THOIVISON ~

~

GALE

OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS® SERIES

Illegal Immigration Margaret Haerens, Book Editor

GREENHAVEN PRESS

An imprint of Thomson Gale, a part of The Thomson Corporation

Bonnie Szumski, Publisher Helen Cothran, Managing Editor

© 2006 Thomson Gale, a part of The Thomson Corporation.

Thomson and Star Logo are trademarks and Gale and Greenhaven Press are registered trade­marks used herein under license.

For more informa tion, contact: Greenhaven Press 27500 Drake Rd. Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535 Or you can visit our Internet site at http://www.gale.com

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means-graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, record­ing, taping, Web distribution, or information storage retrieval systems-without the written permission of the publisher.

Articles in Greenhaven Press anthologies are often edited for length to meet page require­ments. In addition, original titles of these works are changed to clearly present the main thesis and to explicitly indicate the author's opinion. Every effort is made to en~;jre that Greenhaven Press accurately reflects the original intent of the authors. Every effort hdS been made to trace the owners of copyrighted material.

Cover photograph reproduced by permission of Jeff Paris.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATlON DATA

Illegal immigration I Margaret Haerens, book editor. p. em. -- (Opposing viewpoints)

Includes bibliographical references and index. 0-7377-3356-X (lib. : alk. paper) 0-7377-3357-8 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Illegal aliens··United States. 2. United States--Emigration and immigration .. -Government policy. I. Haerens, Margaret. II. Opposing view­points series.

JV6483.152 2006 325.73--dc22

2005055049

THOIVISON ...L T

GALE

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 816 543 2 1

Detroit • New York • San FrancIsco • San Diego • New Haven, Conn Waterville, Maine • lOlldon • 'Munlch

Cabrillo College Library 6500 Soquel Dri_v:,..~n

VIEWPOINT

"If il11migration continues at 2.3 mil­lion per year, we won't have enough Arnericans to stalld lip for America."

Illegal Immigration Threatens America Frosty Wooldridge

III the following viewpoint, Frosty Wooldridge contends that a l1Iassive inflllx of illegal immigrants is creating social divisions and undermining America's culture and economy. He argues that these disruptions could lead to a civil war in America. Wooldridge is a journalist and author whose articles and op-eds have appeared in several newspapers and national and interna­tiollal magazilles. He is the author of Immigration's Unarmed

Invasion (2004).

As yOll read, consider the following questions:

I. What evidence does the author provide to support his

view that America is breaking up?

2. How would granting amnesty to illegal immigrants per­

petuate the immigration problem. according to Woold­

ridge?

3. In the author's view. why is the upcoming civil war go­

ing to start in California?

f'rnsty WC1nldridge. "The Coming Break Up of America: Parl I." The Washington Dis­/)(I1('h, .Inly 7. 2004. Copyright © 2005 by Frosty Wooldridge. All rights reserved. Re­produced hy permission.

20

Does Illegal Immigration Harm America?

H ave you ever noticed that it's 'we' average citizens who know what's going on long before politicians in high

places get wind of it? Have you noticed more and more people speaking different languages at the supermarket? Schools? Movies? At your local bank? Have you noticed radio stations and TV crackling with Spanish or other languages in our En­glish speaking America? Have you seen more people disre­specting the singing of our national anthem? Have you no­

ticed our laws being broken such as red lights being run or people fleeing accident scenes where they were the cause? Have you noticed more trash in our state and national parks, especially in California, Texas and Georgia?

Have you noticed more flags being flown from other coun­tries instead of Old Glory? Did you know that more Mexican flags fly from houses, cars and establishments in California more than the Stars and Stripes? Have you noticed what has happened to the Golden Bear State? Texas? Arizona? How about Georgia or Miami, Florida?

Have you ever been incredulous about hearing something that sounded so preposterous that it "couldn't be true"? Take a second look.

The Breakup of America

You are watching the "Coming Breakup of America." That's right. Your country. It is moving methodically, perversely, steadily and provocatively across our land. Our Congress is aiding it at the highest levels. It is a nation-destroying experi­ment being forced on America that will prove more disastrous than 9/11.

Last week [prior to July 7, 2004], I read a book, Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America by Thomas W. Chittum. This book paints a grim picture of what is happening to our country. At first, I was incredulous at his supposition. But halfway through the book, his research was so profound and SO evident that it became a page-turner. It provided a sicken­

21

lllegal l11l1lligratioll

ing look into the methodology and process whereby my own

country was being destroyed before my eyes.

"History is littered with wars which everybody knew would

never happen," said Enoch Powell. Today, America fights a war

10,000 Iniles away [in Iraq] while its own borders suffer an

invasion so vast, so powerful, so insidiously destructive, yet so

subtle-even our own citizens can't see it. Not yet, that is.

Chittuln writes, "America was born in blood." He should know

because he is a decorated Viet Nanl veteran.

"Social, political and economic forces are pulling America

apart and driving her toward a bloody conflict that may frac­

ture the nation into several different countries," he said. "Ri­

ots, gangs, nlilitias, exploding crime rates, massive ilnmigra­

tion, rising uneInployment, falling wages ... these fuel the

fires of war."

Nations Versus Empires

He talks about nations versus enlpires. "Empires consist of

peoples of different religions, languages, cultures, races and

nationalities," he said. "Nations are dominated by one group

that makes up a tnajority of the population. Nations are in­herently stable while enlpires are always unstable."

If you look around the United States, we were a stable na­

tion before 1965 with a population IllOStly of European and African citizens and mostly one religion. Today, we've im­

ported 60 million people froln areas so incompatible with American culture that we recoil at the horrors of female geni­

tal Inutilation froIll Middle Easterners, polygaIlly of Hmong illl111igrants, honor killings frorn Asia, forced 13 year old girls

into 111arriages and 300 different languages. Los Angeles, Mi­anli, San Francisco and other cities speak Illore foreign lan­

guages than English. "If you'll notice throughout history," he

writes, "multiethnic elllpires break up in cataclyslllic violence."

T'he forIller Soviet Union and Yugoslavia are classic examples

Does Illegal Imnligration Harm Alnerica?

Illegal Immigration and Population Growth

Illegal imlnigration ... contributes to the dralnatic popula­

tion growth overwhelnling conlnlunities across Alnerica­

crowding school classrooms, consulning already linlited af­fordable housing, and increasing the strain on precious natural resources like water, energy, and forestland. The im­

migration authorities estilnate that the population of illegal aliens is increasing by an estilnated half nlillion people an­nually.

Federation for A111ericClll lt11171igrCltiol1 Refonn, ((Illeg{111111111igratiol1

Is ([ Crinlc," March 2005.

of multiethnic empires that shattered in tribal violence. 'Today, France is on the sanle track of self-destruction.

Chittum talks about an unstable, tiered society. Aristotle said, (l'he only stable state is the one in which all nlen are equal

before the law." As any average Anlerican citizen can see, we're developing a nlassive underclass of illegal, Third World, un­

educated poor that have beconle our 'indentured servants.' They won't remain down on the farnl for long.

Anlerica supports 13 Inillion illegal aliens that have no al­

legiance to our country. A dozen cities feature more foreign­born iIlllnigrants than American citizens. Last year [2003],

800,000 Californians fled their state. Over 200 Spanish­speaking radio stations own the airwaves in Los Angeles. Mi­

ami features over 100 Cuban stations. None have any alle­giance to An1erica.

The Problem of Amnesty

How ,\Till it get worse? Our politicians Inay grant anlnesty to that 13 Illillion which will encourage another 13 111illion.

22 23

lliegal 1111nligratioll

l~here are so l1lany illegal aliens that they hide more illegal aliens via 'ethnic synlpathy.' But what they bring us is as dan­gerous as any arlned invasion.

As their nUlnbers grow, they are aided by the Mexican Anlerican Legal l)efense and Education Fund. La Raza, an­other anti-Alnerican lv1exican organization, works directly for the overthrow of Anlerica. LULAC is another group that sup­ports the 'Reconquista of Aztlan,' or, the retaking of the Ameri­can South\vest back into Mexico.

Notice that Mexican president [Vicente J Fox dictates to our leaders what they will do with his 13 Inillion illegal irn111i­grants in our country. Notice 46 Mexican consulates in our cities around Anlerica supporting his people in our country. Notice voter fraud by illegal aliens now able to throw our lo­cal and national elections.

After three chapters, Chittlun's writing sobered nle, but I still \V'15n't convinced until he offered concrete nunlbers. "In (=alifornia in 1993, 665,229 firearlns were sold. That's 1,873 per day. Enough firearlns were sold to equip an infantry bat­talion." For the Californians remaining, there's a lot of fright­ened people readying thelTIselves for conf1ict.

"C:alifornia is odds-on favorite to kick off Civil War II," Chittunl said.

Immigrant Gangs

uThe instinctive need to be a Illelnber of a closely-knit group fighting for COlnnlon ideals nlay grovv so strong that it be­conles inessential what these ideals are," said Konrad Lorenz. Illegal Mexican border jUlllpers separate against being an Anlerican. 'The 20,000 nle111ber "18th Street Gang" in Los An­geles owns the streets. They coordinate all drug traffic, extor­tions of businesses, prostitutes and robberies. l~heir power, along with MS-13 gangs in 28 Anlerican cities, grows by the day. Over 60 percent of the l1len1bers are illegal aliens and the other 40 percent are legal inlnligrants. Since they possess no

Does Illegal Immigration Hann America?

working skills in our First World society, they find crilne as an easier vocation. It's terlued 'Third World MOlllentunl.' Its cor­ruption is so deep, so wide and so enlbedded that it's as in­trinsic as the sewer systems in those cities.

How many and how much? Los Angeles sheriff files regis­ter 100,000 gang members. San Antonio features 5,000 gang members. Chicago estiluates 50,000 melnbers. Fornler Attor­ney General Janet Reno estimated over 500,000 gang nlelnbers have imported themselves into the USA. l~hey COlllIllit an av­erage of 580,000 crimes annually in our country.

So why do our politicians sit and twiddle their thunlbs? Why do they aid and abet by doing nothing? Can't they see what's happening to California? 1exas? Arizona? 'The ansvver in a nutshell: No!

Why? Because Americans, like the proverbial frog being thrown into the pot of water and the stove being turned up to high, will keep adapting until 'rYe boil to death. The sanle thing happened to the Romans, French, Spanish and every other great nation that tumbled into the dustbin of history. Spain backed into submission by the Madrid train bonlbing. France stands on the doorstep of a crisis it won't be able to contain.

I never thought I would have to fight for nlY own country inside my own country. But the tinle is fast approaching. Chittum adds that if inlnligration continues at 2.3 rnillion per year, we won't have enough Americans to stand up for Alnerica.

24 25

VIEWPOINT

"None of the clainlS l11ade by conser­vatives to inveigh against irnlnigra­tion hold up to scrutiny."

Illegal Immigration Does Not Threaten America Ti,n Wise

]'i111 Wise is an activist and author of (-;reat White Hoax: Re­

sponding to the Politics of White Nationalism. In the folloltving viclvpoillt he responds to several of the claims nlade by critics of il1lJnigratioll. (~ontrary to the assertions 01- these anti­inl1nigration .forces, he argues, illegal j,111nigrants are not taking advantage o.f the vve~fare systelrl and are not to blaIne for high rates 01- violent cri111C in Anzcrican cities. tVise concludes that 1nost o}- the argunzents 1rzade by anti-inlmigration activists are based in racis1rl.

As you read, consider the following questions:

]. What evidence does the author present to show that the

influx of illegal aliens has been exaggerated?

2. What flaws does the author identify in the study by

Donald Huddle'?

3. How does NAFTA contribute to the illegal inlmigration

prohleln. according to Wise?

Tim Wise. "Defending the Unwelcome Stranger: The Truth Ahollt Immigration:' LIP ;\1(/,1;0:i17(', September 26, 2004. Copyright © 2004 hy LIP Magaz.ine. Reproduced by permission of the puhlisher and author.

Does Illegal Immigration Harnl America?

Before Septenlber 11, before the Patriot Act, before the lat ­

est round of racial profiling at airports, in which Arabs or

those suspected of being Arab have been subjected to height­

ened scrutiny as potential terrorists, life was already difficult

enough for inlmigrants of color to the United States.

In 1994, California voters approved Prop 187, the purpose

of which had been to lilnit if not elilninate a wide array of in­

come support, educational and health care benefits to so­

called "illegal aliens." Although n10st of the law's provisions

have been effectively blocked by the courts, the anti-inlnligrant

backlash signified by the election result nlade clear that to be

an inlInigrant to this country at this tin1e was to be a suspect.

If not suspected of terrorisnl, being an il11migrantwas to

be suspected of laziness, taking advantage of welfare pro­

grams, overburdening social services and health care facilities,

lowering the quality of education \tVith denlands for bilingual

instruction, or even worse, driving the drug trade and con­

tributing heavily to the nation's crime probleln.

But as with the overreaction to Arabs and Muslinls so

prevalent after Septelnber 11 th, so too are the stereotypes,

fears, and assunlptions about inlnligrants frOlTI Latin Anlerica,

the Caribbean, Africa and Asia false. When subjected to scru­

tiny, the reactionary ravings of white suprenlacist groups and

even Inainstreanl conservatives are shown to be wholly unsup­

ported.

Exaggerated Claims

In this tin1e of renewed Nativist illlpulses, perhaps vve would

do well to revisit sonle of the nlore traditional anti-inlInigrant

rhetoric, so as to denl0nstrate the fallacies that pernleate the

discourse and restore some sanity, not to 111ention accuracy to

the debate over this in1portant issue.

To begin with, the supposed "alien invasion" has been

greatly exaggerated. A recent study by delnographers in the

U.S. and Mexico City found that the nUlnbers of illegal ilnmi­

26 27

Illegal 1111111igratiol1

grants entering the U.S. is only about 105,000 per year, as op­posed to the n1illions clain1ed by anti-ilTIlTIigrant forces.

(Jther estinlates place the total nunlber of undocu111ented entrants into the U.S. at no more than 300,000 annually­even then a far cry fron1 the proclanlations of anti-immigrant groups. What's 11l0re, the population of undocunlented en­trants into the U.S. has re111ained constant as a share of the national population for over t\VO decades, at no rnore than two percent.

Myths About Immigrallts, Welfare, and the Economy As for in1n1igrant use of vvelfare benefits, undocumented work­ers and their fanlilies are not eligible for cash welfare or food stanlps. 'They are only eligible for elnergency lTIedical assis­tance, prenatal care and educational benefits, all of which are considered worth providing so as to reduce health emergen­cies, epidenlics and the social proble111s associated with lack of schooling.

In fact, a proper analysis of welfare receipt rates shows that illl1nigrants are not nlore likely than native-born resi­dents to receive ,velfare. Excluding enlergency refugees (who are eligible for several types of assistance in virtually any country to which they escape), recent inlmigrants receive pub­lic aid at lower rates than the native-born and ilTImigrant use of welfare has been decreasing for over twenty years.

Contrary to COllllTIOn perception, today's inlmigrants (largely of color) are actually less likely to receive assistance than were the European ilnnligrants of the early 1900s. Over half of all welfare recipients in 1909 \vere in11nigrants, and these inl111igrants were three times nlore likely to receive assis­tance than the native-born.

As for the cost of ilnnligration to the public sector, rather than draining taxpayer coffers, inln1igrants actually contribute positively to the econonlic health of the United States; indeed,

Does Illegal Imlnigration I-fann America?

A Nation of Immigrants

Immigration is not undernlining the Anlerican experinlent;

it is an integral part of it. We are a nation of inlnligrants.

Successive waves of inlmigrants have kept our country de­

mographically young, enriched our culture and added to

our productive capacity as a nation, enhancing our influ­ence in the world.

Daniel T. Griswold, Insight on the Ne\vs, February 18, 2002.

recent immigrants create a net surplus to the public sector of nearly $30 billion annually, according to the Urban Institute.

Data from New York State-with the second largest inllni­grant population in the nation-shows that the foreign born population there pays about $18 billion in taxes each year, with a per capita tax paynlent that is hardly distinguishable from their native-born counterparts. Even those inlrnigrants who are in New York illegally (only 160/0 of inlnligrants in the state) pay over $1 billion annually in taxes.

In California-home to 43% of illegal in1111igrants in the U.S.-undocumented workers contribute approxilnately seven percent of the state's econolnic product: roughly $63 billion annually. According to a study by researchers at UCLA, the gross economic contribution by each illegal inlnligrant to the economy of California was nearly $45,000 per year.

Given that the average undocun1ented worker receives very low wages-typically less than $10,000 arl11ually-this nleans that even with paltry social service benefits available to these immigrants, the net transfer of incolne is exactly the opposite of that inlplied by in1nligrant bashers. Instead of the state and nation subsidizing imnligrants, it is nlore accurate to say that ilTImigrants subsidize the econonlY and the con1panies for

28 29

Illegal l11unigratioll

which they \vork by perfornling ]O\"T-wage labor that is worth

at least four tiIlles Inore, on average, than what they earn fronl inconle and welfare cornbined.

A Flawed Study

'The study nlost often cited to "prove" the high cost of irllrlli­

grants relative to the taxes they pay vvas conducted by Donald

Huddle, of l\ice University, on behalf of the anti-inlI11igration

group, (~arrying Capacity Net\vork. Yet further analysis of the

Huddle study by researchers at the Urban Institute revealed several flaws which underIlline its conclusions.

While Huddle clain1ed that in1nligrants cost U.S. public

co ffers $42 bill ion ann u aIIy, this n u Inbe r wa s ar rive d at

through a terribly tla\ved n1ethodology. First, Huddle was bas­

ing his clain1s on one study of Los Angeles County, which he

then extrapolated to the nation as a \vhole, despite significant

differences in the costs associated with inln1igration in differ­

ent parts of the country, and the different incon1es earned by

inl111igrants across the nation. Indeed, Huddle's underestin1a­

tion of in1lnigrant incoIl1e \vas so extren1e, that he n1iscalcu­

lated the an10unt of taxes paid by these in1n1igrants by roughly $21.3 billion.

T'hen, by ignoring altogether the FICA taxes (Social

Security), unenlploynlent insurance taxes, and gasoline taxes

paid by inln1igrants, I-1uddle further underestinlated the tax

pay111ents of inl111igrants by an additional $29 billion. 'These

t\VO 11listakes alone (and there were others) torpedo Huddle's

conclusion-that in1111igrants are a net drain on the nation's

econo111y-by indicating that taxes paid by immigrants are

higher than the anl0unt they cost the country in public ex­penditll res.

TIle Real Parasites

()f course there is a bitter irony in the clain1 that inl1nigrants

seek to take advantage of the U.S. \velfare systenl; narrlely, if

Does Illegal Immigration Harm America?

anything, it is U.S. corporations whose desire to take advan­

tage of trade agreements and labor in exploited nations has

led to the flow of immigrants to the U.S. in the first place.

For exaluple, as a result of trade agreen1ents that open up

Mexico and Latin America for U.S. corporate penetration,

companies have moved south of the border in search of low­

wage labor and intent on developing 111arkets for exports, es­

pecially in agriculture. As a result of the shift from local sub­

sistence farming to profit-oriented corporate agriculture,

Mexican peasants are driven off the land, at \vhich time they

head for Mexican cities in search of jobs. But the lack of jobs

in the cities and large pool of unemployed labor there-which

allows employers to drive down wages since workers are des­

perate-then results in a strea111 of workers from the Iv1exican

cities into the United States.

Current research estiluates that over 300,000 Mexican farn1

workers have lost their jobs due toNAFTA [the North An1eri­

can Free Trade Agreement], thereby fueling the desperate rush

for the U.S. border in search of subsistence. In fact, if anyone

is taking advantage or "sponging" off of others, it is the AlTleri­

can corporations who run to Mexico where low \vages and

non-existent environillental laws allow them to save as llluch

as $25,000 per worker compared to what they would have to

pay in the United States.

Myths About Immigration and Crime

As for criminality, it appears that in1migrants only pick up

these bad habits after being in the country a while. A study at

the University of North Carolina found that it is only after

in1migrant families become n10re "Anlericanized" that they ex­

perience dramatic increases in drug use, weapons use, violence

and sexual promiscuity.

Indeed, Mexican ilnn1igrants have drug abuse rates that

are only half as high as their U.S.-born, l\1exican Anlerican

counterparts, indicating that it is acculturation and An1erican­

30 31

Illegal Inl1lligratioll

ization, not inlnligration, which presents the larger problerll.

Studies have found that immigrants nearly always exhibit

lo\ver criine rates than native-born persons, and there is sim­

ply no evidence to indicate that as illlinigrants move into an

area crune goes up.

Evidence fro 111 Mianli-a large city with a substantial

nUInber and percentage of Latino and Caribbean irnmigrants,

and the largest percentage of Latino residents of any large

county in the U.S.-indicates how fla\ved the "immigration

brings 1110re Cri111e" argllInent really is. Despite the city's large

presence of illl111igrants, the fact renlains that Cubans, Jamai­

cans~ and t1aitians are actually less likely to be involved in ho­

Il1icides than the native-born, and as the rate of Latino immi­

gration to Miall1i increased in the 1980s, the murder rate

there actually declined.

J-Iaitian inl111igrants, in fact, typically commit Illurder less

often than \vhites and have the lowest rate of homicides of

any ethnic group in Miami. Likevvise, there are no significant

differences in the rates of hornicides between Latinos and

\vhites in Mianli. While it is true that Miami led the nation in

terrns of its honlicide rate throughout most of the 1980s, this

\vas also the case in the late 1940s and early 1950s, long before

the irnnligration explosion that \vould transform the town in

nlore recent decades.

Dreamillg of a White Nation

Ultinlately, ho\vever, the battle over inlmigration is not about Inoney, welfare progranls, language or criIne: it is about the desire by a large segnlent of the U.S. citizenry to define what it nleans to be an "American" in explicitly racial terlns. Not only do such persons fail to recognize Alnerica as a continent, vvhich includes the very dark-skinned neighbors to the South they so fear, but they also fail to conceive of the u.S. as any­thing less than a \vhite nation.

Does Illegal Immigration Harm America?

Of course, such a racialized conception of the United States is intriguing, precisely because this country, unlike many oth­ers, has long been a n1ultiracial, lnulticultural land, which would be unrecognizable as the nation it is today but for the contributions of people of color froln distant and not so dis­tant shores.

From the beginning of conquest and colonization of the Arnericas, the land that is now the u.S. was always rnultiracial. Not only \vere there millions of indigenous Anlerican Indians, representing over two hundred separate nations, but the nunl­bers of African slaves often equaled or even surpassed the numbers of "free whites" in 111any cOlnnlunities, particularly in the south.

Until the massive increase in European iminigration be­ginning in the mid-1800s and lasting until the 1920s, people of color were a substantial portion of the population in Illany COITIITIUnities as nluch as a third or Inore. Only by changing the inherent makeup of United States deITIography via "white" nligration did the u.s. become 90% ,vhite in the 1950s.

In the final analysis, none of the clailns n1ade by conserva­tives to inveigh against in1nligration hold up to scrutiny: in1­migrants are no n10re and perhaps less likely to receive public assistance than the native-born, they are no more and often less likely to engage in serious crin1inal activity; and ulti­mately' their desire to live in the U.S.-especially given the anti-ilnmigrant backlash of recent years-is testanlent to noth­ing so nluch as their desire to take advantage of the greater opportunities still available here, relative to the places froll1 whence they come.

Of course, a few more years of Bushanonlics nlight \vell renledy the situation: after all, if there aren't any jobs being created, no one will want to conle to the United States.

32 33