Beyond the Welcome Mat: Pricey Politics : Immigration quotas go up--but not supporting services

Who can argue with the generous changes Congress wants to make in U.S. immigration laws? Groups as diverse as conservative economists and liberal minority activists are pushing for them. We favor them, too--but we can’t help but wonder what Congress will do when the bills come in.

THE BILL: The Senate approved its version of the Family Unity and Employment Opportunity Act of 1990 months ago and the House did last week, but a conference committee must resolve the differences. With the federal budget and Persian Gulf crisis to keep it busy, Congress may not get around to immigration before it adjourns. But it just might, because the members aren’t as divided on immigration this year as they were on the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

That’s mainly because the current measure isn’t restrictionist. To oversimplify, IRCA was the “bad cop” law designed to stop illegal immigration. The 1990 bill is a “good cop” law designed to promote the “right” kinds of immigration--allowing relatives in to bring families together and to lure skilled workers in to help the economy. The bill also seeks to promote immigration that’s legal--thus less difficult to monitor and control.

The 1990 act began as an effort to make it easier for immigrants from Ireland to enter this country. By now, there’s something in it for almost everyone: A special category of visas for Hong Kong residents pleases Asians, and family-reunification provisions to benefit newly legalized immigrants are favored by Latinos. And employers like the idea of being able to bring in immigrant workers if they can’t find U.S. citizens to fill jobs.

But the very ease with which Congress is moving to enact this measure raises some alarms.

THE SOCIAL COSTS: Granted, immigrants contribute much when they arrive here--especially those with badly needed skills that help keep U.S. companies competitive or with the entrepreneurial drive to start up businesses that put people to work. But immigrants also have children who must be educated. Others have medical needs that must be met. A few become criminals--only three of the social costs of immigration.

Those costs become very apparent because immigrants do not scatter all over the nation in a perfectly random pattern; they cluster in a few big cities and key states with the best job opportunities. This is one reason public schools in Los Angeles are badly overcrowded. It is one reason that public hospitals in Orange County are flooded with immigrant women who need prenatal care but can’t afford private hospitals.

The immigrant clustering is not only unfair to immigrants, but it is also unfair to existing residents, who under these circumstances sometimes develop a resentment toward newcomers that can slip over the line into nativism and even racism. So if Congress does go on to enact the 1990 immigration act, as it should, we’d suggest its members keep in mind their lofty rhetoric about the benefits of immigration when it comes time to deal with the costs. Most Californians are glad, even proud, to be creating the New America. But we could use help paying for it. Let’s not blindfold ourselves to reality.

RAISING THE LEVEL ON IMMIGRATION

On Wednesday, the House voted to increase the overall number of visas issued each year for foreigners to legally live and work in the U.S. Current Level: 500,000 (estimated) House: 775,000 (estimated) Senate: 630,000 (maximum) Source: Immigration and Naturalization Service