|
| | |
|
Here's a selection of what some of the Presidents responding
to this Executive
Decision said:
Option A
President Steven C. Hill, Democrat: The US is already overpopulated. The net number of people who enter should be no more than the net number who leave, and that number is smaller than the number you allow entry in option A. We must stop growing sometime; it would be by far the best if we stopped growing now. Our growing population will defeat our efforts to protect wilderness, public lands, habitats for animals, clean and adequate water, fish, etc., etc. I chose this as "the most significant issue." And that is right, especially when I think about the long run--as I feel I should. However, if a candidate were right on immigration, but was for trashing public lands (e.g, for the anti-wilderness bill proposed by the Utah delegation, or for turning federal lands to the states, I'd have a difficult decision.)
There is no excuse for permitting the current illegal immigration situation. We have the obligation to protect our country and our families from the disastrous future consequences of this problem.
I am not opposed to legal immigration, however illegal immigration drains resources. If the majority of illegal immigrants were truly immigrants and planned to make the United States their home, I would even favor relaxing legal immigration, however those who are utilizing the social services of this country are doing it when things are difficult in their home country and when things get better they plan on returning to it--this often is a matter of months. The decision therefore to "close the borders" was not a difficult one--prudence advises us to stop and re-evaluate decisions, not to continue rushing forward with a set of policies that are not working.
People living on public assistance in this country can live better without working than many citizens of other countries can live if they could find a job in their country. There is no limit to the number of indigents who would like to come to America. We cannot support them all. We must protect our borders. We must limit immigration to those who can benefit the country and certainly not allow public assistance to immigrants who come here and learn the system well enough to live and not work. It will bankrupt the country.
President David A. Myers, Republican: I think that this issue is not only one of the most important issues in this campaign, but also of the next century. The future will hinge upon how the world addresses population growth. The U.S. is fortunate that it is a relatively unpopulated country and has a low birth rate. This means that here we can hopefully avoid the havoc that will be wreaked on the environment and people of India, China, Brazil, etc. Slowing immigration is key to this end. Unfortunately many politicians fail to realize the importance of Mexico in this picture. We should have as our priority the strengthening of Mexico's economy and improvement of living standards there. This in turn would greatly lessen the pressures on our borders and improve our economy as well. Simply, Mexicans don't want to be Americans, they just want to feed their families.
President George Magdaleno, Republican: [Imposing a short-term moratorium on immigration] would send a strong and direct message and would force feeder-countries to improve their economies in order to prevent their citizens from abandoning them in the first place. The United States is no longer an option of last resort.
I like the idea of a short moratorium because as Mr. Buchanan has said, the "melting pot" is about to boil over. This period should probably last 1-3 years. During this period, we should strive to pass legislation that would lay clear ground rules for our handling of immigrants, what benefits they receive and DEFINITELY make English our official national language.
Immigration has been essential to the diversity of the American way of life. That diversity has allowed the U.S. to establish itself as the the most dynamic country on earth. However, when a policy such as immigration gets abused as it has been for years, the unfortunate result is to penalize everyone by taking away its advantages temporarily. When the abuse can be controlled the policy should be re-instituted.
President Christopher Vance, Republican: This week's scenario poses a great concern to today's reality. This issue is important to each and every hard-working individual and his or her family. Illegal immigration takes away jobs from citizens of this country, who without jobs will have to depend on government hand- outs just to survive. I am for legal immigration because I share in the belief that people from other countries see the United States as a prosperous place, where with hard work and determination, one will succeed. Illegal immigration in the long run will disrupt the continuity of our free-flowing economy, and both citizens and corporate America will eventually suffer.
America is a country of immigrants, so closing the borders to all immigrants goes against the nation's fundamental principles. However, as President, it is my job to enforce the law. We have laws and policies designed to control the flow of immigrants to this country. The current situation of rampant violation of our immigration policy must be addressed. Option C presents the best, and likely the most politically beneficial, solution.
Law breakers, regardless of their origin, should be punished. It is simply ridiculous what this country spends supporting those who have broken the law. Although I don't believe a change in the number of legal immigrants will significantly change the number of illegal immigrants, I do believe a crackdown on the illegal immigrants will make a difference. It is somewhat ironic that a military service member's child who is born while the service member is serving overseas cannot run for president, but an illegal immigrant's child born in the U.S. can. We need to enforce the law, and although it may cost a significant amount to begin, the long term savings should make the effort worthwhile.
Cracking down on illegal immigration by building fences around schools and hospitals is not the answer; people don't come here to go to school, they come here to work. The only way to end illegal immigration is to crack down on the big corporations and wealthy families who provide the jobs in the first place.
We need the fresh ideas and industry that immigrants bring to our society. In many cases jobs that need to be done are beneath the dignity of the native-born and only immigrants will do them. On the other hand, we need to maintain some control, to ensure that those who immigrate want to become Americans and make their contribution to our society (and yes, it's fine if in making their contributions they also improve their own living standards).
Only by a policy that allows legal immigration can this country continue to grow and expand both economically and culturally.
Immigration revitalizes most economies. It surely works positively on one as large and diverse as ours. We have room and tasks enough for all. Nevertheless, the United States is a land that survives as a land of opportunity because we believe that equal application of the law is what creates and sustains our freedom. We are a land of opportunity, not opportunism. No matter how desperate a potential immigrant might be, one who flouts our laws at the outset is not a welcome addition to our citizenry. We must return to a policy of legal immigration only--period. A child born of illegal immigrants is also illegal, as an extension of them. A baby is not a legal independent. A criminal, already illegal, should be deported. Legals should apply freely, within reasonably laid out annual quotas. Special categories should be eliminated; each allowed on its merits -- support, education, a job, etc. We should apply the laws we already have before we seek more legislation. And yes, it is a function of the Federal Government -- one of the limited few -- and the consequences must be addressed at that level. Legals should benefit from our country's largesse to the extent that they pay taxes. A time period should apply to temporary needs, as I believe it should for all.
Limiting (you can't STOP) illegal immigration is a no-brainer. The SERIOUS "option" is HOW to limit it. U.S. business WANTS to benefit from the cheap labor provided by illegal immigration but neither business nor the public wants to pay the social costs it creates. So we punish the illegal immigrant by denying education, health care, welfare, etc. People do not come here for welfare. They come here for jobs. The ONLY effective way to limit illegal immigration is to STOP HIRING ILLEGALS. The problem is that very powerful interests PROFIT from hiring illegals and will not stop without stern enforcement of EXISTING law. We don't need new laws for this; just enforce the ones we have. In the meantime, don't punish people who come here to work, and work harder than most of us, by denying them the benefits that THEIR taxes help pay for.
President David Ebert, Republican: An orderly society should be the country goal. Illegals break down the order; both hurting the country and themselves. If we act liberal and pay for education, healthcare, and welfare for those that have broken the law, it steals money from those taxpayers who work within the system. If we don't enforce deportation and just withhold schooling and other benefits from illegals, we create a permanent black-market of underprivileged workers who will sorely be taken advantaged of. This will cause the type of resentment that leads to rioting and revolt.
Closing the borders, even for a short time, would be a betrayal of America's historical commitment to the world's refugees. Selective immigration would be even worse -- how could anyone truly judge who is "worthy"? Opening the borders, while truly bold and forward-looking, would be politically impossible; in addition, it would create so many uncertainties that we would be ill-prepared to deal with them. That leaves only Option C, encouraging legal immigration while still enforcing limits on the total number of immigrants. However, I would develop this position further: I would double the number of legal immigrants allowed, and I would provide federal assistance (proportionately distributed) to all states receiving immigrants. In doubling the number of legal immigrants, I would also double the number of slots for political refugees. And I would consider setting aside a small number for "economic" refugees, those fleeing their countries not for political persecution, but for economic persecution, defined as an established history of suffering due solely to lack of economic opportunity in their own country. This last point needs much more development, but the symbolic gesture is one of recognition that, in a world capitalist system, there must ALWAYS be opportunity, lest the promise of capitalism turn to a cruel lie.
We used to think of our nation as the "land of opportunity." Not as the "land of opportunity for people from selected areas of the world that we like" or the "land of opportunity for those who have skills we need," but the land of opportunity for people who yearned for freedom. To close our borders is to close our minds. At the same time, illegal immigration is a threat to opportunity for everyone. Legal immigration must become the only reasonable option for people wanting to live in America, but for it to become so, we must work to relieve the legalization process from strangling red tape.
The only viable option consistent with our history and cultural values requires non-selective legal immigration. Closing of the borders is not acceptable in a free society; selective immigration could result in cultural discrimination; selective immigration based on ability to contribute economically, while less offensive, is inconsistent with our history as a nation that has been energized and renewed by immigrants driven by the opportunity of our country.
President Michael Hawes, Other: This decision is less difficult, despite the multiple options, than the previous executive decisions. Our immigration policy should create new citizens who will contribute to their own welfare and by so doing contribute to the welfare of all. Our economy has benefitted in the past from immigration and it can benefit today. The tough decision is determining which skills and personal assets will best reach these ends. Unfortunately, that was not the decision that needed to be made.
President Robert J. Stern, Republican: We need productive people from all over the world to make us stay in the forefront of world affairs, as is expected of us. Other countries like Japan would like to gather the best and the brightest also, so they can pass us. By staying in the lead, we will create jobs and have a busy economy. Therefore, we should concentrate on taking in the best, and if there is room, some of the dependents as well.
The vast majority of Americans are here because of immigration, so I cannot shut the door to new Americans. However, a selective immigration policy could ensure that we don't become a nation of immigrant babysitters. They should come to work and they should come with usable skills. Current Americans have it tough enough without having to care for more people who can't take care of themselves. Immigrants come because this is the place to be, the Land of Opportunity. Selective immigration is good for America and good for the world. We open our arms and say help us continue to build the "great and shining city on the hill."
Unlike earlier periods in American history, when manpower was in need and in short supply, today we find America with plenty of manpower, (although millions are said to be here illegally), yet there is a need for more "brain-power." We need to attract and welcome the finest people the world has to offer. Much of America's greatness is due to the fresh ideas and talent of foreign-born naturalized citizens. It's not in our country's interest to quash our future greatness by limiting desirable immigration. Therefore I believe immigration policy should include criteria for skills and credentials, as well as personal financial resources (fret not, there too would be room--albeit less room--for those with fewer credentials). Sponsorships, either personal or professional, should be a standard requirement for those entering without employment or financial resources. Sponorships should span at least 5 years.
I picked Option D but I would couple it with Option C. A policy of selective immigration is meaningless if those whom the policy selects AGAINST are not effectively excluded. But I would have sent the memo regarding Option C back to its author, instructing him to explain HOW illegal immigrants are to be "cracked down" upon. This is the really tough question, and it would probably involve not so much in the way of increased border barriers and patrols as a more vigorous program of deportation. This is where Option D comes in, because those who are excluded must be deported when they come anyway. I agree that legal immigration of those with the right skills should be encouraged, and I would even expand that to include relatively unskilled workers who are willing to do what many native-born Americans are not. When these "workers," whether legal or illegal, apply for public assistance of any kind, however, that's the point when they should be deported. What could be simpler? Just deliver the plane ticket (and whatever kind of custodial escort goes with a deportation) and maybe a bit of spending money instead of the welfare check. Our current immigration policy in this respect is exactly backwards. We go to great lengths to assure immigrants do nothing productive but we do little or nothing to prevent them from getting something for nothing. The INS should stake out the welfare offices instead of the construction sites.
I tend to favor Options C and D. We simply cannot accept all who wish to immigrate and therefore MUST be selective. There is no choice. The only choice is do we exercise our selectivity in the national interests or some other interests. To me, clearly we must use our selectivity to benefit our national interests -- not the interests of another nation or group.
Our basic immigration policy should be to welcome those individuals who will help make us better, while keeping out those who would drag us down. This means embracing the law abiding, literate, educated and healthy; while keeping out the criminal, illiterate, incompetent, or diseased. Their race or country of origin should not matter so long as they truly want to become Americans and will not vanish into a foreign ghetto within our shores. This means that they must understand, speak, read, and write english, our common language. They must adopt and adhere to our institutions and conduct themselves in ways which are constructive to our society. A natural consequence of this policy is that we MUST control our borders. If masses of people can flow into the country illegally, any policy of legal immigration we might have would be irrelevant. President Steve Wamback, Republican: This was a fairly easy decision to make. The real problem with immigration is not how many people--legal or illegal-- cross our borders. The problem is what happens once they get here. The existence of sweatshops in southern California is proof that attaching a stigma on illegal and legal immigrants results in an affront to their human rights. The United States will thrive as we grant full civil and economic rights to all who want to take part in our nation. We cannot waste limited law enforcement dollars chasing illegal immigrants when there are more serious investigations and social ills left untended. Our nation is at a crossroads. We can draw into ourselves and be condemned to repeat the problems that isolation has caused throughout our history. Or we can look forward and outward. Let's reduce the intrusiveness of government on the lives of ordinary americans and small businesses. Let's compete in the global marketplace and welcome hardworkers to America. Let them take part in our economy, rather than exporting our jobs and capital or foreign countries. We can still be "tough on crime" and reduce the welfare load. To assume that opening immigration will lead to higher crime and more welfare is close-minded at best, and racist at worst. Once we close the door on immigrants, America ceases to occupy the special place it holds in the family of nations.
U.S. citizens don't want the minimum pay jobs and we need new immigrant to help fill this need. We would do better to worry about our own population explosion and cut down on teen pregnancy which causes so many social problems. We are getting closer and closer to one world, and it is time we got used to the idea.
I am a fourth generation American German; therefore, this issue to me is an important one. Selective immigration might have stopped my family from moving here and kept from them a chance to live in a great nation. The heavy crackdown on illegal immigration will cost way too much and it will not stop illegal immigration. A short-term moratorium is just that: short-term. It will not have an effect on the problem. Closing the borders is totally unAmerican. America was established by white anglo-europeans who took the land from the Native Americans by breaking laws and treaties that they established. Do not fool yourself by thinking that it might not happen in reverse to the now-native americans. In order to expand the democratic freedom that we are proponents of, we must be willing to do the brave and noble deed. Opening up the borders will allow the full influence of american society to fill the Mexican country. I find it useless to have a NAFTA unless we are willing to bleed our cultures into one. There can be no one just economy unless there is one culture. The U.S. will continue to send goods there to be made at .50 cents an hour by cheap labor and the illegal immigrants will continue to come here to get two to three dollars an hour to send home against the peso. U.S. business will continue to hire illegals for tax reasons, and they can get by the miminum wage requirement. Opening up and allowing full influence of trade unions and such and having them develop a miminum wage is the only way. We must first see the Mexican government as equals by not allowing Americans to fill their land without allowing them to do the same.
The base of the statue of liberty mentions the "tired masses yearning to breathe free." By opening our borders, we can reduce our illegal immigration to near zero, and allow anyone who wishes to obtain freedom to do so.
Recently, all immigration questions seem to stem from the color of an immigrant's skin and his or her work skills. How many of us found benefit in the fact that our ancestors skin was the "right" color, regardless of their skills? We should encourage those brave enough to risk life and limb, and to leave their homeland and those they love, to come to America and work their way up. Perhaps, we should question those immigrants who fit our "standards" about how we should support their elderly parents and grandparents, those who only recently immigrate here for our social, medical, or insurance benefits.
Relatively open gates are the very essence of progression. An influx of talent and differing thought is exactly what the country needs, even if it means an inevitable downward pressure on unskilled wages that increased immigration would bring. It would also put an end to all the lip service paid to the "internationalization" of the world; it would be the embodiment of it.
Copyright ©1996 by The Atlantic Monthly Company. All rights reserved. |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 | |
 |
|
