A CONSERVATIVE IMMIGRATION POLICY?

If there is any one issue that splits the conservative movement, it is immigration. Why? Because it deals with conflicts between the fundamental values of rule of law, individual freedom and American tradition that define what is conservatism. For no modern American conservatism can be established without support for each of these major values, and they often conflict with each other on the issue of immigration.

Conservative values require that the rule of law be adhered to or there will be anarchy. For immigration, therefore, there must be some penalty for those who do not obey the law and enter illegally. Yet, conservatives value freedom too, including economic freedom. Many Americans want affordable child care, gardening and home repair, taxi service, construction of new roads, food handling help in restaurants, hotel housekeeping, garbage removal and the like but cannot find Americans willing to perform menial services at current wages under existing minimum wage laws. At the other end of the spectrum, rural peoples want medical and other professional services but cannot find native physicians willing to move there and offer services. Businesses want people to do work they say Americans will not do or they must move the jobs overseas. So families, underserved communities and businesses demand immigration exceptions to allow the desired workers legal entry or they hire illegals off the books or frequent services that do, refusing to consider themselves accomplices in the illegality. If discovered, as with several talented applicants for top governmental positions, they suffer the consequences; but most turn a blind eye to get the desired work performed.

The question of culture is even more fundamental. The most libertarian economist knows that no free market can work without a widespread tradition of trust and responsibility to carry out work, purchasing, financial, fiduciary, contractual and other normal legal, economic and property obligations. The definitive World Bank study demonstrates that rule of law is the most important prerequisite of economic and political freedom. Even most atheists do not question that the moral views underlying property transactions have been provided historically by religious traditions. In fact, free markets only developed naturally over any period of time from the Judeo-Christian tradition as it emerged in Europe. Even Greece and Rome, with all their rule of law and more ordered markets, were not very free. Once planted by Western colonialism or occupation, this morality might be accepted more widely-especially in the more compatible Buddhist-influenced cultures-but some Western-inspired acculturation has been required first to establish free and dynamic markets, to say nothing about a decent social life.

America was blessed with a long acculturation into freedom, law and supportive Judeo-Christian values from the most fertile of this European soil, from Great Britain, during almost two centuries of colonial rule. For periods of time, Maryland and Pennsylvania colonies even mixed the three values successfully, well beyond that which Europe had achieved. By the time of the Constitution, the morality necessary for rule of law, markets, freedom and prosperity was broadly held, as was recorded by the early French observer, Alexis deTocqueville, and became enshrined into the new political institutions. For years, the values and the institutions were passed down to new generations of native-born Americans and were inculcated into the mass of immigrants who, because of the native population's generosity and its desire for additional labor, were allowed to seek refuge in the new nation.

Over time, the cultural assimilation process began breaking down. Immigrants-and also natives-were no longer being taught American values and patriotism. The fashion among intellectuals and educators was that acculturation was chauvinistic or even bigoted or racist if one claimed that one people or set of values was superior to another. The rapid increase in non-European immigration following the repeal of the national-origin quotas exacerbated the problem as millions entered the United States without a similar cultural background or being required to assimilate its history, values and institutions or even language. Many, without even communication skills, ended on welfare supported by the working population. The large surge in legal and illegal immigration in recent years seemed to displace native workers as they competed for jobs by driving down wages at the lower end of the economic spectrum. As legal exceptions were made to increase legal immigration for so-called shortage occupations, professionals also were put in competition with non-native Americans.

All of these developments caused some degree of dissatisfaction with the new immigrants, especially from those who were in close social and economic competition with them. While this competition repeated earlier history, several elements make the current situation more difficult. One, the number of new entrants is very large-a million per year in recent years--over a relatively short period of time. Two, welfare is much more extensive than earlier and much more expensive for the native population to bear even if only small percentages enter on the rolls. Three, as noted, the acculturation process broke down. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the issue took on a class and elite dimension that labeled those concerned about the immigration problem as narrow-minded racists and made it seem like any debate or expectation of any policy change was motivated by low class bigotry. Those supporting open immigration took the ideological position that any restrictions at all were immoral and, thus, could not be enacted, increasing feelings of frustration, helplessness and anger among the competing populations.

The one clear requirement for a conservative immigration policy is that it cannot be utopian or ideological, either to support totally open immigration or absolutely to oppose it. Too many conflicting conservative values are involved for such a simple resolution of the problem. The only guide can be, as it should be in any Constitutionally sanctioned area of governmental activity is, is it in the just interests of the United States? No foreigner has a right to entry unless approved by the proper authorities as being in the interests of the nation, as it exists at the time, with the population it currently enjoys. It should be a pragmatic decision that balances the rule of law and security, economic freedom and the need for an American culture sufficient to support its institutions.

Once an immigration law is adopted, officials must make a reasonable effort to enforce it. It would be unreasonable to set up machine guns at the border and fire upon any who crossed it. But it would also be irresponsible to refuse to man the border and regulate the lawful flow and stop illegal entry. Further, illegal immigration must be admonished in some manner or it encourages disrespect for the law and further illegal immigration. With eight million illegals already in the nation, however, it might be impractical or counter productive to expel them all, especially considering that many of their children would be citizens. But some sanction is necessary to fulfill the rule of law. The illegal immigrant population itself should be capable of understanding this principle.

What about economically desirable immigration? The devil is in the details. In principle, there should be no conservative opposition to this type of immigration but there are practical considerations. Is it in fact true that Americans will not provide the services? Senator John McCain and Congressmen Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe have promoted an interesting idea on this matter. Their proposal would provide that Americans be given a first shot at a job before a non-citizen could fill a position or even enter a program for possible immigration. This might be difficult to administer but it might be possible if done so in coordination with local and private sources. If in fact Americans were being displaced, any program purporting job protection would have to be structured so that it could be suspended for as long as the problem persisted.

The problems with the culture are perhaps the most difficult. Obviously, some acculturation, including some familiarity with the language, is essential not only for economic proficiency but also for an ordered daily social life. The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform headed by Congresswoman Barbara Jordan not only supported this requirement but provided a workable plan to implement it with a contract with immigrants stressing the values and obligations of citizenship. Yet, most American educational institutions do not see this as their mission and, indeed, see it as an improper one for them, even in assimilating citizens. A massive restructuring of the whole educational system would be necessary for an effective acculturation process. Given the present degree of social diversity and educational opposition, it may not even be possible under governmental schooling. Paradoxically, a privatized educational system based on tax credits or vouchers might be necessary to break the population down so that what is necessarily common can be taught by each group in its own most effective manner. Certainly, the one-size-fits-all current local educational monopoly system has not worked for citizens and forced state run indoctrination programs seem to conflict with anyone's idea of freedom.

The Bush Administration has just announced a new immigration program that, in theory, meets many of these requirements for a sound conservative program. Again, the problem is the details. It must start with a less than ideal eight million illegals already in the nation. Rather than expelling them, the program seeks to legalize their status on a temporary basis for three years (renewable at least once) if they have productive employment and they pay a registration fee. This worker documentation would presumably enhance national security. Employers would have to demonstrate that no American is willing to fill the job and the number of workers with permanent status would be increased to meet shortages. Workers would be required to return to their home countries at the end of their three or six year contractual term.

The fact that the Bush proposals were introduced just before an election makes the proposals seem like a crass political appeal to Hispanics at the expense of a base that "has nowhere else to go." The plan lacks much detail and must be approved by Congress. No one knows what would emerge from the political trade offs. It seems as if the immense problems of administration have not been considered. Would aliens sign up for a program that gives them legal status for only six years? Would they leave at the end of their term? If we cannot enforce the current law, why would the new one be any easier? Would additional foreign workers flood the nation illegally, hoping to later achieve legal status, perhaps increasing the national security problem? How would employers demonstrate that no American wanted the job? How many new temporary workers would be admitted? How many additional green card permanent status positions would be created? If the temporary program will work, why increase permanent quotas at all? Is a "registration fee" a sufficient penalty, or a penalty at all? Do the reforms go far enough?

The Jordan Commission had proposed reform of so-called "family reunification" immigration to give priority to nuclear family ties, with broadly extended family relationships granted a much lower priority that might not be reached because of numerical restrictions on entry and a more rational structuring of skill-based immigration. Should these be considered at the same time? Would some slowing down of immigration numbers be prudent while the proposed changes are being implemented so that the millions of illegals already in the country, to say nothing of the three million more waiting for admission, could be acculturated? There is even another matter that must be considered, one that both ends of the political spectrum ignore. The native American population is presently not reproducing itself, especially among non-Hispanic, European whites.

Although some Census Bureau estimates project modest native population increases over time, even those optimistic figures do not reach a sustainable replacement rate for European Americans. It is true that fertility rates improved somewhat in the 1990s but they still did not reach the replacement rate. While the 1.8 percent replacement rate of the European American population far exceeds the 1.4 rate in Europe itself, the American one now equals the rate in Europe a decade ago. Why the U.S. should end up with a different result is difficult to comprehend, unless there is a traditionalist religious revival of enormous proportions. In fifty years or so Europe will be depopulated or not European. The chance Italy, Spain and France might become Muslim is not al all remote. If the U.S. follows the same demographic path as Europe, which seems likely, even the most apprehensive might agree that the fact its predominant immigrant population is Hispanic will present a much less difficult assimilation task.

The debate on the Bush proposals will now begin. Left-leaning service and farm unions have already opposed the temporary rather than permanent status offered in the proposal. For conservatives, keeping some principles in mind might help evaluate the plan. Undoubtedly, even the principles raised here will not please all conservatives. But we have disagreed before and, as Frank Meyer explains so well in his lead article this week, conservatism is not a doctrine of ideological utopianism. All the elements of this immigration proposal are debatable and should be debated. It is especially important that discussion not be suppressed by trying to silence opponents by labeling them bigots, for it will merely inflame passions and frustrate legitimate points of view. To conservatives, the question of a penalty for breaking the law is especially important and a "fee" will not do, although a monetary penalty might. Certain conservative principles are involved and should be part of the debate but the precise resolution should be the result of rational discussion as opposed to ideological warfare.

ConservativeBattleline.com will provide a forum in the next issue to explore different conservative views on immigration, as we already have under "Reader Backfire" in the current issue.