime-free. Implementing policies like these will help Republicans make gains in the electorate, while past experience shows that policies that seek to penalize immigration harm the party.

 

Populists offer a different immigration plan: Build a bigger wall. I understand why this message resonates, but it will prove shortsighted. The California GOP struggles today because of what Hispanics saw as an assault on them more than a decade ago by then-Gov. Pete Wilson. In Virginia, Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore ran last-minute anti-immigration ads that didn't move his numbers with swing voters and probably cost him important votes in the Hispanic enclaves of Northern Virginia. Anti-immigration rhetoric is a political siren song, and Republicans must resist its lure by lashing ourselves to our party's twin masts of freedom and growth -- or our majority will crash on the shoals.

 

The Republican Party cannot become an anti-immigration party. Our majority already rests too heavily on white voters, given that current demographic voting percentages will not allow us to hold our majority in the future. Between 2000 and 2004, President Bush increased his support in the Hispanic community by nine percentage points. Had he not, John Kerry would be president today.

 

Hispanic voting percentages are increasingly decisive in swing states like New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, Colorado and Arkansas. Mishandling the immigration debate today could result in the Republican Party struggling in these states and others in the same way it does now in California. People who come legally to this country with nothing and labor in the most menial ways to get a new start should feel at home in our party. As a rule, they are hardworking, law-abiding, freedom-loving and patriotic Americans.

 

* * *

 

This is as true today as it was when my father arrived by ship from Donegal, Ireland, in 1933, as a 9-year-old with nothing but the clothes on his back. John Patrick "Jack" Gillespie was processed through Ellis Island. As a young man, he worked as a janitor. Later in life, he started his own small business and made his children the first generation of Gillespies ever to attend college. He still can't walk very far today, because in 1944 Nazi bullets ripped through both his legs in the course of earning a Purple Heart, a Bronze Star, a Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster and a Silver Star for his adopted country.

 

I am proud to be the son of an immigrant. Like many first-generation Americans, I feel it has made me treasure the benefits of citizenship even more. I appreciate the opportunities that have been provided to my father -- and by extension to me and my three children -- by the greatest country ever to grace the face of the earth.

 

As a former party chairman, I hope Republicans appreciate the opportunity provided to us today. We can demonstrate that we are a party that believes in freedom, economic growth and the rule of law by supporting immigration policies that not only secure our borders but are also pro-freedom and pro-growth. If we do so, we will also be a party that enjoys the support of a majority of voters for generations.

 

Mr. Gillespie was chairman of the Republican National Committee in the 2004 election cycle. His firm, Quinn Gillespie & Associates, represents clients who support a temporary guest worker program.

 

 

NEW YORK TIMES (Column): Border of Insanity

April 4, 2006

Op-Ed Columnist

By JOHN TIERNEY

 

This is a special edition of "Lou Dobbs Tonight," news, debate and opinion. Live from Pyongyang, North Korea, Lou Dobbs:

 

Good evening from North Korea. We had to go halfway around the world, but we've finally got good news for the working men and women of America angry about illegal immigration. Tonight you'll hear our exclusive report from the nation that proudly calls itself the Hermit Kingdom.

 

But first, more bad news from Washington. Despite my personal trip to Cancún for last week's summit meeting, President Bush remains hostage to foreign interests. My soaring ratings apparently mean nothing to the White House or the Senate Republicans working on an amnesty plan for the illegal immigrants now carrying Mexican flags through our streets.

 

Tonight's poll question deals with those protesters and where they get their money. As these reconquistadors plot to make California a province of Mexico, have they made a secret deal to turn the Los Angeles port over to an Arab company? Cast your votes at loudobbs.com. We'll have your answers later.

 

A report out today refutes the claims that the American economy benefits from immigration and free trade. If you're a regular viewer, you already know that's a myth. But maybe these figures will knock the rose-colored glasses off a few so-called mainstream economists. The new report, from the Minutemen Institute of Research Study Analysis, shows that previous cost-benefit estimates ignored three crucial factors:

 

• Since Nafta opened the border, the importing of cheap tortilla chips has worsened America's obesity epidemic by 475 million pounds.

 

• Intermarriage between immigrants and natives is expected to reduce the projected height of the average future worker, leading to a 2.4 percent decrease in earning potential.

 

• Americans lose 38.7 billion minutes of productive work time per decade sitting through telephone instructions to "dial 2 for Spanish."

 

Add in those costs, and the net loss to the American economy is $4.3 trillion. I can't say it often enough: there's nothing free about free trade.

 

No one understands that better than our hosts here in North Korea, the world's most economically independent nation. They know the hazards of foreign labor and foreign goods. "Buy North Korean" is more than a slogan here. Outsourcing is outlawed.

 

How do they stay strong? Let's find out from the North Korean military leader in charge of border security. Thank you for joining us, General —— excuse me, could you pronounce your name for our viewers?

 

No.

 

No?

 

That is an internal matter.

 

Ah. Let's talk about something that's no secret: the difference between our borders. Hundreds of thousands of Mexicans annually sneak into the U.S. How many people make it up here across your southern border each year?

 

Approximately zero.

 

I can believe it. I sure didn't see any South Korean flags on the streets today. We got nothing but blank looks when we asked for the hiring spot for foreign laborers. What's stopping them? Is the whole border fenced?

 

There are two fences across the Demilitarized Zone. Also thousands of artillery systems and land mines.

 

I wish you could brief President Vicente Fox of Mexico and members of Congress. I bet they've never thought of land mines — well, maybe Tom Tancredo has. And you also have 700,000 border agents?

 

The number of troops is classified.

 

But the point is, the message that our defeatists at home need to hear, is that with enough determination, you can seal the border. Nobody's digging tunnels under your fences, right?

 

Actually, a few have dug tunnels.

 

But you said that there have been virtually no crossings.

 

In this direction. Some of our citizens have fled south.

 

But what they could be looking for? You've got a self-sufficient economy.

 

These are isolated cases of mental delusion. They believe tales of places where workers own personal telephones and bicycles — even cars. [Laughs.] Fortunately, we apprehend most of them.

 

Well, the next time you catch one, I've got something you can share with him. I'd like to present you with a copy of my book "Exporting America."

 

A foreign book? No, thank you.

 

A man of principle. I respect that, General.

 

Up next, a tour of Pyongyang's finest restaurants, where you won't find any enchiladas — or Mexican busboys. Stay tuned as we bust the myth that there are some jobs North Koreans won't do.

 (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed by HispanicVista.com (www.hispanicvista.com) without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)