      The SPOTLIGHT     October 22, 1990      Data Entry by Mark McDonald


INTERNATIONALISTS WANT OPEN BORDERS

  THE FREE_TRADE internationalists are at it again. This time, in order  to
more perfectly shape the United  States  into  the  perceived  ideal  of  a
borderless, cultureless, unrestricted  market  for   foreign   goods,   the
elitists are working to open up our borders to all comers.

  The House of Representatives  has  outdone  the  Senate  in  passing  yet
another immigration "reform" bill, one that would provide amnesty  to  more
millions of people already in this country illegally, and sharply  increase
the number of immigrants permitted into the United States each year.

  Yet to be decided is whether the House plan H.R. 4300, introduced by Rep.
Bruce Morrison (D-Conn.), or a Senate version, S.358,  introduced  by  Sen.
Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), passed  earlier  will  prevail  as  a  conference
committee irons out differences in the separate measures.

  The House wants to hike by nearly a quarter of a million  the  number  of
immigrants allowed into the country  annually-to  775,000.  Right now,  the
ceiling is  540,000  a  year.   The  measure  also  would  boost  so-called
"family-based" immigration from 436,000  to  520,000  and  employment-based
immigration from 54,000 to 188,000.

  Family-based immigration reform entails liberalizing the  rules  allowing
family members of legal residents-or illegal aliens granted amnesty-to join
them in  the  United  States.   Employment-based  immigration  would  admit
foreigners with special skills perceived to be in short supply in the  U.S.
labor pool.

  By  contrast,  the  Senate  version  would  raise  total  immigration  to
630,000-family-based   immigration   to   480,000   and    employment-based
immigration to 150,000.  The  White  House  has  indicated  President  Bush
favors the Senate version, but has refused to state definitely  whether  he
would veto a final bill following House guidelines.

  Supporters of the legislation, particularly in the  House,  contend  that
there's a shortage of skilled workers  in  America  and  that  the  special
employment-based category would enable  certain  jobs  to  be  filled.  But
critics have pointed out how ridiculous  this  contention  is.   The   U.S.
labor pool is larger than ever, with more wives than ever being  forced  to
work to maintain a middle-class standard of living.  Even if the skills for
certain jobs were in short supply, it would be much better for the  country
for government and industry to train American worker, rather than  allowing
foreigners to further aggravate the tight job market and deprive  Americans
of these coveted jobs.

  The only other  rationalization  for  allowing  an  increased  number  of
foreigners into the country is to provide the sort of labor that  Americans
are alleged not to want anymore-farm labor, minimum wage service  jobs  and
unskilled, low-paying factory jobs.

  Oddly, business leaders and internationalist think  tank  economists  are
joined by labor leaders in welcoming increased  immigration.  Although  one
would think the rank-and-file union membership  would  oppose  opening  the
floodgates to aliens for the  express  purpose  of  taking  the  decreasing
number of good jobs remaining in this country, they all claim that the U.S.
cannot compete internationally without foreign skilled workers.

  But  others,  including  LIberty  Lobby,  the  populist  institution   on
Capitol Hill, argue that there is no shortage of people  in  this  country,
and that the perceived shortages are a result of a  woefully  deteriorating
education system. The government has a responsibility  to  try  to  improve
education for its own citizens (which in most cases  means  simply  staying
out  of  it  altogether,  and  returning  control  of  education   to   the
communities, where it resided in the past), rather than  simply  giving  up
and saying we'll let foreigners do the hard stuff for us from now on.

  The conference committee that  is  dealing  with  the  House  and  Senate
immigration bills is working under the gun.  Congress wants to  adjourn  no
later than Oct.  19, meaning a new immigration law must be hammered out and
resubmitted to each chamber for a vote by then.   However  there  has  been
talk of a lame duck session after the November elections  to  deal  with  a
number of issues that have been put on  the  back  burner  because  of  the
dispute  over  the  federal  budget.   A  new  immigration  law  and  other
legislation presumably could be dealt with at that time.

  Attempts have been made, so far unsuccessfully, to moderate  the  effects
of the proposed immigration legislation.  Rep.  john  Bryant  (D-Tex.)  has
pointed out that it is very difficult for most  Americans  "to  accept  the
premise which is offered to members [of the House] that  we  have  a  labor
shortage in this country that must be remedied by  allowing  an  additional
300,000 persons a year to enter this country.  If we have a shortage, it is
a shortage of jobs and a shortage of training.  It is  not  a  shortage  of
people.  The fact of the matter is we can't take care of the people we have
now."

  Bryant also criticized the  costs  of  the  legislation,  noting  he  was
"astonished to see this Congress come forward and advocate  it  in  a  time
when we cannot even pay our bills,  we  cannot  educate  our  children,  we
cannot fight crime."

  To be more  specific,  contended  Rep.  Tom  Lewis  (R-Fla.),  the  House
immigration proposal would result in the settlement in the United States of
more than 1.6 million immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers and parolees  in
1991, the first year it would take effect. Lewis pointed out that the costs
of public primary and secondary education programs alone  for  this  number
would total $1.5 billion for  that  year.  And,  "this  estimate  does  not
include the costs attributable to illegal immigrants."

  Lewis said conservative estimates project  the  new  immigration  figures
would swell Florida's population by  500,000  people  over  the  next  five
years, boosting the costs of providing state and local government  services
by $1 billion. Yet, he noted, Congress has made no  provision  to  aid  the
states in paying for the burden of federal immigration  policy  over  which
the nation's governors and legislatures have no control.

  Lewis said that unless the immigration bill is  amended  there  is  doubt
"whether or not states can continue to administer the basic  education  and
medical programs that must be extended to the citizens  of  the  states  as
well as the immigrants in that state."

  Rep. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), one of the bill's  supporters,  said  that
"the reason this bill is  important  is  because  it's  good  for  American
business and it's good for global competitiveness.

  "Are we going to allow outdated assumptions and nativism  to  hinder  our
growth?" he asked. This is one of  the  biggest  frauds  contained  in  the
drumbeat of propaganda to force public acceptance of opening up our borders
to unlimited immigration; that the "new world order" we are  entering  into
is one of unrestricted free trade, and that to  successfully  compete,  our
immigration policy must mirror our trade policy.  To argue that the  United
States should preserve its cultural identity and take care of its  citizens
before accepting any more, is to labeled a "nativist," as if  loving  one's
country and one's own people is distasteful and old fashioned at  best,  or
racist and hateful at worst.

  The provision granting another amnesty to illegal aliens  in  the  latest
proposed legislation also demonstrates the duplicity of Congress. When  the
1986 Immigration Reform Act took effect it was vowed that never again would
amnesty be extended to the hundreds of  thousands  of  illegal  aliens  who
cross U.S. borders each year. Yet amnesty is again at hand.

  Under the 1986 law Congress extended amnesty to  more  than  3.1  million
illegal aliens; all they had to do was ask for it, and more than half  that
group did so. At that time, Congress  stipulated  it  was  a  one-time-only
proposition, but four years later the offer is once again about to be made.

  Public opinion surveys have found Americans strongly opposed to increased
immigration. In fact, 67 percent of those surveyed recently  by  the  Roper
Organization though immigration ought to be reduced.

  Meanwhile, the Immigration and Naturalization Service reports  that  more
than 1 million undocumented aliens were apprehended  trying  to  cross  the
U.S. border with Mexico during fiscal year 1990. It is sage to assume  that
those caught are only a portion of the aliens actually crossing the border.
The much-vaunted "enforcement provisions" of the original 1986  immigration
bill, which was to trade a massive  amnesty  for  increased  Border  Patrol
efforts and sanctions against employers who hire illegal aliens, have  been
a massive failure.  And the problem of  uncontrolled,  illegal  immigration
has not been alleviated on bit.

  Let your lawmakers know that this  bill  exactly  the  opposite  of  what
should be done in regard to immigration at this time. And let them know  in
a hurry.