Bush vs. Clinton: What Would Be Best Immigration Policy? : Unfortunately, neither one, nor Perot, has faced up to one of America’s most significant and potentially fractious issues

Let’s be up front about it. Immigration hasn’t been a big issue in this year’s presidential campaign. But that doesn’t mean many voters haven’t been thinking about it.

In fact, in Southern California immigration is regarded by political professionals as a “hot button” issue, one of those topics that gets such a strong response among voters that it can even be used to elect or defeat candidates. Unfortunately, that also makes it an issue whose complexities can be distorted in the often simplistic rhetoric of a campaign. It is an issue that requires calm, thoughtful leadership on the national level, including the White House. So although it hasn’t come up much in the campaign, the next President--whether Bill Clinton, George Bush or Ross Perot--must be prepared to deal with immigration issues.

An Issue That Is Rarely Discussed With Objectivity

The most egregious example of how the discussion of immigration has been distorted in the 1992 campaign came early in the Republican presidential race, when Patrick J. Buchanan tried to mount an insurgent challenge against President Bush. The right-wing commentator viewed immigration, particularly illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border, as an issue he could use to win support for his “America First” campaign. He aimed his appeal at GOP voters fed up with problems created by illegal immigrants, problems presumably unaddressed by the Bush Administration. As Buchanan often does, he cast the issue in vivid (his harshest critics say racist and nativist) terms.

Buchanan’s appeal failed to resonate with enough voters to make him a major force in the presidential campaign. But he was right about one thing: Bush, as the incumbent, has a record on handling immigration issues that is decidedly mixed.

Bush and Clinton Seem Generally to Agree, Except on Haiti

Bush did help push through Congress, and did sign into law, a major modification of U.S. immigration rules in 1990 that made it easier for foreigners with relatives already living in this country to immigrate. Clinton supported that measure. Bush also pushed through increased funding and manpower for the U.S. Border Patrol, mainly to help stem the flow of drugs into this country. Clinton too has said he supports a stronger Border Patrol.

Where the two candidates differ most dramatically is on the Bush Administration’s handling of the latest upsurge in refugees from Haiti. They have been fleeing their country for south Florida, in small, often leaky boats, since popularly elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown in September, 1991. Clinton says that if Bush had been firmer with the military thugs who ousted Aristide, the crisis would not have lasted so long and thousands of Haitians would not have fled. He has a point. Though poor Haitians long have tried to enter the United States illegally to find jobs, the coup caused a dramatic upsurge in the refugee flow that has not fully subsided. And, despite continued U.S. diplomatic pressure, Aristide’s legitimate government has yet to be reinstated.

Bush Asked a Lot of California --but Provided Little Help

From a California point of view, the biggest flaw in Bush’s record on immigration is his failure to push Congress to provide more money to help this state provide services for the 1.3 million immigrants who live here under legal status granted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. IRCA, as it is commonly known, offered amnesty to illegal immigrants who were already living in this country. It was a generous gesture, but like so many reforms the new law had unintended consequences. Those legalized immigrants and their families are of course now using schools, hospitals and other public facilities in cities like Los Angeles and Santa Ana and the federal government simply isn’t paying its share of the bills. IRCA set aside a modest amount of money ($4 billion over five years) for such use, but the fund was raided by Congress--with the connivance of the Administration--to pay for other federal programs when the budget tightened with the onset of the recession. The next President must at the very least insist that IRCA’s legalization funds be used for the intended purpose in California and other impacted states. We would urge a hefty increase in the funds set aside for legalization as well.

The Bush Vision: ‘From the Yukon to the Yucatan’

The biggest plus for Bush has been his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada. Virtually every scholar and analyst who has studied the migratory flow of Mexican workers into the United States, and the many problems and benefits that flow brings both countries, agrees that it will end only when Mexico’s young, fast-growing population has enough jobs at home. NAFTA and the continental free-trading system it would create--”from the Yukon to the Yucatan” in Bush’s words--would bring much closer the day when Mexico can employ its own workers. That is the main reason Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, the most pro-U.S. Mexican president in a generation, unexpectedly proposed the idea two years ago. It is to Bush’s credit that he had the political courage, even the vision, to accept Salinas’ offer to negotiate a treaty.

The next U.S. President’s term will overlap with Salinas’ for three years, so the all-important momentum for NAFTA must not be lost. That is why it is reassuring that, after some early indecisiveness, Clinton gave a qualified endorsement to NAFTA. It is also why it is so troubling that Perot has chosen to criticize NAFTA in such grossly simplistic terms (“a loud sucking sound” that will take U.S. jobs south of the border). A successful businessman from Texas, a state that has prospered much through trade with Mexico, should know better.

In fairness to Perot, however, he made a valid point in the first presidential debate that can be applied to the immigration issue. The independent candidate said that “there are great plans lying all over Washington that nobody ever executes.” What has been lacking, he added, was the political will to try those ideas. In that “great plans” category are many proposals that would get more federal immigrant aid to states with large immigrant populations, such as California, Texas and New York.

For the Next President: Border-Effort Consolidation

Another good idea is a plan that’s been around since the Nixon Administration. It would consolidate, into a single border management agency, the Border Patrol, Customs Service and the other federal agencies that keep watch on the border and U.S. points of entry. The consolidation would save money and increase efficiency. A side benefit would be to relieve some of the stress on the Border Patrol’s parent agency, the overworked Immigration and Naturalization Service. Once the INS no longer had to worry about controlling borders, it could focus more resources and attention on helping immigrants assimilate into U.S. life.

There’s another good idea quietly working its way through government policy circles in Mexico City. This proposal suggests that as a follow-up to the NAFTA negotiations, the United States and Mexico begin discussions aimed at regulating the flow of Mexican workers into this country. The historic migratory rate of Mexicans into the United States has slowed somewhat lately, but it is unclear whether this is a consequence of IRCA’s ban against hiring illegal immigrants or of the diminished job opportunities due to the sluggish U.S. economy.

Whatever the reason, recent history suggests that the flow of illegal immigration could surge again with renewed political turmoil in Central America or the next economic boom in the Southwest. So the next presidential administration should have a plan ready to deal with any new wave of immigration before it happens. The Mexican proposal is intriguing and well worth consideration.

It certainly beats outlandish proposals like Buchanan’s plan to dig a trench along the U.S.-Mexico border. Such Draconian measures run against the trend of increasing cooperation and economic integration between the United States and Mexico.

One reason that political candidates like Buchanan can put forth such unrealistic proposals is there is a lingering public perception that illegal immigration to this country is out of control. The hard evidence suggests it is coming under control thanks to IRCA and better border enforcement. Any problems that remain involve immigrants already here--most of them legal but using social services already strained by the recession. These separate problems must be dealt with through creative urban policies, not drastic measures that would adversely affect our sensitive relationship with Mexico. That is why the next President must develop and articulate an immigration approach that is humane, realistic and farsighted, like Bush’s support of NAFTA.