Immigration Problem in the U.S.

The first move stopping immigration decided by Congress was a law in 1862 restricting American vessels to transport Chinese immigrants to the U.S. The Alien Contract Labor Laws of 1885, 1887, 1888, and 1891 restricted the immigration to the U.S. of people entering the country to work under contracts made before their arrival. Alien skilled laborers, under these laws, were allowed to enter the U.S. to work in new industries. By this time anti-immigrant felling rose with the flood of immigrants and in this period the anti-Catholic, anti-foreign political party the Know-Nothings, was already born.

After World War I a marked increase in racism and the growth of isolationist sentiment in the U.S. led to demands for further tight legislation. In 1921 a congressional act provided for a quota system for immigrants, which the number of aliens of any nationality admitted to the U.S. in a year could not exceed 3 percent of the number of foreign-born residents of that nationality living in the U.S. in 1910. This law applied to nations of Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Asian Russia, and certain islands in the Atlantic and Pacific. In the 1980s concern about the surge of illegal aliens into the U.S. has led Congress to pass legislation aimed at cutting illegal immigration. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 allows most illegal aliens who have resided in the U.S. regularly since January 1, 1982, to apply for legal status. Also, the law prohibits employers from hiring illegal aliens and mandates penalties for violations.

Debate over immigration and immigration policy is not new to the nation's history. From time to time, Congress jarred legislation to control the flow of immigration. As immigration rises and hatred grows more laws will be implemented trying to release some of the pressure. Illegal immigration has some pros and cons. I will discuss the pros first and explain them briefly in order for you to get a better understanding of the position. It offers cheaper labor to businesses. By not paying minimum wages to the workers who are willing to work for a lower price, this gives the business an edge over other competitors. Provides culture diversity in the united states. Bringing in immigrants gives more and different cultures to the U.S.. which can expand businesses to other fields of the world. Also giving people a more understanding of other cultures.

Lowers the cost of products produced in the U.S. that we buy. If the businesses can produce products and services at a low price keeping there overhead low, then we as a consumer will also pay a lower price. Most illegals are skilled workers and helps run the economy. Other countries economy is also being helped. The workers bring money to their families out side of the U.S. which in most cases the U.S. dollar has a higher value than their own.

Experts disagree saying the cons of this issue out way the pros. Next I will discuss some cons and explain them briefly. Illegal immigrants pay no tax. If they pay no taxes then how can we as a country pay for public services we as well as they do. Sending money out of our economy and sending it to their families abroad. If money is taken out of our economy it causes a monetary problem. this can cause an inaccurate account of money in circulation which might cause inflation. Lower wages. If an illegal is willing to work for under the minimum wage then the employer will not pay more for the job to any other employ. In fact might higher only illegals and take away jobs form legal residents who are willing to work.

When illegals come to this country they do not get tested for diseases that might infect the population. Which can cause a health problem. Such as polio, tuberculosis and other forms of diseases. Illegals cost the states money, paying for education, health care, and other social services. In an already under funded programs they give these services a more heavy burden to deal with. Republicans have reached agreement among themselves on legislation designed to combat illegal immigration. But with their package facing delaying tactics from Senate Democrats and a veto from the president, they finished the week of Sept. 2 uncertain of their next move1 "Republicans need to show we can govern,"2 said bill sponsor Lamar Smith, R-Texas. "We need to show we can pass good legislation."3

Dianne Feinstein (d-Calif.) called for tough and controversial enforcement measures, including imposing a toll on anyone entering the united states to raise revenues to beef up the Border patrol.4 Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) one of senate's leading authorities on immigration issues, also proposed a similar border tax ten years ago, but was defeat in senators fearing it would detour tourists.5

Referring to the Democrats "If they want to go home and do nothing about illegal immigration, that's a gross violation of what we should be doing,"6 said Sen. Alan K. Simpson, R-Wyo., sponsor of the Senate bill. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and other Democrats on the Immigration Subcommittee said Republicans would have to choose between passing an immigration bill, or proving their ideological purity on the public school issue.7

Both democrats and republicans agree that illegal immigration should be dealt with. The problem is they cant agree on anyone purposes given to them. The Democrats say it is the Republicans fault, the Republicans say it is the Democrats fault. With this type of finger pointing neither of them will gain a fast decisive action to resolve the problem. When it comes to illegal immigrants there are a lot of interest groups that have been involved in this issue. From businesses to governments agencies.

First the businesses, especially in agriculture. Agriculture employs more undocumented workers than any other industry in the country. Half of California's 700,000 farm workers are estimated to be undocumented. "Three decades ago, the percentage of foreign-born farm workers in California was 50 percent,"8 the Chronicle stated. "Now it is 92 percent."9

Agriculture, however, is not the only industry with an insatiable need for the cheap labor provided by immigrants. Published by the Chronicle, a list of businesses fined by the INS in San Francisco includes a car rental company, construction firms, restaurants, clubs, a trucker, a travel agency and even a Protestant church.10 Everywhere one looks today, one sees immigrant workers cleaning rooms in hotels, mowing lawns in the suburbs, pumping gas in service stations, doing janitorial chores in countless workplaces, toiling in the garment industry and doing all sorts of temporary jobs.

These business groups have a lot of interest in illegal immigration. They provide cheaper labor which cuts costs and causes better competition. Richard Rogers, district director of the INS in Los Angeles, was quoted as saying: "If we were to increase fines 75 to 80 percent, we would probably have a lot of people out of business."11

Government agencies are also involved. The new immigration legislation nearly doubles the size of the Border Patrol. In addition, National Guard and active-duty armed forces personnel are used more and more along the border. Local police forces are also being authorized to enforce immigration law, says Roberto Martinez of the American Friends Service Committee's U.S./Mexico border program.12

Possible solutions to the problem. Faster citizens processing, helping illegals country's economy such as NAFTA which is already in affect. Some suggest tamper proof residency cards, computerize the I.N.S., increases the number of boarder patrol agents, and build a wall around the U.S. and problem countries. There has been many suggestions made in dealing with this problem. The Gallegly bill is one of them. If ever completed by House-Senate conferees, is likely to include several conditions already adopted in similar form by both chambers. As passed by the House and Senate, the bill would:

Increase the number of border patrol agents by 1,000 each year between 1996 and 2000, roughly doubling the force to reach 10,000. Make it difficult for people caught trying to enter the United States illegally, or overstaying a visa, from being granted visas in the future. Establish pilot programs in which employers could electronically check the immigration status of their employees. Restrict public benefits for legal immigrants by increasing the time for which their sponsors are responsible for them. This section is partially obtained by the welfare law, which denies benefits to many legal immigrants. Allows the deportation of legal immigrants who illegally accepted public benefits for 12 months or more. Besides the Gallegly provision, which is in the House bill only, conferees face two other issues with major disagreements between the two chambers:

The House would require that any family wishing to sponsor a legal immigrant earn at least twice the poverty rate. The Senate bill would require the family to earn an income one-fourth higher than the poverty rate. The House bill would also make it much more difficult to apply for political asylum, both for those who apply upon entry into the United States or for those already on U.S. soil.

Immigration experts generally agree that the Clinton Administration has devoted more attention to immigration than either of its two Republican predecessors and he always has at least two reactions: his initial public statement (determined largely by public-opinion polls, which show support for restrictions), and then the actual policy (as determined by his advisors and the various special interests they represent).

Clinton proposed legislation that included expedited exclusion for frivolous asylum claimants, an increase in INS asylum personnel, and various anti-smuggling provisions. President Clinton's record on legal immigration. In June 1995, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by the late Barbara Jordan, recommended a modest cut in legal immigration and the elimination of some extended-family immigration categories.

President Clinton immediately endorsed the recommendations as "consistent with my own views" and added that they "are pro-family, pro-work, pro-naturalization."13 Clinton's record on illegal immigration, since that is a major focus of his re-election campaign, particularly in California, a must-win state. Less than three months after taking office Clinton sent to Congress his Fiscal Year 1994 budget proposal for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which included cutting 93 Border Patrol positions. President Clinton gave a speech in which he proclaimed that "our borders leak like a sieve" and urged that $45.1 million be spent to beef up the Border Patrol, including six hundred new agents.14 He failed to mention that the House had already approved an additional $60 million for the Border Patrol, or that the Senate Appropriations Committee had approved an additional $45 million.

One of the California's response to the problem was proposition 187. This proposition seeks to deny social services to illegals and their children. Pete Wilson, governor of California, announces his intention to file a suit against the federal government for "its failure to control our nation's borders."15 He claims that there are a million illegal residents in the city of Los Angles alone, and that since 1988 the taxpayers of California have spent more than $10 million in education, medical, and prison costs for illegal immigrants.

My personal opinion is not good for illegal immigrants. I believe that illegals should deal with their problems in their countries, instead of coming here and creating more problems. If there country has a poor economy then they should fix it. In the long run it would be good for their country, but I know this is easier said than done. The illegals that are already here should be deported. The term "illegal" speaks for itself , that is what they are called illegals. Also they should not live and take up social services that legal residents use. Some people say "They have the right to use these services they, pay sales tax and don't file income tax which in most cases the government owes them." Well I do not see it that way. I found that a majority of illegals that work here take the money out of the country and into there families in other countries. Most of their net income goes outside of the U.S. economy.

My father came to this country over 30 years ago. He applied for a visa, which took him two years to get, complied with all regulations dealing with immigration to the U.S. After arriving to the U.S. he work hard to became a legal resident and finally a citizen, gaining all privileges of that citizenship. Why should others come and take those privileges while they come here illegally.

Out of the solutions given in section three the one I believe to be the best is the Gallegly bill. I believe that a tighter restriction with added border patrol would be the best and reasonable option. Building a wall with machine gun towers would be a great deterrent as in the old Germany, but I don't think that's America's style.

Endnotes

1. Dan Carney, " Social Policy " Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 9/7/96, Vol. 54 Issue 36, p2531.
2. Dan Carney, " Social Policy " Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 9/7/96, Vol. 54 Issue 36, p2531.
3. Dan Carney, " Social Policy " Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 9/7/96, Vol. 54 Issue 36, p2531.
4. Glenn F. Miller, Los Angles Times, 7/1/93,pA25.
5. Glenn F. Miller, Los Angles Times, 7/1/93,pA26.
6. Dan Carney, " Social Policy " Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 9/7/96, Vol. 54 Issue 36, p2531.
7. Dan Carney, " Social Policy " Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 9/7/96, Vol. 54 Issue 36, p2531.
8. Moises Sandoval ,National Catholic Reporter, 6/28/96, Vol. 32 Issue 33, p20.

Bibliography

1. Taylor, Monica. Workbook For Political science 5, Western Custom Publishing.
2. Conover, Ted. A Journey Through the Secret World of America's Illegal Aliens. Vintage, 1987.
3. Hutchinson, E. P. Legislative History of American Immigration Policy, 1798-1965. Pennsylvania, 1981.
4. Bontemps, Arna and Conroy, Jack. Anyplace But Here. Hill & Wang, 1966.
5. May, Charles Paul. The Uprooted. Westminster, 1976.
6. Carney,Dan, " Social Policy " Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 9/7/96, Vol. 54 Issue 36,p2531.
7. Miller,Glenn F., Los Angles Times, 7/1/93,pA25.
8. Sandoval, Moises, National Catholic Reporter, 6/28/96, Vol. 32 Issue 33, p20.