For Liberty Centennial, We Need Sense on Immigration

When America celebrates the centennial of the Statue of Liberty next week, we can expect more than the usual Fourth of July pomp and circumstance.

I’m sure that I’m not alone in worrying that Hollywood glitz will overwhelm the rededication of austere and dignified monuments like the statue and nearby Ellis Island, where millions of immigrants first set foot on American shores. But I’m even more worried about the rhetoric.

If the speechmaking by President Reagan, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and others lapses into the maudlin sentimentality with which this nation often celebrates its immigrant roots, the hypocrisy of it will be so transparent that it should embarrass us all. For, while we Americans celebrate an idealized immigrant past, we should not forget that we have been unable to write a realistic and humane immigration law for our own times.

Even as nighttime fireworks illuminate Emma Lazarus’ words at the base of the statue, which call on the world to send us its “huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” Border Patrol agents from San Diego to Brownsville, Tex., will be starting their evening shift. They will spend the night trying to arrest and expel from the United States as many of today’s “huddled masses” as they can catch. Most of their prey will be Latin Americans seeking to enter this country to find jobs that they cannot get south of the Mexican border.

And before the July 4 speeches have been forgotten, Congress will return from its holiday break to resume the dreary process of trying to draft the new immigration law that everyone agrees is badly needed, but the specifics of which no one can agree on. They have been trying for six years now.

Of course, if Reagan and the other dignitaries were to talk frankly about immigration--past as well as present--to the people of the United States, they might focus enough public attention on the issue to break the political logjam that holds up immigration reform.

After reporting on immigration issues for more than 15 years, I have a few points that I’d like to see some platform dignitary make on July 4:

--Americans should be reminded that every national or ethnic group that immigrated here was accused of undermining American life and culture, just as hysterical restrictionists are claiming about Latinos and Asians today. None did, obviously. Instead, they contributed to making the United States a stronger and richer nation. Acknowledging that might lead to more thoughtful, and calmer, discussion of current immigration trends.

--Americans who believe that there are too many people in the outside world wanting to come here should be told that, modern communications and transportation being what they are, simply passing laws in this country won’t stop the process. A rational immigration policy for today should include long-range plans for economic development in Latin America and the rest of the Third World. This would be costly, but fewer of the world’s poor would give up their homes if they could make a decent life for themselves and their families.

--Amid all the talk about reforming immigrations laws, somebody should propose reforming the agency that enforces them. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is easily the most undermanned agency in the federal government, and as a result focuses on its enforcement duties and neglects its service functions. It would be foolish to enact a new immigration law without thoroughly reorganizing the agency that is supposed to make it work properly.

--Any speakers who do address our present immigration dilemma should look beyond the conventional wisdom in pointing fingers of blame for the inaction of Congress. Latino and Asian civil-rights groups are not holding back reform. It is American agriculture--specifically the fruit and vegetable growers in the West who insist that they cannot harvest their perishable crops without a steady supply of cheap labor from Mexico. The day on which these growers get an immigration measure that they like, comparatively powerless Latino lobbyists will have no chance of stopping it.

--Finally, while conceding that the current consensus in this country is for restrictionist immigration laws, someone should point out that anti-immigration laws have been approved in the past, then rescinded when times have changed. The same could happen this time. Indeed, some demographers suggest that it may happen sooner than we think, as our native-born population grows older and has fewer children, but still needs young, able-bodied workers to help support it.

None of these topics are likely to cause sentimental tears or stimulate patriotic fervor among the Americans who watch the centennial ceremonies for Lady Liberty. But if they lead to a clearer understanding of our immigrant present, as well as of our immigrant past, they could ensure that the Statue of Liberty’s bicentennial also will be an occasion to celebrate.