Apples and Oranges in Immigration Debate : Congress must not lump legal and illegal entries

The recommendation of California’s Republican delegation in Congress that a mammoth immigration package be split to deal separately with legal and illegal immigrants is fair and makes sense.

H.R. 2202, introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), would impose the most restrictive measures on legal and illegal immigration seen in almost three-quarters of a century. The mere scope of the proposed changes demands that the issues be treated one at a time.

Smith maintains it is hard to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration because they are two sides of the same coin. He notes that about 40% of illegal immigrants in the United States arrive on legal visas and simply stay on when the visas expire, shifting into the illegal category.

BACKLOG IN SYSTEM: The Texan believes that most of the illegal overstaying is prompted by the knowledge among immigrants that the backlog for visa extensions is huge and that it can take years to become a permanent legal resident--an incentive for them to break the law. Smith also believes both legal and illegal immigration are driven by the wealth of governmental benefits available in America . And he points to polls showing that most Americans--especially those in the inner cities, where jobs often are extraordinarily scarce--want to reduce the number of unskilled workers coming into the country, whether legally or illegally.

Though all of those representations hint at a link between legal and illegal immigration, their validity is arguable and the issues they raise are complex. So rather than being reasons for linkage, they actually are reasons for separation.

There is a big difference between the almost 1 million law-abiding immigrants who enter annually after playing by the rules, sometimes waiting years before being admitted, and the 200,000 to 300,000 who secretly cross our borders with Mexico and Canada or overstay tourist visas.

Congress rightly can argue whether the economy needs the cheap labor that the illegal immigrant offers or how the undocumented population may abuse the welfare systems. And it can certainly discuss how many legal immigrants should be allowed into the country each year. But separately. It must not mix questions about legal immigrants into the highly charged debate on illegal immigration.

DANGER OF HASTE: If indeed the system for legal immigration is broken, as Smith maintains, let’s talk about how to fix it. But let’s do it in a way that is in keeping with the character of the nation.

America is a nation of immigrants, and that must not change, however strident or politically popular the criticism of illegal immigration may be. Americans have been worried about immigrants and their impact on this country at times in the past, but the inflow has been allowed to continue and, in the long run, has made this a stronger country.

The same thing is likely to happen this time. Once Congress focuses on the facts about immigration rather than the fearsome myths, it will conclude that immigrants are still welcome in America and that what we really need is a more orderly system to receive them.

The California Republicans are right in their demand to split up Smith’s immigration bill. As Rep. Steve Horn (R-Long Beach) put it, “There are a lot of marvelous legal immigrants that don’t want to be lumped with illegal immigrants.”

Need we add that they don’t deserve to be lumped in with them either? So Congress should keep its apples and oranges separate in debating the painfully complex immigration issue.