Skip to footer

3 views on how US should combat illegal immigration

For the third installment in our One Minute Debate series for election 2012, three writers give their brief take on how the United States should combat illegal immigration: 'tighten up,' 'loosen up,' and 'another way.'

3. Another way: Enforce the law, provide amnesty at a price, and be choosier about who gets in.

Americans are caught in a false choice between tougher border protection and amnesty for illegal immigrants. A compromise is possible.

First, we must end illegal immigration. A bipartisan commission must certify that US borders are secure and that an effective employment verification system is in place. Second, all illegal immigrants who can prove that they have been working or going to school in the United States for at least five years should be eligible for amnesty – after paying a substantial fine, over time if necessary.

We must also reduce levels of legal immigration, be more selective about future immigrants' country of origin, and terminate "multiculturalism" as a national value. Concerns about unchecked immigration are not confined to the far right, "xenophobes," and "nativists." (We're both avid President Obama supporters.)

At least 50 percent of immigrants today come from Latin America, and they are acculturating much more slowly than prior immigration waves. (Witness the competition of the Spanish language with English.) More than half of all those sentenced to federal prison in the first nine months of 2011 were Latino. By 2050, the US Census Bureau projects 3 in 10 Americans will be Latinos – 3.5 times the number in 2000.

How might that change America and American values? Aren't there significant differences in the rate and level of assimilation and success among different immigrant groups? Immigration isn't just about quantity. It's about quality.

The US imports too many immigrants, particularly too many unskilled ones. We should calibrate legal immigration annually to the demonstrated needs of the economy, and according to past performance of immigrant groups in terms of acculturation and contribution to US society.

 Richard Lamm was the governor of Colorado from 1975 to 1987. He codirects the University of Denver's Institute for Public Policy Studies. Lawrence Harrison's book "Jews, Confucians, and Protestants: Cultural Capital, and the End of Multiculturalism" comes out in December. Both are advisory board members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, but their views do not reflect FAIR's position on amnesty.

3 of 3
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.