Family Security Matters » Publications » Exclusive: Why Don’t the Candidates Have a Solution for the Illegal Alien Problem?

Not a member? Sign-up

Forgot your password?

SEARCH FSM

A great Christmas or Hanukkah gift!

IN THIS SECTION

August 8, 2008

Exclusive: Why Don’t the Candidates Have a Solution for the Illegal Alien Problem?

George Weissinger, PhD

With regard to immigration, most pundits inside the blogosphere suggest little difference between the Presidential candidates. Both support the construction of a wall at the U.S. southern border. Both want to deal humanely with the twelve million (I think it is closer to twenty million) illegal aliens already in the U.S., insisting on a path to citizenship (amnesty).

Senator Obama has no problem with illegal aliens having driver’s licenses issued to them, would include them in universal health care, and fully supports the Dream Act giving benefits to illegal alien students. He also wants to increase the legal immigration quotas and speed up background checks for naturalization applicants. Senator McCain opposes the Dream Act, does not want illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses, and prefers tax credits supported with federal aid to make health insurance affordable. These appear to be differences, yet both candidates seem to be moving toward moderate positions and at this time not really discussing the issues at all.

In 1981, the Select Commission On Immigration chaired by Rev. Hesburgh, made final recommendations to President Reagan on the immigration problem. Then Attorney General Edwin Meese III points out that today President Reagan would not make the amnesty mistake again. It was estimated that there were between 1.5 and 4.0 million illegal aliens in the U.S. at that time but signing the IRCA 1986 law paved the way for the huge increase in illegal immigration to the astounding levels with which we are now dealing.

More importantly, Meese points out that “…there was a failure of political will to enforce new laws against employers”. I do not see any stronger will to enforce new laws today. Currently, there are estimates of between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens. The basic premise encouraging amnesty was the notion that it would be the last time we would have to forgive the law breakers; but, if anything, granting amnesty merely encouraged more illegal aliens to enter the U.S. by any means possible. The underlying message was that if you can get here you will be able to stay here.

A forgotten recommendation of the Select Commission is just as important as the amnesty. At that time, the Select Commission posited that we have no choice but to limit immigration due to the growing number of individuals in Latin America and Mexico, most of whom would like to enter the U.S. legally or otherwise. Those who advocate amnesty again fail to consider the demographics of the problem. Think about granting amnesty to 12 (to 20) million aliens, who in turn can immediately submit relative petitions for their parents, spouses, and children. If you do some simple multiplication you will find the 12 (to 20) million quickly grows to 60 (to 100) million, a staggering increase in the total US population. This may support the underlying belief that we should simply open up our borders with Canada and Mexico and encourage the free flow of people and goods. Of course, that would mean giving up any notion of sovereignty.

Those who promote facilitating background checks for intending citizens might well be warned that such expedience carries with it dangerous implications. You can not determine if a person is ineligible for a security clearance simply by taking his fingerprints and having him fill out an application. A field investigation should be conducted on all aspiring applicants.

In the absence of a full field investigation, at the very least those who have already acquired a criminal record should be fully investigated. Anyone who promotes casual and expedient background checks places expediency in front of security, and fails to place any importance on the status of U.S. citizenship at all. People who should not be in the U.S. in the first place will acquire the gift of full U.S. citizenship which can not easily be taken away.

Back in the good old days of President Clinton, efforts were made to expedite citizenship applications and an INS investigator blew the lid on the whole matter. I was both impressed and surprised to find that the whistleblower investigator fought the suits and administration, and after being demoted regained his status, with back pay and attorney’s fees. I can assure you that is not common in the government. Some took the side of the scoundrels in the case, asserting that the whistleblower was simply trying to wiggle out of unrelated charges against him. The facts do not support that view.

In her book Invasion, Malkin points out that, “auditors…confirmed the veracity of the whistleblower’s allegations: more than 90% of all Citizenship USA cases were handled improperly, and more than 70% of cases had defective or nonexistent fingerprints.” The study also indicated that 115,000 citizenship applicants submitted unclassified (unreadable) fingerprints, and 61,000 never submitted fingerprints at all.

There appear to be some important differences between the candidates regarding immigration. However, only those who take some time to read between the lines will find out what they are. The American people voiced their opinion about comprehensive immigration reform and, at the very least do not support amnesty in any shape or form. Attempting to prosecute the employers seems like a good idea and might work, but it is a painful process to say the least. DHS and ICE seem to be trying to effectuate some progress in this area.

However, the problem of proving whether employers knowingly hire illegal aliens may be difficult to do when it is so easy to obtain fraudulent documents. The idea of importing more foreign workers has far less appeal than training our already available pool of American youth in areas that will upgrade their skills and contributions to this society. The main question is whether employers honestly attempt to attract legal workers, or simply say they do in order to obtain cheaper foreign workers.

The notion of rewarding individuals who break the law to enter the U.S. triggers a negative response from most law abiding persons. We tried amnesty once and it did not work. It only exacerbated the problem. We learned that expediting background investigations of naturalization applicants suggested a scam meant to get more voters for the side that promoted it. The idea of universal health care for all, including illegal aliens, is preposterous. Working with foreign nations that make up the sending countries for illegal aliens in the U.S. is a worthwhile endeavor and tackles one of the core issues of the illegal alien problem. Getting that done is another task.

Continuing to confuse the issue by confusing the terms immigrant and illegal alien (undocumented immigrant) does little to solve the problem, yet alien advocates continue to do so. You can not solve a problem by simply redefining the terms. That is not change; it is only the illusion of change. One of the main arguments that advocates of illegal aliens purport is at the center of it all is compassion for the poor. Realize that compassion has nothing to do with what drives illegal immigration, which is greed and desperation.

When sending countries begin to take care of their own citizens and receiving countries come to grips with the fact that an entire class of individuals is being held in a slave caste, then perhaps the world community, let alone our presidential cadidates, will solve the illegal alien problem.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor George Weissinger, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at a college on Long Island. He was a special agent with the INS (1974-1985), a special investigator with the FBI and retired as a Sr. US Parole Officer supervising organized crime offenders.

Print This E-mail This

Share It: