Jewish World Review March 29, 2006 / 29 Adar 5766

Linda Chavez

Linda Chavez
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Now the debate on illegals can begin | Now that the Senate Judiciary Committee has passed its own version of immigration reform — a bipartisan effort that won support from four Republicans and all eight Democrats on the panel — a real national debate on this important issue can begin. Last December, the GOP-controlled House passed punitive legislation that would criminalize the 12 million illegal aliens, along with anyone else who provides them with shelter, medical or other services. Both bills also promise beefed-up border security. The House version seems more likely to generate popular support among American citizens, but it is a shortsighted measure, which, if it becomes law, won't solve the current crisis.

Our immigration mess is like a three-legged stool. Fixing one leg is no better than doing nothing. We need immigration reform that addresses all three parts of this vexing problem: increased border security; a plan to deal with the illegal aliens already here (the vast majority of whom are hard-working, tax-paying and otherwise law-abiding members of our communities); and more flexible and realistic legal immigration policies that allow us to admit more permanent residents and guest workers as our labor needs require.

I know this approach drives the anti-immigrant crowd crazy — but they are a small though noisy fraction of the public concerned with immigration. Unfortunately, these voices are driving the current debate, especially on conservative talk radio and cable news shows. I wonder how many conservatives who embrace the anti-immigrant message know that their fellow travelers' roots are in the pro-abortion, population-control movement.

Dr. John Tanton, who was the brainchild behind many of the most prominent restrictionist groups, including the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Center for Immigration Studies and Numbers USA, is a past president of Zero Population Growth. These groups often cite demographer Leon Bouvier's work to support their arguments. In his book "How Many Americans?: Population, Immigration and the Environment," Bouvier and co-author Lindsey Grant advocated reducing the American population to 150 million by the end of this century — that's almost half the current population. Although they're guarded in suggesting any draconian measures to achieve this goal, averring that "Deliberate reductions in life expectancy to reduce population are, of course, out of the question," their prescriptions are nonetheless chilling.

"To begin with," they say, "it would be pointless to assume that American women will altruistically decide to have but one child for the good of the society." So they favor government policies that will achieve that end. "All proposed legislation, regardless of specific intent, should be evaluated as to its possible impact on fertility," they argue. And, of course, they support additional government-funded research for more effective contraceptives and better access to abortion. The book was written during the Clinton years, which accounts for this gem: "[T]here is hope that with the end of the Reagan-Bush era, a more enlightened executive will see the advantages of at least limiting, if not stopping, population growth."

Make no mistake, these folks are after immigrants now, but they want into the bedrooms of American citizens next. Unlike some racist elements in the anti-immigrant movement (they exist, as I can attest from the racist diatribes I receive every time I write on this issue), these people object to virtually all immigrants, but dislike Hispanic immigrants more because they have higher fertility rates.

Back when my great-grandparents immigrated to this country from Ireland in the mid-19th century (my father's family had already been in New Mexico for more than 300 years), all you needed to become an American was the price of a steerage ticket on a trans-Atlantic ship, a strong back and no communicable diseases.

We weren't all that welcoming to the Irish, Italians, Poles, Germans and others who immigrated in large numbers through the first quarter of the last century, but they eventually fit in and did well here. The evidence suggests Hispanics are doing the same thing, learning English, finishing school, opening their own businesses and intermarrying with other Americans at a faster rate than previous ethnics did.

It took Italian immigrants 60 years after their peak immigration to catch up with other Americans in education attainment. Already, 80 percent of second-generation Latinos finish high school, and nearly half of those 25-44 years old have attended college. Second-generation Latino college grads earn more than non-Hispanic whites.

Even among the immigrants themselves, 45 percent own their own homes. And like the grandchildren of immigrants from all countries, the vast majority of third-generation Latinos speak only one language: English.

These facts ought to be the focus of the immigration debate, not the hysteria driving too many congressional Republicans into the arms of population-control radicals.

JWR contributor Linda Chavez is President of the Center for Equal Opportunity. Her latest book is "Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics". (Click HERE to purchase. Sales help fund JWR.)

Linda Chavez Archives


© 2006, Creators Syndicate