Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE





The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

  • Article: Deportation Didn't End Illegal Migration in the '50s – Legal Immigration Did. By Alex Nowrasteh

    Deportation Didn't End Illegal Migration in the '50s – Legal Immigration Did

    by


    In last night’s Republican presidential debate, Donald Trump argued that President Eisenhower's immigration enforcement plan, called "Operation Wetback" (Trump didn’t use its horrendous name), drastically reduced unlawful immigration in the early 1950s.

    He said:

    Let me just tell you that Dwight Eisenhower. Good president. Great president. People liked him. I liked him. I Like Ike, right? The expression, ‘I like Ike.’ Moved 1.5 million illegal immigrants out of this country.

    Moved them just beyond the border, they came back. Moved them again beyond the border, they came back. Didn’t like it. Moved ‘em waaaay south, they never came back. Dwight Eisenhower. You don’t get nicer, you don’t get friendlier. They moved 1.5 million people out. We have no choice. We. Have. No. Choice.

    The evidence and statements by border patrol and INS officials in the 1950s and afterward disagree with Mr. Trump’s analysis.

    Increased immigration enforcement did not reduced unauthorized immigration in the 1950s. Legal migration did.

    Background

    In 1942, the United States government created the Bracero guest worker visa program to allow Mexican farm workers to temporarily work for American farmers during World War II. The government entered into a bilateral labor agreement with Mexico that regulated the migrant’s wages, duration of employment, age of workers, health care, and transportation from Mexico to US farms. 

    Transportation to the farm, housing, and meals were sold by the employers for a low price. Ten percent of the migrant’s wages were deducted from their paychecks and deposited in an account that would be turned over to them once they returned to Mexico.

    The Bracero program did not limit the number of migratory workers as long as the government’s conditions were met, making the system flexible to surges in demand. As a result, nearly five million Mexican workers used the Bracero program from its beginnings in 1942, when the first group of 500 braceros arrived at a farm in California, until the program’s cancellation in 1964.

    The program’s flexibility increased over time as the Border Patrol and INS realized that the Bracero program was an indispensable component of reducing unlawful immigration by providing a lawful means of migration. During the early phase of the program, the United States government acted as the arbiter and distributor of the Mexican workers to American farms — heavily subsidizing the movement and not requiring total reimbursement for government expenses on medical and security screenings. 

    Later, as the number of unauthorized immigrants began to rise, the government reformed the program to allow for workers and employers to deal more directly with fewer regulations and government subsidies.

    Unauthorized Immigration in the 1950s

    During the early, more regulated, and more restricted phase of the Bracero program, unauthorized immigrants continued to cross the border, which resulted in almost two million of them living in the United States by the early 1950s. 

    The immigration enforcement apparatus performed well when few unauthorized immigrants were trying to enter the Untied States during the Great Depression and World War II, but it suddenly broke down in the face of sustained postwar unlawful migration.

    In 1946, the year after the war ended, an INS report recorded a massive increase in unauthorized entries that was “riddling the country of aliens illegally in the United States” with more illegal entries than any previous year. Reports in subsequent years reported the same steady increase in the number of illegal immigrants and enforcement actions (table 1). 

    In 1950-51, the volume of unauthorized Mexican immigrants was so high that the INS institutionalized a voluntary departure procedure that was quicker and cheaper than deportation. Government reports described the large increase in unauthorized immigration after World War II as “virtually an invasion.”

    Table 1: Aliens Deported and Voluntary Departures, 1946-1952 

    Year

    Aliens Deported

    Voluntary Departures

    1946

    14,375

    101,945

    1947

    18,663

    195,880

    1948

    20,371

    197,184

    1949

    20,040

    276,297

    1950

    6,628

    572,477

    1951

    13,544

    673,169

    1952

    20,181

    703,778

    Source: Congressional Research Service, 1980.

    Government Responses: Expanding Visas & Enforcement

    The government responded to the increased illegal immigration with two interrelated and coordinated actions. The first and more important action (to say nothing of its humanity), was a legal reform and expansion of the Bracero guest worker visa program in 1951. The second was called "Operation Wetback," a nasty immigration enforcement operation begun in 1954 (it expanded from an earlier program) that removed almost two million unauthorized Mexicans in 1953-1954.

    What Mr. Trump and other supporters of harsh enforcement actions like Operation Wetback won’t tell you is that increased enforcement was combined with an increase in legal migration opportunities. Many of the migrants rounded up in the enforcement buildup to Operation Wetback were legalized on the spot — a long-standing process derogatively referred to as “drying out” illegal migrant workers — and given a Bracero work visa. 

    “Drying out” was not invented during Operation Wetback; it had been common practice beginning in 1947 and was made law in 1951. Although data is sparse on the number of unlawful migrants who underwent “drying out,” 96,239 migrant workers were legalized in 1950 by that process, and the Department of Labor actually gave preference to legalizing unlawful migrants over admitting new Braceros.

    Other unlawful migrants were driven down the border and made to take one step across the border and come back in as a legal Bracero worker, a process referred to as “a walk-around statute.” The combination of a legal migration pathway with consequences for breaking immigration laws incentivized Mexican migrants to come legally.

    As a result, the number of removals in 1955 was barely three percent of the previous year’s numbers. Those who previously would have entered unlawfully instead signed up to become Braceros, which was the intended purpose of the reforms.

    The government did not tolerate unlawful entry, but the INS made it very easy for migrants to get a guest worker visa and used the Border Patrol to funnel unauthorized migrants and potential unauthorized migrants into the legal system — sometimes simplifying the system beyond what Congress intended. 

    Increased lawful migration, flexibility, and enforcement funneled migrant workers into the Bracero program and reduced unauthorized immigration by an estimated 90 percent. The existence of a legal visa for lower skilled Mexican migrants was essential to the decrease in unlawful immigration. 

    Bracero Deserved Credit for Halting Unauthorized Immigration, According to Border Patrol and INS

    The Bracero program was effective at stopping unlawful immigration for two reasons.

    First, it created a large and easy to use visa for farmers in the Untied States. If the cost of employing Bracero workers was too high, farmers would just hire unauthorized immigrants as they threatened to do numerous times — and Border Patrol and INS listened. 

    Prior to the expansion and partial deregulation of the Bracero program in 1951, employers in the Rio Grande Valley referred to the Border Patrol as a “Gestapo outfit” that wrenched their willing unlawful workers away from employment. Along with increased enforcement, INS Commissioner Joseph Swing realized that he would have to enlist the cooperation of the employers of unlawful migrant workers if the INS was to have any hope of shrinking the number of unauthorized workers. He knew he would have to affect both the supply and demand for unauthorized workers. 

    Before launching Operation Wetback, Swing traveled and spoke to numerous audiences and farmers assuring them that their unauthorized workers would be replaced with legal workers from Mexico on a Bracero work visa. 

    In Swing’s words, the purpose of a ten-day trip to visit farmers along the border prior to the launch of Operation Wetback, was to tell them: “If there is any employer who cannot get legal labor all he has to do is let either the Department of Labor or Immigration know, and we will see that he gets it … I am quite emphatic about this because I know I am going to run into some opposition in Southern Texas.”

    Swing characterized the success as an “exchange” of illegal workers for legal guest workers. For example, the 1953 harvest in the Rio Grande Valley only employed 700 legal guest workers, while in 1954 the number had grown to 50,326. At every opportunity, Swing praised farmers and gave them credit for the substitution of illegal workers for legal Bracero workers, saying the “accomplishment of this task would have been impossible without the generous cooperation extended to the effort by ranchers, farmers, and growers.”

    Beginning in 1954, Commissioner Swing also issued I-100 cards to law-abiding Bracero workers who were favored by particular American growers, further simplifying the bureaucratic process for them to re-enter and work in the future. The INS eventually came to believe that the I-100 cards were an integral part of their efforts to keep unlawful immigration low. 

    The INS also made it easy for Braceros to move among farms to work, regardless of the original labor contract. As historian Ernesto Galarza wrote, “the most skeptical of farm employers could see that the private black market was no longer vital, now that a public one could be created at will.”

    The Bracero program made it economically advantageous for American employers of unlawful immigrants to cooperate with the Border Patrol and INS to ensure that their workforces were legal.

    Second, the visa was also very easy for Mexican migrants to access and guaranteed that they would not have to work illegally and face the possibility of deportation. Over the course of the Bracero program, the INS and Border Patrol progressively removed the Mexican government from selecting the Bracero migrants and moved toward a model where US growers selected their workers — often based on previous experience with the individual migrant.

    Removing the Mexican government from the process decreased opportunities for corruption and abuse of the workers. When the Mexican government was actively involved in selecting the Mexicans who could work in the United States prior to the reforms in 1951, the migrant often had to pay a mordida — a bribe  to Mexican officials. The migrant was then sent to a central processing center where he would have to pay yet another bribe to be considered. 

    The Mexican government was frustrated when the US government allowed American growers to unilaterally recruit Braceros, but cutting out the Mexican government middleman likely saved Braceros a lot of money and headaches.

    From 1955 to 1960, annual bracero migration fluctuated between 400,000 and 450,000, and replaced the roughly two million unauthorized immigrants who moved to the United States after World War II. During this time, the government allowed braceros to work in virtually every sector of agriculture. The Bracero guest worker visa program, more so than any immigration enforcement system, practically eliminated unauthorized immigration. 

    A Border Patrol official warned that if the Bracero program was ever “repealed or a restriction placed on the number of braceros allowed to enter the United States, we can look forward to a large increase in the number of illegal alien entrants into the United States.” 

    That official’s prediction came true. When the Bracero program was ended in 1965 and not replaced by another effective lower skilled guest worker visa program, unlawful immigration as measured by the number of removals and returns skyrocketed (see Figure 1).

    Figure 1: Removals and Returns of Unlawful Immigrants vs. Guest Worker Visas, 1942-2011


    Source: Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Naturalization Service annual reports.

    One legal worker on a visa seems to be worth more than one unauthorized immigrant worker — meaning a favorable trade off for those concerned about the number of guest workers who could migrate if a large guest worker program was implemented.

    In 1954, one guest worker visa replaced 3.4 unauthorized immigrants, meaning that one legal worker seemed to be equal to more than three illegal workers (see Figure 1). That far fewer “physically able, adult male” Braceros could do the same quantity of work as several illegal workers was even noted at the time. 

    If an important goal of a lower skilled guest worker visa is to eliminate the American economic demand for unauthorized immigrants, relatively fewer guest worker visas can replace a much larger unauthorized immigrant population.

    Figure 2 indicates that higher numbers of Border Patrol agents and increased border enforcement are unnecessary to get this result. When the government launched Operation Wetback and expanded the Bracero program, the number of border patrol agents did increase but only to a previous high. 

    Figure 2: Illegal Immigrants Removed and Returned vs. Border Patrol Agents, 1942-1960


    Sources: Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Naturalization Service annual reports, and National Foundation for American Policy.

    By allowing unauthorized immigrants to get work visas, by not punishing them or employers for coming forward, and by making work visas available to future migrants, almost all future and current unauthorized immigrants can be funneled into the legal market without a large increase in enforcement. This was the policy followed in the 1950s, and it worked. 

    Clearly Operation Wetback should not be a guide for future enforcement policy because its racially discriminatory and harsh enforcement policies were unethical and legally unsound. However, a new guest worker visa program combined with a refocused immigration enforcement system that seeks to channel unlawful and new migrants onto the guest worker visa could be effective.

    End of Bracero and Re-Ignition of Unlawful Immigration

    By the time of Bracero’s cancellation in 1964, increasing regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor (DoL) and restrictions whittled the number of Bracero guest worker visas down to just 200,000 that year. New DoL wage regulations and labor certification raised costs for farmers and migrants, incentivizing them to move into the informal, underground economy.

    By making lawful employment of migrants so expensive, the government created unauthorized immigration. Since 1964, very few lower skilled workers have been allowed in, and the unauthorized immigrant population has skyrocketed. Ending Bracero did not end temporary worker migration to the Untied States; it merely made such migration illegal.

    After cancellation of the Bracero program, the H-2 guest worker visa became the source of legal foreign agricultural workers. The H-2 was underused relative to the Bracero program because of complex rules, numerical restrictions, and the cost of sponsoring migratory workers. The H-2 visa was initially created through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 for “other temporary workers” not covered by the Bracero program. From 1964 until 1986, mostly temporary unauthorized Mexican migration filled the gap left by the repeal of the Bracero program, which was unfilled by the H-2 visa. After the end of Bracero, the modern age of unlawful immigration began as Figure 1 shows. The rest is history.

    Conclusion

    Mr. Trump is correct that unauthorized immigration decreased markedly in the 1950s, but he is wrong to attribute all or even most of that to increased enforcement under the utterly inhumane "Operation Wetback." That operation would have been a complete failure if there was not a Bracero guest worker visa available to provide a legal avenue for lower skilled migration. 

    The Bracero program had a lot of problems, and any modern visa program would have to be very different, but it was better than the black market alternative. Border Patrol and INS agents at the time credited Bracero with ending unlawful immigration and predicted, correctly, that ending Bracero would reignite it.

    Despite what Mr. Trump says, the lesson from the 1950s is not that harsh and inhumane immigration enforcement is effective, it is that a legal migration pathway can halt unlawful immigration.

    This post originally appeared on Foundation For Economic Education.

    Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Alex NowrastehAlex Nowrasteh is the immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

    Comments 8 Comments
    1. Retired INS's Avatar
      Retired INS -
      I joined the INS in 1972 and all of my first few supervisors had been in the Border Patrol during bracero program. They all thought it was a great program with relative braceros violating the terms of their legal employment. I do disagree on a few points. The 1.5 million who reported left to Mexico during Operation Wetback includes a few hundred thousand who were arrested and a very large estimate of those who returned on their own. It is true that many returned as braceros. What you failed to mention is that those who had U.S. born children returned with immigrant visas. Prior to 1977, any native of the Western Hemisphere could immigrate without numerical restrictions. The only requirement was to have a labor certification, which stopped most Mexicans. However, the labor certification was waived for the parents of U.S. citizens. Therefore, the parents did not have to wait for the child turned 21. They could apply almost immediately for an immigrant visa. My first INS job was as an immigration inspector in El Paso. About 95% of all the immigrants I saw entered under the SA-1 or O-1 categories. These categories referred to natives of the Western Hemisphere (at different periods -O-1 first, then SA-1). Almost all of these immigrants gained status by having American born children. Therefore, thousands who returned to Mexico in 1954 came back a year or two later with immigrant visas. INS statistics show legal immigration from Mexico increasing dramatically in the period from 1950 until the amnesty program of 1986-87.
    1. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
      Nolan Rappaport -
      Alex, you amaze me. I didn't think I would ever hear anyone say good things about the Bracero program. The CBS documentary Harvest of Shame, which aired in November of 1960, convinced President John F. Kennedy that Braceros were “adversely affecting the wages, working conditions, and employment opportunities of our own agricultural workers.” Consequently, the Kennedy Administration attempted to revise the Bracero Program to prevent Mexican workers from depressing U.S. farm wages. In October 1961, President Kennedy, “reluctantly” signing a bill to extend the Bracero Program through December 31, 1963. He said, “The adverse effect of the Mexican farm labor program as it has operated in recent years on the wage and employment conditions of domestic workers is clear and cumulative in its impact.” President Kennedy ordered the U.S. Department of Labor to “prescribe standards and to make the determinations essential for the protection of the wages and working conditions” of U.S. workers. When that didn't work, the program was terminated. See my article on the program, which among other things, has a link to the Harvest of Shame documentary. "Harvest of Shame Revisited" (May 23, 2013), http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsr...revisited.aspx
    1. Retired INS's Avatar
      Retired INS -
      Quote Originally Posted by Nolan Rappaport View Post
      Alex, you amaze me. I didn't think I would ever hear anyone say good things about the Bracero program. The CBS documentary Harvest of Shame, which aired in November of 1960, convinced President John F. Kennedy that Braceros were “adversely affecting the wages, working conditions, and employment opportunities of our own agricultural workers.” Consequently, the Kennedy Administration attempted to revise the Bracero Program to prevent Mexican workers from depressing U.S. farm wages. In October 1961, President Kennedy, “reluctantly” signing a bill to extend the Bracero Program through December 31, 1963. He said, “The adverse effect of the Mexican farm labor program as it has operated in recent years on the wage and employment conditions of domestic workers is clear and cumulative in its impact.” President Kennedy ordered the U.S. Department of Labor to “prescribe standards and to make the determinations essential for the protection of the wages and working conditions” of U.S. workers. When that didn't work, the program was terminated. See my article on the program, which among other things, has a link to the Harvest of Shame documentary. "Harvest of Shame Revisited" (May 23, 2013), http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsr...revisited.aspx
      I read your article from 2013 - it is very good. While I joined the INS after the end of the bracero program, I am very familiar with it. Besides having supervisors who worked with the braceros, I know Border Patrol Agents who worked in Bakersfield in the early 1960s and reported first hand the problems between the braceros and the UFW. You fail to mention the illegal tactics used by the UFW on migrant workers who refused to join the union. As bad as many American employers were, the people who worked for Caesar Chavez were just as bad. I never met Chavez, but I had dealings with Dolores Huerta, who co-founded the UFW. You also fail to mention that it was the Mexican government, and not American employers, who cheated braceros out of the 10% of the wages sent to Mexico. You also fail to mention that part of the reason for ending the bracero program (according to my Border Patrol instructors at the Border Patrol Academy) was the illegal bribes demanded by Mexican government officials before they would issue the required identity documents to those who wanted to participate in the program. I am friends with Professor Philip Martin of UC Davis and greatly respect his work. That said, he reports on this as an outsider. I have friends who actively participated in the events you talk about. I sometimes disagree with Professor Martin based upon my personal knowledge of the events he writes about.
    1. Nolan rappaport's Avatar
      Nolan rappaport -
      My article wasn't as comprehensive as it could have been. My objective just was to remind people of the Bracero Program. I don't want to repeat the harvest of Shame with a large guest worker program in a comprehensive immigration reform bill....if one ever gets through congress. But I have tried that with articles about SBInet with no apparent success.
    1. Retired INS's Avatar
      Retired INS -
      Quote Originally Posted by Nolan rappaport View Post
      My article wasn't as comprehensive as it could have been. My objective just was to remind people of the Bracero Program. I don't want to repeat the harvest of Shame with a large guest worker program in a comprehensive immigration reform bill....if one ever gets through congress. But I have tried that with articles about SBInet with no apparent success.
      Thank you - I write stories about immigration history and I have saved your information as a reference. I have never read Harvest of Shame, I will put that on my list of things to do. When I first started working for the INS in 1972 I often encountered Mexicans who still had their I-100 bracero card. It wasn't until the bracero program ended and the Border Patrol had to arrest the same farm workers who had been legal the year before that Mexican aliens started to move to Chicago and other northern cities in large numbers. When I was in college, Idaho farmers advertised in Utah and Idaho colleges for summer help in the potato fields. I was at BYU and almost took a job in Idaho. Several years later the Mormon church was sending Spanish speaking missionaries to Idaho.
    1. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
      Nolan Rappaport -
      I have not found any good proposals for resolving immigration problems. They all are compromises. My objective is to encourage solutions that would meet the political needs on both sides. They won't be great solutions but they will be politically feasible solutions. It has bee 29 tears since the last bill doing that was passed, IRCA, and I see no reason for thinking that the parties will be any closer to a both party solution in the next. 29 years. And if there are horrific terrorist strikes in the US, we may never see a genuinely bipartisan bill
    1. Retired INS's Avatar
      Retired INS -
      Quote Originally Posted by Nolan Rappaport View Post
      I have not found any good proposals for resolving immigration problems. They all are compromises. My objective is to encourage solutions that would meet the political needs on both sides. They won't be great solutions but they will be politically feasible solutions. It has bee 29 tears since the last bill doing that was passed, IRCA, and I see no reason for thinking that the parties will be any closer to a both party solution in the next. 29 years. And if there are horrific terrorist strikes in the US, we may never see a genuinely bipartisan bill
      Unfortunately, the two political parties seem more interested in making sure the other party gets no credit for an immigration bill, that nothing meaningful is likely to be passed. Far too often the politicians who propose bills have no idea what they are really doing. Many republicans want to abolish birthright citizenship, but they have no idea how great a part birthright citizenship played in the founding of America. It is who we are and should be retained. The anchor baby problem is blown out of proportion. Of the 120,000 parents of U.S. citizens who naturalize each year, fewer than 20,000 relate to anchor babies, the rest are parents of naturalized citizens. With 900,000 legal immigrants per year, 20,000 is a very small number, about 2%. Democrats favor more immigration, but only because they think this will bring in future votes. Even when they are on the right side of issues (in my opinion), they give the wrong reason for their beliefs.

      The best example I can think of about how both parties are stupid was California's Proposition 187 in 1994. The purpose of the proposition was to get the Supreme Court to reverse the 1982 Plyler decision. I enrolled my oldest child in kindergarten in Texas in 1982. I was in Laredo and we did have a problem with rich Mexicans putting their children in Laredo schools and giving the address of a friend or relative in Laredo. When we discovered these children, we cancelled their visas and sent them home. However, the decision was aimed at those illegal aliens living in Texas. The Supreme Court correctly ruled that as long as the children lived in the United States, it would be better for the country, and the children, for the children to be in school. The court never gave these children legal status to stay here. Besides, if alien parents paid rent, they indirectly paid property taxes, and therefore were paying toward their children's education. Circumstances in California were different than in Texas. In 1994 Jerry Browns' sister was 20 points up on her Republican rival, Pete Wilson. When Wilson heard about Proposition 187 he decided to endorse it, in hopes of gaining support. It would not have been that big of a boost if his opponent had not opposed it. She was threatened with the loss of support from self appointed Hispanic activists. To make matters worse, she had to oppose it because it was racist.

      Both political parties told lies about the proposition and the voters sided with Pete Wilson and elected him governor while passing Proposition 187. I asked the INS for permission to oppose it, but was denied permission to address the issue publicly. The day before the election, the INS Commissioner publicly opposed the proposition, but failed to give a good reason, so voters ignored her.

      I was opposed to Proposition 187 for the following reasons: (1) I agreed with the Plyler decision, and so would the voters if anyone had explained it better; (2) In 1875 the Supreme Court ruled that immigration was a federal issue. Where did California get the authority to pass laws which would require them to determine who was legal and who was not. If they simply sent the INS a list of children's names to be deported, I would have thrown it in the trash - who is California to tell a federal agency what to do?; and (3) Due to the manner in which the IRCA legislation worked, many thousands of Mexican parents were granted amnesty, but not the children, many of whom were with grandparents in Mexico. In the next few years, tens of thousands of Mexican children were smuggled into California to join their parents, who now had work permits or green cards. I was asked to do a survey of the illegal alien population in Central California by the federal courts because of a claim that Hispanic were not properly represented in jury pool. I identified the problem with nearly 25% of the population not being U.S. citizens, but many did have green cards, but could not serve on juries. While doing this survey I discovered that by 1994, California had nearly 300,000 illegal alien children whose parents were here legally. What do you do with these children if they cannot attend school? If the parents are here legally, to whom would we deport the children? Once the parents got their green card, it was a seven year wait to legally immigrate the children from Mexico. That would be reduced to five years if the parents naturalized, but few of the parents learned English well enough to naturalize after 5 years.

      Two years later I had the opportunity to talk privately with Attorney General Janet Reno. She would have backed me in refusing to take action against the children if Proposition 187 had ever been declared legal. I am a Republican and I believe in law. However, I thought the proposition was unconstitutional, and not just because it differed from the Plyler v. Doe case. For that matter, so did my boss, the INS District Director in San Francisco, who also could articulate good reasons to oppose the proposition, but was not allowed to. Instead, stupid politicians opposed it saying it was racist. There was a much better argument to be made, but nobody made it. I even approached some Hispanic groups who campaigned against 187. They were not interested in my reasons. They were collecting large amounts of money from frightened Hispanics. The money would disappear if there was no reason for them to be afraid. Republicans wouldn't listen to me because it was all about winning. The polls showed voters believed their lies.
    1. Retired INS's Avatar
      Retired INS -
      Quote Originally Posted by Retired INS View Post
      Unfortunately, the two political parties seem more interested in making sure the other party gets no credit for an immigration bill, that nothing meaningful is likely to be passed. Far too often the politicians who propose bills have no idea what they are really doing. Many republicans want to abolish birthright citizenship, but they have no idea how great a part birthright citizenship played in the founding of America. It is who we are and should be retained. The anchor baby problem is blown out of proportion. Of the 120,000 parents of U.S. citizens who naturalize each year, fewer than 20,000 relate to anchor babies, the rest are parents of naturalized citizens. With 900,000 legal immigrants per year, 20,000 is a very small number, about 2%. Democrats favor more immigration, but only because they think this will bring in future votes. Even when they are on the right side of issues (in my opinion), they give the wrong reason for their beliefs.

      The best example I can think of about how both parties are stupid was California's Proposition 187 in 1994. The purpose of the proposition was to get the Supreme Court to reverse the 1982 Plyler decision. I enrolled my oldest child in kindergarten in Texas in 1982. I was in Laredo and we did have a problem with rich Mexicans putting their children in Laredo schools and giving the address of a friend or relative in Laredo. When we discovered these children, we cancelled their visas and sent them home. However, the decision was aimed at those illegal aliens living in Texas. The Supreme Court correctly ruled that as long as the children lived in the United States, it would be better for the country, and the children, for the children to be in school. The court never gave these children legal status to stay here. Besides, if alien parents paid rent, they indirectly paid property taxes, and therefore were paying toward their children's education. Circumstances in California were different than in Texas. In 1994 Jerry Browns' sister was 20 points up on her Republican rival, Pete Wilson. When Wilson heard about Proposition 187 he decided to endorse it, in hopes of gaining support. It would not have been that big of a boost if his opponent had not opposed it. She was threatened with the loss of support from self appointed Hispanic activists. To make matters worse, she had to oppose it because it was racist.

      Both political parties told lies about the proposition and the voters sided with Pete Wilson and elected him governor while passing Proposition 187. I asked the INS for permission to oppose it, but was denied permission to address the issue publicly. The day before the election, the INS Commissioner publicly opposed the proposition, but failed to give a good reason, so voters ignored her.

      I was opposed to Proposition 187 for the following reasons: (1) I agreed with the Plyler decision, and so would the voters if anyone had explained it better; (2) In 1875 the Supreme Court ruled that immigration was a federal issue. Where did California get the authority to pass laws which would require them to determine who was legal and who was not. If they simply sent the INS a list of children's names to be deported, I would have thrown it in the trash - who is California to tell a federal agency what to do?; and (3) Due to the manner in which the IRCA legislation worked, many thousands of Mexican parents were granted amnesty, but not the children, many of whom were with grandparents in Mexico. In the next few years, tens of thousands of Mexican children were smuggled into California to join their parents, who now had work permits or green cards. I was asked to do a survey of the illegal alien population in Central California by the federal courts because of a claim that Hispanic were not properly represented in jury pool. I identified the problem with nearly 25% of the population not being U.S. citizens, but many did have green cards, but could not serve on juries. While doing this survey I discovered that by 1994, California had nearly 300,000 illegal alien children whose parents were here legally. What do you do with these children if they cannot attend school? If the parents are here legally, to whom would we deport the children? Once the parents got their green card, it was a seven year wait to legally immigrate the children from Mexico. That would be reduced to five years if the parents naturalized, but few of the parents learned English well enough to naturalize after 5 years.

      Two years later I had the opportunity to talk privately with Attorney General Janet Reno. She would have backed me in refusing to take action against the children if Proposition 187 had ever been declared legal. I am a Republican and I believe in law. However, I thought the proposition was unconstitutional, and not just because it differed from the Plyler v. Doe case. For that matter, so did my boss, the INS District Director in San Francisco, who also could articulate good reasons to oppose the proposition, but was not allowed to. Instead, stupid politicians opposed it saying it was racist. There was a much better argument to be made, but nobody made it. I even approached some Hispanic groups who campaigned against 187. They were not interested in my reasons. They were collecting large amounts of money from frightened Hispanics. The money would disappear if there was no reason for them to be afraid. Republicans wouldn't listen to me because it was all about winning. The polls showed voters believed their lies.
      In my above comments I referred to 120,000 parents of U.S. citizens naturalized each year - that should be immigrate each year.
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: