America and the New Immigrant Experience : Los Angeles Times Interview : Gene McNary : Riding the Tiger of U.S. Immigration Policy

“I knew nothing about immigration,” Gene McNary cheerfully admits early on in a discussion of his qualifications to be commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service before 1989. That’s when President George Bush named McNary, a four-term Republican county executive from St. Louis, to head the chronically overburdened and understaffed agency.

Coming from the ethnically homogenous suburbs of St. Louis, in the geographical center of the country, McNary’s experience in public life couldn’t have been farther--geographically or politically--from the contentious politics of immigration. But McNary suggests that his lack of a track record in immigration politics enables him to act an honest broker among scores of interest groups seeking to exclude or admit foreigners from the United States. McNary insists that his administrative experience has enabled him to take and maintain control of an agency that is going through its third reorganization in a decade.

The INS job will certainly be a test for McNary’s political skills. The agency has been historically decentralized with immigration policies differing from region to region.

Immigration is also putting strains on the self-image and infrastructure of a country that welcomes the tired and the poor--but doesn’t much care to spend tax money on them. Foreign crises pose a constant threat of disaster. The deterioration of the political situation in Cuba, for example, could set off another crisis like the Mariel boat lift of 1980, which brought 125,000 Cubans to the United States and overwhelmed INS facilities in a matter of months.

McNary, 55 years old, is married and has one child. In conversation, he displays the cautious, amiable style of a career politician. He delights in showing visitors to his office a plaque presented to him by his underlings at the U.S. Border Patrol. It shows a grizzled, slightly baffled cowboy and is inscribed, “There were a helluva lot of things they didn’t tell me when I hired on with this outfit.” Like many Americans, McNary seems to be learning something every day about the multicultural society that the United States is rapidly becoming.

Question: Is America a melting pot of ethnic and racial groups? Or is it a mosaic ? Answer: My judgment is that it’s probably 80% melting pot--but around the edges is a mosaic. It may be that that’s the way it always will be. I think it takes a generation or two for new groups, new people, to assimilate--become a part of the mainstream.

Q: Are we going to see more people coming to the United States from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe?

A: That’s difficult to answer because it’s such a mobile and changing situation in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. My judgment at this time is that we’re not going to be greatly impacted by the movement over there. I think people will leave the Soviet Union and they’ll go to other places, but we’re pretty far away. We have fixed numbers. We’ll take in people with our refugee program. There are 50,000 coming from the Soviet Union. We’ll take in people with our legal immigration and those increased quotas. But as to any great influx, at the present time we don’t see that.

Q: The Immigration Act of 1990 creates a new category of “diversity immigrants.” Isn’t it possible that there would be highly skilled doctors, professionals from the Soviet Union who want to get out of a somewhat chaotic situation there and come here?

A: I think we’re expecting that. But that’s consistent with the policy, U.S. government policy and the new law. The new Immigration Act ’90 creates greater opportunities for people in Europe, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and all areas that have, in the last two or three decades, been adversely impacted (by U.S. immigration law). Just in the percentages (of immigrants admitted) those countries have had minor percentages compared to Asian and Hispanic immigration.

Q: If Congress asked you, “Do you think we should open the doors even more to this employment-driven immigration, hoping to get people from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe?” would you say, “Yes, we should open the door up further in ’92 “?

A: I wouldn’t right now, because we’ve just extended the numbers (of legal immigrants annually accepted into the U.S.) from 500,000, roughly, to 700,000. One of the virtues, in my judgment, of the law is that it provides for a triennial review. So it’s a means of opening the valve a little bit to see what will happen and how it works in this country. Whether (admitting more legal immigrants) has some adverse repercussions on our own labor market, how it fits in with productivity, (the new law) gives us a chance to see what the experience is. If the new law proves successful and increased numbers would be even more beneficial, then we would increase the numbers in three or four years.

Q: Another area of immigration much in the news is the exclusion provisions in the McCarran-Walter Act. Those have been modified a bit. What is now the status of, for example, the exclusion of communists? How is that law changing?

A: With regard to communists, there’s a difference between whether they’re non-immigrants, whether they’re just coming in temporarily. In that case: They . . . can be barred--but it’s waivable. So I think probably they’ll just come in. The other situation is that for immigrants that’s been eliminated.

Q: And for homosexuals?

A: For homosexuals, it’s been eliminated for both non-immigrant and immigrant.

Q: Do you think these are positive changes in the law?

A: I think they’re modernizing changes. We’re not under the same circumstances when that law was written in ’52. It was time to take a look at it. Congress did, and I’m not going to say . . . . (Laughter) . . . . I don’t think it’s a controversy. I think Congress has spoken on it. I think there’s some controversy with the AIDS--with the disease part.

Q: Where do you come down on that?

A: I come down on leaving it as a medical question to be decided by HHS (Department of Health and Human Services)--and I think that they will. But so far as the homosexuals and communism, I think much of the controversy was whether or not they should be on the books. I think it’s been straightened out, and I don’t know that there’s any controversy.

Q: What about the proposed U.S.-Mexico free-trade agreement? Are there immigration implications for that?

A: Yes, I think there are. The President’s pushing it, and I applaud him. I believe this would be a major step forward for both countries. It’s especially important for us, for the United States and the immigration situation. From the standpoint of illegal immigration, we apprehend a million people who are coming across illegally every year--and there are something like one or two who come through for every one we apprehend. So we’re talking about a few million people who are coming in illegally. They’re getting jobs. They come to get jobs.

If the economy improves in Mexico, two things are going to happen. First of all, those people are going to find jobs in Mexico. And I don’t think there even has to be parity with American wage scales. I think there’s a certain pride and heritage among Mexican nationals. They would prefer to stay in Mexico if there’s work for them. I think that that would directly relate to the illegal immigration and we would have fewer people coming in working illegally in the United States.

Secondly, as that economy improves, and more Mexican citizens have money in their pockets, I see them buying more American goods--which directly results in more jobs in the United States. I think it’s a win-win situation.

Q: Has the reduction of tension and the political situation in Central America changed the number of people who are coming legally and illegally?

A: The numbers of Central Americans who are coming up across the border illegally are down. I think that’s for two reasons--changing country conditions is one. The other is that we’ve taken a firm stand toward those people who do come across illegally. That’s a different situation than we face with Mexico, where people come across and, if they’re deported, they’re just deported right back across the line. When we deport a Central American back to El Salvador or Guatemala or Nicaragua or Dominican (Republic), then it’s a long trek back. So it does have a deterrent effect.

Legalization is winding down . . . . The temporary protected status which Congress just provided has until the end of June. It was a six-month window for El Salvadorans to register, and there have been about 60,000 by now who have registered for that program. That provides temporary protected status. The theory being that they’re here because of civil strife.

They’re not really persecuted under our refugee standard, but it would be inhumane for us to return them to harm’s way. So they’re given six months, and then another year under that program, and then it will be assessed and can be extended. But it’s strictly a temporary protected status . . . .

That also applies to three other countries, . . . Liberia, Lebanon and Kuwait. Kuwait, again, is a changing situation. Now that the war is over, as with temporary protected status, it will only be in effect when it’s necessary.

Q: Some people say, “This is a country of immigrants, let’s just open the door. Anybody anywhere who wants to come, can come.” What would be the costs and the benefits of an open-door policy?

A: Those who advocate it say that even an illegal improves our economy, generates more sales and pays more in taxes than they take in benefits. But there’s a downside.

If we had an open-door policy, we would open the door, first of all, to drugs, terrorism. Unless somebody comes up with some technique for guarding against drugs and terrorism, then we’d be welcoming those dangers into our society.

Also an open door tends to overload certain communities. People don’t come in under any type of control. Congress, as I mentioned, they’re using a safety valve, and they’re opening the tap a very measured amount to try to control the legal immigration.

An open door would be anybody’s guess as to how it would play out, what the effect would be on the labor market, what the effect would be on communities, where people would reside, what nationalities would reside where.

At one time, we had a situation in Miami where they were building a new school every six weeks because of the overloading. The people were welcome, but they just overloaded the services to the point that it was having an adverse effect.

Q: An open door is, admittedly, an extreme. What about just raising the numbers, of opening the door a little bit more, if not unrestrictedly? Do you favor that?

A: I’m in favor of doing that in connection with some stronger controls over illegal immigration. If we’re going to open the door a measured amount, then we’re at cross-purposes when we have to acknowledge that people are coming in in an un-measured amount over the southern border illegally. So we need to come to grips with that. We need to have stronger employer sanctions, we need to have some kind of an employment verification system.

Q: A national ID card?

A: No, not a national ID card. Please don’t say that--not in this office or even in this building. That’s a bad word around here. (Laughter) As a matter of fact, Social Security’s put out a card for a long time. All we’re talking about is some document that somebody would show when they went to get a job.

Q: What do you mean when you say: “stiffer sanctions in conjunction with that?”

A: We need to make it effective that an employer, first of all, doesn’t have to go through I don’t know how many documents we have now that show you’re eligible to work and who you are. It’s difficult on the employer. We know that.

And we still have employers who are hiring people illegally. We need to enforce, we need to improve the enforcement techniques and we need to effectively enforce employer sanctions so that it really provides a deterrent.

We’re humanitarians. I’m the biggest-hearted guy in the world. I couldn’t say, “No” to anybody who wanted to be an American--I think it’s the greatest place on earth. Especially if somebody is persecuted. We want to make every decision in their favor, and we will.

But we’re also a nation of laws. Our laws say if you come here as a refugee or an asylee, you meet a certain standard, and if you don’t meet that standard, then you have to come in as a legal immigrant under the rules and the numbers. And if you don’t come in that way, then you don’t come in illegally across the border, jumping the queue and getting a job working illegally. We need to be serious about our laws.

Q: According to the Roper poll last summer, 77% of Americans said they were opposed to more immigrants. What would you say to somebody holding that view and threatened by the prospect of more immigration?

A: I would say to them that we are a nation of immigrants. Except for the American Indians, we all either came here or descended from someone who came from another country. It’s been to our advantage. We’ve brought in some very resourceful people. As a matter of fact, we Americans tend to take what we have for granted. When we bring in immigrants they remind us. They kind of replenish the spirit that built this country.

Q: In the 1980s, we had 10 million new immigrants. From 1990 to the year 2000 do you think we’ll have that many more? Will that high number continue?

A: I would think about 10 million.

Q: Can we afford more than that?

A: My own opinion is one that coincides with the President’s--that may come as a surprise to you. (Laughter) But there’s been a figure bantered about that I think we could live with a million legal immigrants a year.

Q: Are you better prepared for an unforeseeable event--the Mariel boat lift, say, or the boat people in Southeast Asia? Is the agency better able to handle that now if something like that happens?

A: I have to wince when I answer this because we haven’t had a crisis since I’ve been here. I’d like to think that’s because of me, but if you’re trying to prove a negative, I’m not sure that’s the case. I have, since the first day I came in, I’ve emphasized that we need to anticipate, we need to stay on top of world conditions.

We’re watching the Cuban situation on a minute-to-minute basis right now . . . . But I think there’s a mentality in this agency right now--we know that if we just issue work permits to everybody who walks in, that the message gets back to everybody in an entire country, come on in, here’s the way you can get a work permit and get a job in the United States, and we’ve created a magnet. I think our mentality now is to anticipate and avoid those magnet situations.