False alarms on amnesty
To hear opponents tell it, you don't want to be standing along the U.S. border when an immigration reform bill becomes law. Millions of foreigners who were previously content in their native lands will pack a bag and storm across the U.S. border, trampling anyone unlucky enough to be in the way.
The reason, we are told, is a change that Republicans have previously rejected but Democrats and Latino groups see as indispensable: a procedure for illegal immigrants to become legal residents and, eventually, citizens. Critics call it “amnesty” and say it will spur illegal immigration as surely as emptying the jails would generate crime.
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) said it is a recipe for “effectively unlimited future illegal immigration.” Back in 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed a bill that eventually allowed 3 million unauthorized foreigners to become legal — and in the following years, there was a surge of unapproved arrivals.
CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian has said the amnesty option would resemble the experience of Bill Murray in the film “Groundhog Day” — repeating an unwanted experience “over and over again.”
The fears, however, are largely groundless. In the first place, the legalization program is not so generous as to lure hordes of Mexicans and other foreigners who have so far resisted the temptation to steal across the border. It would let undocumented migrants stay here on a probationary basis only after they pass a background check and pay a fine as well as back taxes.
So getting legal status won't be cheap or quick. Under the senators' proposal, those migrants yearning for U.S. citizenship would have to wait another decade or even two. It's amnesty only for the patient.
The alarmists also forget how much the world has changed since 1986. It's a mistake to blame the amnesty for the rise in illegal immigration that followed. It was due far more to a couple of other factors, according to Edward Alden, a researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The first was a demographic bulge caused by Mexico's high birth rate: In 1960, the average Mexican woman had seven children. Today, the figure is down to nearly two.
Another difference is the difficulty of getting here. “Border security is vastly more robust than before,” Alden told me. Over the past two decades, he says, the number of Border Patrol agents has soared from 3,000 to 21,000, while 700 miles of fencing has been erected on our southern border.
Back then, walking in undetected was hard only if you had trouble walking. Today, the chances of arrest are high. Fewer people take the risk these days. Despite having far more personnel, the Border Patrol apprehended fewer people in 2011 than in any year since 1972.
Lots of the undocumented came here legally as students or tourists and overstayed their visas. But the 9/11 attacks brought stricter checks and new controls on many foreigners coming here legally. Any comprehensive immigration measure won't ease those requirements. In fact, the senators insist on new steps to assure that those who come from abroad legally leave when their time is up.
But the critics are right: If illegal immigrants gain a path to legal status and citizenship, the change is likely to evoke “Groundhog Day.” In the movie, every day begins the same way. What changes is what happens next. In the end, remember, they live happily ever after.
Steve Chapman blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Brashear cornerback Coleman picks Pitt
- Morton inconsistent, Bucs’ bats quiet in 5-0 loss to Rockies
- Person shot in the stomach in Knoxville
- Steelers notebook: Tomlin mum on Bryant suspension
- Pope Francis’ lack of familiarity with United States unusual
- Obama inches closer to veto-proof support for Iran nuclear deal
- Pirates notebook: Burnett encouraged by extended simulated game
- Rossi: Beleaguered Steelers need MVP from Big Ben
- Supreme Court can resolve Kentucky county clerk’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to gays
- Big plays cost Steelers defense in preseason loss at Bills
- Egypt, sans parliament for more than 3 years, sets elections