The author reflects upon the issue of U.S. immigration and the political floundering that ensues when the topic is discussed. A comparison is made of Hispanic immigration in 2007 to other waves of immigration that have occurred over the past 150 years. The author suggests that there is mounting evidence to show that the new immigrants behave in positive ways similar to their predecessors.
Lesson 1 A Good Immigration Bill
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
1.We are all immigrants. Some of us, I grant you, can claim descent from native Americans,' some from the immigrants who 400 years ago on May 14 stepped ashore in Virginia from the Susan Constant and the two other sailing ships from England. Everyone salutes the first Virginians and the Pilgrim Fathers to the north, but the curious thing is that over many generations we have gotten into the habit of acknowledging the more recent immigrants only in retrospect. They have to wait until they have proved themselves by working, raising a respectable family, achieving citizenship, and maybe even winning a Nobel Prize. Until then they are "a problem." The hot-button issue now is whether the proposals from the Senate solve the problem or make it worse. The weaving and dodging of all the candidates on this issue, but especially by the Republican candidates, is the eighth wonder of the world.
2.There is nothing new about the "problem." Immigration is central to the American narrative, but in real time the country has always been anxious about it. The concern over the current wave of Hispanic immigration is similar to that over those other waves—the ones from the past 150 years involving people from Catholic and Jewish enclaves in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean who came to a basically English-speaking Protestant country. Could they ever assimilate? Short answer: Yes, they did. Wouldn't they be a burden on the state? Short answer: No, they weren't.
3.Larger scale. The tide of Hispanic immigration today has similar roots, with two important differences: The European waves were legal, and immigration from the south of America, especially Mexico, is mainly illegal. The numbers are also on a wholly different scale from the immigration of the 20s and 30s. These factors understandably raise apprehensions, but so far the evidence shows that the new immigrants largely behave in positive ways similar to their predecessors. They are family oriented, they value education, and their children are learning English. Over time, they are intermarrying among growing numbers of other ethnic groups. They are people of faith. They are energetic, looking to move up in life through better jobs—they work hard and for long hours.
4.In fact they often take jobs many Americans simply no longer wish to do. By and large the most recent surge of immigrants is made up of people who are young and mobile and who work in the least desired sectors of the U.S. economy—such as agriculture and service industries—for relatively low pay.
5.Today only about 10 percent of white males leave high school for a job, and high school graduates simply won' t take the menial jobs that many immigrants are happy to take on. So for the most part, the new immigrant and the settled American are not competing for the same jobs. Even when they do compete more directly with low-skilled U.S.-born workers, the job preference is different. Immigrants find work in agriculture, while less educated natives often end up in manufacturing.
6.The notion that unskilled immigrants tend to complement rather than replace native Americans is supported by the unusually low unemployment rates of the six states that have the largest influx of illegal immigrants—New York, California, Illinois, Texas, Florida, and Arizona.
7.Millions and millions of new jobs requiring no more than a high school education will have to be filled over the next decade. Who will take them? Not those born in America. Our fertility rates are falling, our education levels rising. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that we will have many vacancies for unskilled labor—exactly where the vast majority of immigrants expect to be working. In the California workforce of 2004, among undocumented men ages 18 to 64, more than 90 percent were working, compared with just over 80 percent of native-born men. Illegal immigrants receive virtually no welfare transfers that could sustain them without work. They know that if they' re going to be unemployed, they' re better off at home in Mexico instead of New York or Chicago. They' re here because they want to work.
8.That is one side of the immigration coin. We hear less about the other side—the high-tech immigrants and the value they provide our economy. By some estimates, about a third of Silicon Valley start-ups in the past decade have been founded by Indians or Chinese, who also power the science departments of America' s great universities. Yet, we continue to lock out of the U.S. economy some of the world' s best and brightest in such fields as medicine, computers, and engineering, forcing them to work abroad where they can develop businesses or work in businesses that compete with us. It doesn't make sense.
9.So looking forward, we will need more rather than less migration at both the low end and the high end of the skill sets. Bear in mind that we are getting older. As the 80 million baby boomers" retire, we will have 250 seniors to 1,000 working people in 2010; by 2030, 411 seniors per 1,000. Who will pick up the financial burden in the Social Security System for the aging baby-boomer generation?
10.Our door has to be open—but not wide open. We cannot let in all of the world' s many millions who wish to come. And we are entitled to be selective. The key question is how effectively our policies have been designed to address our interests. Another short answer: Not at all. That is why we have to take this opportunity to change them.
11.The bipartisan bill by a group of 10 U.S. senators is a good and bold attempt to sort out this issue after decades of confusion. The senators are right to call for a change of emphasis to put more stress on special skills and limit the numbers claiming entry on the fact of a relationship to someone here. Today, once an individual has become an American citizen, he or she can petition on behalf of relatives, not only spouses and children but also parents and siblings, who in turn can bring other relatives over, creating so-called chain immigration. This allows an immigrant to bring in a brother who brings in a sister, who brings in a brother-in-law, who brings in a daughter, ad infinitum.
12. Family reunification should be supported to the extent of holding the nuclear family together; keeping spouses and children together makes good humanitarian, social, and cultural sense. But narrowing family immigration categories—as well as eliminating the random "visa lottery" program" that allows in 50,000 people a year—would open up over 200,000 annual slots for legal permanent residents.
13.Skills needed. The proposed point system favors applicants who speak English, who have a higher education and specific job skills, and who can address our shortages such as nurse' s (nurses') aides or researchers. This would redress the gross imbalance of the moment and align American policy more closely with an American ideal-meritocracy. In an increasingly globalized economy, we need skill! Last year 63 percent of visas went to relatives of U.S. citizens or legal residents; only 13 percent went to individuals because of their skills; and only 37,000 went to workers with high-priority skills, such as professors and engineers.
14.The second good thing is that the senators' bill tackles what we do with the estimated 12 million people who have been living here illegally. Many of them have been here for years, if not decades; they own businesses and homes and have given birth to children who are automatically U.S. citizens. Hardly anybody thinks that they can be rounded up and sent home. A drive to deport them would cost billions and require police to raid the barrios of our cities. It would strike much of the public as draconian.
15.Surely the only practical solution is to identify these unauthorized workers, and their families, as genuine immigrants (and not creators of terrorist cells) and give them a way to end up on the right side of the law. The cry has gone up that this is an amnesty. Not so. The bill spells out a long route to legality and citizenship. Illegal immigrants could apply for a green card only after the 4 million families who are now in line for immigrant visas have been cleared through the system;18 this process would take an estimated eight years. Illegal immigrants would thus not have an advantage over those who have played by the rules. They would also have to pay fines and demonstrate that they have clean records. In a sense, they would be allowed to earn citizenship over time—an American version of a "second chance."
16.To win conservative support for this position, the bill calls for substantially stepped up security to be in place before more immigrants are admitted. We do have to get control of our borders. And a second lock is also justified: The bill would sanction businesses that hire illegal immigrants and would assist employers in verifying that job applicants are here legally. To acquiesce in 12 million people living in the shadows is corrosive to the rule of law." These people must be incorporated into America's social fabric.
17.This ingenious compromise owes much to the bipartisan leadership of John McCain and Edward Kennedy. Both sides have accepted things they do not like. The Democrats accepted a constrained temporary-worker program in exchange for winning a pathway to legalization for those here. The Republicans are willing to provide illegal immigrants the path to citizenship in return for getting a more secure border and eliminating the much-abused extended chain of family relations.
18.But the real linchpin is skills-based immigration. If that survives, we will have an opportunity to rationalize immigration in a way that works for America.
19. A strong majority of the American people want Congress to reflect the bipartisan origin of the bill—problem solving instead of problem creating. The endless politicking that has accompanied the debate is a disservice to everyone. Immigration is both the history and destiny of America. Let's get it right.
