![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
It's an issue candidates in search of votes won't touch
A long Census Bureau report (based on 1997 statistics) catalogs
immigration's immense impact:
Almost 10 percent of the population was foreign-born, double the level
of 1970 (4.7 percent) and the highest since 1930 (11.6 percent).
Recent immigrants come mainly from Latin America (51 percent) and Asia
(27 percent), a huge change from 1970, when most came from Europe (62
percent) and Canada (9 percent).
Some immigrants quickly do well; many do not. For households headed by
immigrants, the poverty rate among children under 18 (32 percent) was
almost twice as high as among households headed by native-born Americans
(18 percent).
A smaller proportion of immigrants are citizens: an estimated 35
percent, down from about 66 percent in 1970.
In 1997, about half of 25.8 million immigrants were congregated in five
metropolitan areas: Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County (4.8 million); New
York-New Jersey-Connecticut (4.6 million); Miami-Fort Lauderdale (1.4
million); San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose (1.4 million); and
Chicago-Gary-Kenosha (1.1 million).
If nothing else, the Elian Gonzalez controversy has taught us that
immigration issues quickly become inflamed. Each immigrant's story is
unique and, often, intensely moving. It's a thicket of ethnic, racial,
national, and ethical passions.
The hardest questions: Are we getting the ''right kind'' of immigrants?
If not, can we do anything about it?
In his book ''Heaven's Door,'' Harvard University economist George
Borjas, who immigrated to the United States from Cuba at age 12, argues
that current policy courts disaster. It tends to result in poor, unskilled
immigrants. Poorer immigrants, he says, are assimilated slowly. They tend
to cluster in ethnic ghettos and use a lot of government services. The
United States would be better off, Borjas contends, favoring
better-educated immigrants. His message has a certain common-sense appeal.
Don't stop immigration - but be more selective.
To some extent, the Census Bureau report corroborates his portrait of
immigrants. They have lower earnings than native-born Americans: 25
percent lower for men, 14 percent for women. About 20 percent of all
people without private or government health insurance are immigrants.
About 25 percent of immigrants receive some sort of income-related federal
assistance.
Baby boomers feel entitled to generous government benefits, mainly
Social Security and Medicare. On the one hand, immigration should make it
easier for the country to pay for these benefits. It increases the number
of future workers and taxpayers. On the other hand, many of these workers
and their families may need their own government benefits. There could be
a collision between the needy young and the expectant old.
Canada's point system gives preference to better-educated immigrants.
Borjas is suggesting something like this for the United States. But to
discuss immigration in anything but the blandest terms is to risk sounding
like a bigot. In practice, Borjas's plan would discriminate against
Hispanics. More than 25 percent of today's immigrants are from Mexico;
they are among the poorest and least skilled. They would suffer under any
plan that promotes skills-based immigration. Both Bush and Gore are
eagerly pursuing Hispanic votes. Neither wants to sound like Pat Buchanan.
Practical and ethical issues also loom. Can we better police our
borders to limit illegal immigration?
Then there's the current policy on legal immigration. It gives
preferences to the children, spouses, parents, and siblings of US citizens
or permanent residents. Everyone favors some family preferences. It's
simple humanity. But how far should they go?
By 2025, the Census Bureau projects, immigrants will be 12 percent of
the population; their American-born children will probably represent an
equal number. Perhaps it is naive to expect candidates to address an issue
fraught with political hazards and ethical ambiguities. But if this isn't
about the future, what would be?
Robert J. Samuelson is an economics reporter in Washington.
This story ran on page D4 of the Boston Globe on
5/9/2000.
|
![]() |
![]() | ||
|
![]() Extending our newspaper services to the web |
of The Globe Online
|