Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 00:29:03 CST From: "jim blair" To: upardjc@dsdprod.meaddata.com,brockman@netcom.com, alt-politics-economics@cs.utexas.edu,alt-politics-greens@cs.utexas.edu Cc: BCc: Subject: The IMMIGRATION DEBATE on Firing Line The Immigration Debate on Firing Line There was a 2 hour debate on PBS last Friday (June 16) on the topic: Resolved Immigration into the US Should be Greatly Reduced. The "Pro" side team of four included Bill Buckley, Peter Brimelow (author of Alien Nation), Dan Stein (of Immigration Reform), and Arianna Huffington (the wife of Michael Huffington, who lost the recent Senate race in California). On the "Con" side was the President of Baird College (where the debate was held), Ed Koch, and Leon Botstein, for a total of 4 on each side. Although it did not raise many points not found in the "Sir Thomas Gresham & Proposition 187" thread on this newsgroup last fall/winter I found it interesting in several respects. IS IT ABOUT ECONOMICS?? Although both sides presented impressive studies about how immigrants either help or harm the economy, I think it clear that this debate is really not about economics. Mrs Huffington was the most forthright on this point. She pointed out that all 8 on the panel are rich enough that THEY ALL benefit from immigrants, legal OR illegal. "For us, immigrants mean cheaper domestic help and lots of nice ethnic restaurants," she said. "But for many Americans, the REAL people, immigrants are competition for jobs". Wow! Did the wrong Huffington run for that senate seat? OTHER INTERESTING POINTS Dan Stein raised the "environmental impact" question of a much larger US population that will result from maintaining high levels of immigration. (half of ALL the immigrants in the world now come to the US, and as much as half of US population growth is because of immigration). Do we NEED millions of additional people, he asked. NOTE: see the ZPG article on my homepage for more on this. On this last point, the con side was quite open in calling the restrictive immigration policies of European countries "racist". It was refreshing to hear the Europeans, usually held up as role models for the US, (which is usually denounced as unenlightened, socially backward and yes, racist) being called on their racism by American Liberals. Ed Koch emphasized the difference between LEGAL immigration (which he supports) and ILLEGAL which he opposes. He admitted that if he lived in California he would have voted FOR proposition 187. When the question of bilingual education and "multi-culturalism" came up, he replied that, based on his experience as Mayor of NY City, these are used to victimize immigrants. They come here because they WANT to learn English and become Americans. When they get here, it is the US education establishment and Dept. of Education that stands in their way. Don't blame the immigrants, he said: we should put a stop to this bilingual nonsense which is not the fault of the immigrants, and would be a problem even if there were NO immigrants. He says classes in English As A Second Language (ESL) are over flowing with immigrants trying to escape from bilingual education! STAY WITH WHAT HAS WORKED IN THE PAST The "pro" side emphasized that they are not opposed to immigrants in general but want to continue the historic pattern: high levels of immigration followed by restriction, to allow time to "digest" and assimilate the immigrants. After the high immigration of the early 20th century, immigration was restricted from 1924 to 1965. For the past 30 years it has been high, and it is time to digest, before the US divides into separate ethnic and language groups like so many other countries have. The question of assimilation was critical to the debate. The pro side said we need to stop immigration until the current immigrants are assimilated, and the con side said they ARE assimilating now. It would have been interesting to have asked both sides if this was their bottom line position: That is would, the anti-immigration side change their view (except for Stein) if it were demonstrated that immigrants ARE assimilating (in spite of the US Education dept)? And conversely, would the pro immigration side agree to a suspension if it were demonstrated that they are NOT?