Our town - American Civil Liberties Union official Louis Guttentag's criticism of Bill Clinton's immigration policy - Editorial

We wonder if Mr. Guttentag can distinguish between a primitive fear and a reasonable anxiety, or if he even admits that the latter category can apply to immigration. If not, he is in good company. For thirty years the entire American establishment, on the Right as well as the Left, has been inclined to interpret any expression of concern about immigration as the primitive sound of suburban drums that herald impending Backlash. That establishment saw no need to examine whether immigration was actually proving advantageous to America, except perhaps to divert or discredit the aforesaid primitive fears. It contented itself with mouthing lofty platitudes about golden doors, melting pots, gorgeous mosaics, and an idea that was more than a nation. As a result immigration has gone from a modest benefit to a problem to a crisis.

NATIONAL REVIEW has been increasingly concerned about the extraordinary situation that has been developing since America's borders were opened once again by the 1965 Immigration Act. Last year, we broke with our more complacent conservative brethren by carrying a 14,000-word cover story, "Time to Rethink Immigration?" (available in reprint from NR, for $2 each) by Peter Brimelow, himself an immigrant, and a symposium in which Mr. Brimelow debated further with his critics. Recently, conservative columnists George Will and Don Feder were both generous enough to cite these stories in their own rethinking of immigration.

Now the Washington establishment, in the form of President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Attorney General Reno, and an honor guard of congressmen from both parties, has appeared at a press conference to certify that it's finally OK to talk about immigration - albeit ineffectually (see below). We take the opportunity to define our position more precisely.

The 1965 Immigration Act, and its amplifications in 1986 and 1990, have been a disaster and should be either repealed or reformed so substantially as to imitate repeal. Essentially, current U.S. law treats immigration as a sort of civil right extended to an arbitrarily selected, but endlessly ramifying, group of foreigners. This favored few - or, more accurately, many - must now be admitted virtually on demand. The interests of America simply do not count.

That must change. American policy should be shaped by the fact that, considered both economically and socially, immigration is a luxury for the U.S., not a necessity. In particular, the criterion of "family reunification" as the basis of an immigrant's right, of entry should be interpreted much more strictly - at present it sets off a chain reaction of arrivals by relatives who are distant in every sense - and limited by the overall national quotas. And because such a reform will take time as well as trouble, we should meanwhile impose a temporary moratorium on all immigration, as advocated by such diverse voices as FAIR (the Federation for American Immigration Reform) and California State Senator Art Torres, a Los Angeles Democrat.

We give one cheer for President Clinton's proposals. But they will soon be swept away by events. They are important only as the beginning of a long journey. His small increase in Border Patrol officers still leaves the service at about two-thirds the strength that Congress authorized, but never funded, in its 1986 and 1990 legislation. (Unfortunately, Mr. Clinton did not adopt Senator Dianne Feinstein's proposal to finance Border Patrol expansion by a user fee on border crossings - ominously, one theory is that he was afraid to upset the Mexican government.) His speeding up the asylum process at airports will reduce the scandal whereby thousands of claimants had to be released on their own recognizance, mostly never to reappear (cf. "The New Jet Set," by Ira Mehlman, NR, March 15). But the flow will simply be diverted - the speed-up does not apply to the great majority who seek asylum after entering the U. S. illegally. And the principle of asylum remains unquestioned, although the plain truth is daily getting plainer that the U. S. cannot be the lifeboat of the world.

Above all, however, President Clinton did not address the problem of legal immigration. Indeed, he specifically celebrated legal immigration with the usual resounding cliches ("Keeping the rainbow and the melting pot of America going and growing and enriching and strengthening this country"). Yet, while illegal immigration is certainly a crisis in areas like Southern California, legal immigration is much larger still. The net increase of illegal immigrants in the country is estimated at some 200,000 to 300,000 annually. But legal immigrants, refugees, and asylees verged on one million last year. And, because most legal immigrants come here under the family reunification provisions, this inflow is out of control too.

Senator Barbara Boxer made a painful point in commenting on Mr. Clinton's proposals: "Compared to President Bush, it's an enormous step." Tragically, this is true. Had the professedly pragmatic Bushies paid any attention to this issue at all - and they had only to listen to what primary challenger Pat Buchanan was saying - they would still be lolling about in government limousines.