U.S. Policy on Immigration

I applaud your recognition of immigration as an important political issue that, as you correctly point out, all three presidential candidates have failed to address. Clearly, they are determined not to discuss this controversial matter in the campaign. The American public, however, deserves to know where the candidates stand.

The Center for Immigration Studies held a round-table discussion in mid-October to which representatives of the three candidates were invited to talk about their positions on immigration. This exchange, like your editorial, revealed that Bush’s and Clinton’s stands on major immigration issues are strikingly similar (a representative of the Perot campaign was unable to participate).

Your editorial inadvertently points out one of the main problems with U.S. immigration policy. It is not just that the federal government has refused to foot the bill for the “unintended consequences” of immigration policy (e.g., the 1986 amnesty), it is that these consequences could--and should--have been foreseen and addressed from the start. Over and over again, U.S. immigration policy has been set in isolation from economic, labor, social and environmental policy, even though it has a direct impact on each of them.

The core issue is the absolute number of immigrants that are settling in this country each year. Congress increased legal immigration by almost 40% in 1990, as the country was sliding into a recession and unemployment was on the rise. The following year, the United States resettled more than 2 million legal and illegal immigrants and refugees. Does it make economic or humanitarian sense to import massive numbers of mostly low-skilled workers when millions of workers already here are unemployed? Isn’t it logical that the financial burden of immigrant-settlement states will increase as the number of poor and unemployed residents, both legal and illegal, increases?

Your editorial seems to suggest that the number of illegal immigrants will decline with the advent of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Numerous studies have pointed to long-term gains in the Mexican economy and the eventual reduction of pressures to migrate. It is generally agreed, however, that NAFTA will not reduce, and may even encourage, illegal immigration to the U.S. in the short term. None of the candidates has acknowledged this. Will this be another of those “unintended consequences” of U.S. policy, and if so, who will foot the bill?

GEORGE B. HIGH, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies, Washington