The European Courier | 2008 Race: Immigration Debate

Home	USA	Europe	World	Law	Security	Art & Diplomacy	Week in Review	About us

2008 RACE: IMMIGRATION DEBATE – May 10, 2007

It is often said that America is a deeply divided country: conservative versus liberal, red state versus blue state, religious versus secular and so on. Although one could argue that American politics are much more complex, there are some stark differences that do exist between the Republican and Democratic parties. But, if ever there was one issue that has gone beyond partisanship it is the issue of immigration. In 2006, it was the immigration issue that had created some of the most heated political debates, mostly within the Republican Party.

Estimates about the amount of illegal immigrants currently in the United States range in numbers anywhere from seven to twenty million, depending on the source (the sources seem to differ in accordance to the writer’s stance on the immigration problem). According to an article in the Christian Science Monitor from 2006 [1] , the US Citizenship Immigration Services estimate that the number of illegal immigration in the United States grows by 500,000 per year. Whatever the number of illegal immigrants actually is, there is no question that the issue has become one of the premier political debates in American politics.

Those who have taken the hardest stance against illegal immigration have a wide variety of concerns with its economic, social, legal impact and threat to national security. From an economic standpoint, illegal immigrants do not pay income taxes; therefore they do not pay into many of the government programs (i.e. social security, Medicaid and others), but have found a way to draw from it. Hospitals are also required by law to treat illegal immigrants should they become injured or ill. Furthermore, when children of illegal immigrants are born in America, the children automatically become legal citizens and therefore use the public education system, again without their parents paying into it. According to a 2002 report entitled “The High Cost of Cheap Labor,” by the Center for Immigration Studies [2] , households head by illegal immigrants have cost the federal government $26.3 billion, while they have only paid $16 billion in return; in revenue from sales taxes. Once again, these costs are assumed to increase by the year.

The social effects of illegal immigration have been equally as consequential according to illegal immigrations most staunch opponents. For years, advocates of bilingual education have successfully pushed programs through the public schools, particularly in areas with high percentages of Hispanic populations such as Texas, California and other areas of the Southwest. These measures have been protected by the Bilingual Education Act of 1968; which guaranteed federal funding for bilingual and multicultural education. Opponents of bilingual education believe that the English language is part of what creates a common culture and suggest that immigrants for generations have always worked hard to learn English in order to assimilate into mainstream America. These cultural conservatives believe that what was once considered a “melting pot” where immigrants assimilated to American life has now become a “mixing bowl” due to efforts to weaken America’s common culture.

There also remains a legal aspect to the immigration argument. Immigration hardliners suggest that should the United States government fail to address the problem of illegal immigration, it will destroy America’s “rule of law”; something America has always considered itself to be, a nation of laws. By allowing a free flow of illegal immigrants to cross America’s borders, America has failed to enforce laws of citizenship and national sovereignty.

Finally, illegal immigration proposes a national security threat to the United States. In an age of global mobility and the shock America received with the attacks of September 11, 2001, national security “hawks” find America’s unprotected borders to be a prime area for those who wish to do harm to Americans to get into the country and plot their attacks. Other concerns such as drug trafficking are also viewed as a threat.

As we begin to explore the coming 2008 Presidential election, immigration will most certainly be at the forefront of national discussion. In 2006, President Bush broke with many of his conservative supporters by backing immigration reform that opponents call “amnesty” for illegal immigrants. The Bush plan, as proposed by Senators John McCain, Arizona Republican and 2008 Presidential candidate, along with Massachusetts Democrat Ted Kennedy, calls for documentation of the estimated ten million plus illegal immigrants currently in the United States, a guest workers program with a path to citizenship, as well as increased border security to address the open border problem.

The interesting thing will be, as the 2008 Presidential election approaches, where candidates on each side of the aisle will stand on the issue of immigration. Among the current field of Presidential candidates the “Big Three” in both parties have spoken very minimally about the issue. In the Republican Party, the tension between the Wall Street Journal/Chamber of Commerce wing of the party and the culturally conservative anti-amnesty wing of the party has made taking a strong position on the issue difficult for the candidates. While less prominent candidates, like Congressmen Duncan Hunter (California), Tom Tancredo (Colorado) and Ron Paul (Texas) have clearly stated their position on immigration as anti-amnesty and in favor of strongly enhanced border security; the top tier candidates Rudy Giuliani (former New York City Mayor) and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney have been hesitant to reject the idea of amnesty and a guest worker program. Other leading candidate John McCain favors the guest worker program as mentioned. Only Mitt Romney, of the “Big Three” candidates, mentions the issue of immigration on his website, however, he does not call for the deportation of illegal immigrants.

On the Democratic side of the aisle, the issue seems to be equally as avoided. Two of the “Big Three” Democratic candidates Senator Hilary Clinton (New York) and former Senator John Edwards (North Carolina) make no mention of the issue on their websites. While Senator Barak Obama (Illinois) makes brief mention on his website, he offers no indication of what position he holds on the issue. Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, and the son of a Mexican immigrant, claims to have experience with the subject, but similarly avoids taking a position. Hispanic voters are a key voting block for Democrats; however, Republicans have begun to chip away at that voting block in recent years.

As the old saying goes, politics makes strange bedfellows. The immigration debate is a prime example of that. We have seen an agreement between the United States Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and the Catholic Church on granting amnesty and developing a guest workers program for illegal immigrants. The AFL-CIO believes these millions of immigrants will want representation from a labor union to fight for higher wages and benefits, while the Chamber of Commerce believes these illegal immigrants are good for business; keeping the costs of goods and services low and taking jobs no other Americans would take. On the other hand, the Catholic Church (which is losing membership) sees these Mexican immigrants (who are primarily Catholic) as potential parishioners. On the opposite side of this issue, there is a growing movement of citizens concerned with the immigration problem and have even formed a group of volunteers, known as the “Minutemen” to voluntarily patrol the borders and contact border patrol agents for the arrest of illegal immigrants.

The problem of illegal immigration is one of the most talked about issues in the United States today; however, most politicians of all stripes are hesitant to take a real position on the issue. As the 2008 Presidential election nears, it remains to be seen what direction this debate will be taken.

Brian M. Koss

-------------------------

Author of the article holds B.A. in political science from Oakland University, Michigan. He is presently enrolled in a Masters Program at the University of Akron's Ray Bliss Institute for Applied Politics. In 2004 and 2006 he managed and organized political campaigns of two candidates for State’s House of Representatives.

-------------------------

Footnotes:

1. See: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0516/p01s02-ussc.html

2. See: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

Related articles:

Obama and America's Original Sin - April 7, 2008

My House Divided - March 24, 2008

Will Florida and Michigan Determine Next U.S. President? - March 12, 2008

The Continuing Democratic Race - March 10, 2008

Foreman vs. Ali 2 - February 15, 2008

Super Tuesday Truth - February 8, 2008

Into the Stretch: Landscape before Super Tuesday– February 2, 2008