ADVERTISEMENTS

The immigrant question

It's an issue candidates in search of votes won't touch

By Robert J. Samuelson, 5/9/2000

he Elian Gonzalez case reminds us, in a curious and unintended way, of the great forgotten issue of the 2000 presidential campaign: immigration. Forgotten, because hardly anyone discusses it, certainly not Al Gore or George Bush. Yet more than most of what they are discussing, immigration will shape America in the 21st century.

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.
© Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.