FWD>Clinton and National ID Copyright 1993 The Times Mirror Company Los Angeles Times August 15, 1993, Sunday, Home Edition SECTION: Business; Part D; Page 1; Column 2; Financial Desk LENGTH: 1025 words HEADLINE: JAMES FLANIGAN: BLAMING IMMIGRANTS WON'T SOLVE ECONOMIC WOES BYLINE: By JAMES FLANIGAN BODY: Immigration is a burning issue once again, with answers to perceived problems coming thick and fast from public officials -- notably the governor of California. But emotions outrun reason, and most people aren't even asking the right questions. Gov. Pete Wilson sent an open letter to President Clinton last week demanding that the federal government control U.S. borders because California is suffering the burden of illegal immigration. Wilson also proposed tamper-proof identity cards for immigrants, denial of health care, education and even citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, and that Mexican soldiers join the U.S. Border Patrol in forcing people back from the border at gunpoint. Much of what he said, unfortunately, was demagoguery -- changing laws on citizenship requires a Constitutional amendment, so lawyer Wilson's call was political rhetoric. But not everything Wilson said was grandstanding; on some matters, he had a point, although like almost everybody involved in the new debate on immigration, his complaints were misdirected. There are problems and social changes occurring in the U.S. economy, but immigrants, legal and illegal, are not the cause of them. Yet illegal immigration -- however great or small its actual numbers -- is a problem simply because it breaks the law. So we should solve our problems, not avoid them by making scapegoats of immigrants. To begin with, estimates vary incredibly about how big a "problem" illegal immigration is. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that 300,000 people enter the country illegally each year, but don't remain here. Illegal aliens go back and forth between Mexico and the United States, says the INS. The Clinton White House recently estimated that 3 million people live here illegally, from many nations -- China, Mexico, Ireland, Nigeria, India -- and in many parts of the country. That's less than half the widespread estimates, used by immigration critics, that more than 6 million illegals live in America. h Legal immigration has risen in recent years thanks to a change in federal law, but at 1.5 million immigrants a year, the rate is only half that of the 1900-1910 historic peak. In California, however, immigration is at peak rates, which helps account for this state's anxious reactions. The charge is that immigrants cost more in social services than they contribute in economic benefit. But that's more an argument about taxation than immigration. A study by Los Angeles County found that immigrants pay billions annually to the federal and state governments but little to the county, which provides hospital care and social services. The county's point, and one reason for Wilson's outburst last week, is that the federal government should pay more. "The federal government gets a free ride," says Georges Vernez, an immigration expert at Rand Corp. the research firm. Which is true, but that's not the immigrants' fault. The fact is, immigration answers needs in American society. If you don't believe that, ask yourself why immigrants keep coming to a slow U.S. economy -- and particularly to recession-bound California. The answer is they come for work. Skilled people the world over have an open invitation. American hospitals are still recruiting nurses from the Philippines, England and Ireland; draftsmen are brought from Europe, software programmers from India. Unskilled people too find work. Consider the growing number of elder care facilities in the United States, particularly those for elderly people disabled by Alzheimer's and other afflictions. They are staffed heavily by recent immigrants who owe their unglamorous jobs to social changes in American life. "We do not live in extended families, three generations in one house, as people in poorer countries do," explains Professor Leo Chavez of UC Irvine. We may be close as families but geographically separate, and so there is a growing need for elder care facilities and staff to work in them. Couldn't low-skilled people from America's inner cities do such jobs? Sure they could, so why doesn't U.S. society train and educate people in its inner cities and make sure they get such jobs? The answer is America's inner-city problem is a complex one of social neglect. But making scapegoats of immigrants won't solve it. Make no mistake, "America should control its borders, because lawlessness is always a problem," says Julian Simon, of the University of Maryland, a leading authority on immigration. Trouble is, most suggestions for controlling the border are unacceptable. Guns won't do it -- can you imagine the public outcry the first time U.S. or Mexican troops shoot down defenseless migrants? We could try an identity card, but surely our laws would demand that everyone carry such a card. And a country that has a hard time imposing minimal gun control won't soon have a national ID card. One way to gain border control and economic benefit would be to set up a system of flexible legal immigration that could bring people in when needed for a variety of jobs. Immigration experts say this might be along the lines of the bracero program that brought agricultural laborers from Mexico from wartime 1942 to 1964. The bracero program had faults and was criticized as a cheap-labor scheme, but a new system would have the advantage of being legal and less exploitative. Another solution, for our southern border, would be to work through the North American Free Trade Agreement to improve Mexico's economy and ease at least the economic pressures driving Mexico's people north. The ultimate point, though, is we'll get nowhere blaming our problems on immigrants, who have always come to this country just because it offers more opportunity for individual development than any other nation on earth. "Only in America," President Clinton said last week as he nominated Army Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, who came from Poland as a child, to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Shalikashvili will succeed Colin Powell, the son of immigrants from Jamaica. Only in America -- still true, and hopefully always true. Copyright 1993 Reuters, Limited August 13, 1993, Friday, AM cycle LENGTH: 329 words HEADLINE: CLINTON REPORTED LOOKING AT NATIONAL ID CARD DATELINE: LOS ANGELES BODY: President Clinton said in an interview published Friday that his administration is studying the feasibility of creating a tamper-proof national identity card aimed in part at preventing illegal immigrants from using government benefit programs. Though civil liberties groups have strongly opposed similar plans in the past, Clinton told the Los Angeles Times he now believed the idea "ought to be examined." But Clinton said he disagreed with a proposal presented earlier this week by California Gov. Pete Wilson for constitutional changes that would deny citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He said he was also against Wilson's recommendation that emergency medical treatment should be shut off to undocumented residents. Such a policy, he suggested, would create more problems than it solves. "None of us would tolerate just letting people die on the streets if it came to that," Clinton was quoted as saying. In the midst of a growing anti-immigrant backlash nationwide, Wilson Monday called for sweeping reforms in federal laws to help stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States. But immigrant rights advocates accused him of trying to make Mexican immigrants a scapegoat for his own failure to solve the state's crushing economic problems. Wilson's package included a proposed tamper-proof identity card, and Clinton's disclosure was the first indication that it was under consideration. Civil libertarians and even some conservatives have joined forces over the years to block the development of such a card, arguing that it would give the government too much control over individuals. Clinton acknowledged that "a lot of immigration groups and advocates have said that any kind of identification card like that sort of smacks of Big Brotherism." But he said the idea should be studied and that it is under discussion as part of the health care reform effort being headed by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Copyright 1993 The Times Mirror Company Los Angeles Times August 13, 1993, Friday, Home Edition SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Column 5; National Desk LENGTH: 1013 words HEADLINE: CLINTON DIFFERS WITH WILSON IDEAS ON IMMIGRATION; POLICY: PRESIDENT SAYS HE 'SYMPATHIZES' WITH GOVERNOR BUT THAT HE FAVORS A 'DIFFERENT TACK.' HOWEVER, HE REVEALS THAT ADMINISTRATION IS LOOKING AT THE USE OF ID CARDS. BYLINE: By DAVID LAUTER and JOHN BRODER, TIMES STAFF WRITERS DATELINE: OAKLAND BODY: Making his first public comments on Gov. Pete Wilson's calls for fundamental changes in the nation's immigration policies, President Clinton said Thursday that he "sympathizes" with Wilson's concerns about the impact illegal immigration is having on California "but I believe we ought to take a different tack." The federal government must toughen its enforcement of immigration laws, Clinton said, adding that his Administration is examining the feasibility of creating a tamper-proof national identity card which would be aimed, in part, at preventing illegal immigrants from taking advantage of government benefit programs, something Wilson also has advocated. Civil liberties groups have strongly opposed similar plans in the past. Clinton said, however, that he now believes the idea "ought to be examined." But, he said, "I don't think we should change the Constitution," as Wilson has suggested, to deny citizenship for children born here to parents who are in the country illegally. In addition, Clinton said, he disagrees with Wilson's suggestions to shut off emergency medical treatment for illegal immigrants. Such a policy, he suggested, would create more problems than it solves. He noted, for example, that "it is probably very much in everyone else's interest" to provide medical care to treat people who have communicable diseases. Moreover, he added, "none of us would tolerate just letting people die on the street if it came to that." Clinton's statements, in an interview with The Times on Air Force One as he traveled here after meeting with Pope John Paul II in Denver, marked his most extensive public discussion so far of future policy options on immigration -- an issue that White House advisers say they believe could become one of the most politically difficult for his presidency. His mention of a tamper-proof identification card was the first suggestion of a potentially far-reaching policy change. Groups advocating greater control of illegal immigration long have argued that the flourishing market in phony documents allows widespread fraudulent access to welfare and other government benefit programs. But civil liberties groups, along with many conservatives, have joined forces over the years to block any action toward developing a tamper-proof identification card, arguing that it potentially would give the government far too much control over individuals and likening such cards to the internal passports once required in the former Soviet Union. Clinton acknowledged those arguments. "I know that a lot of the immigration groups and advocates have said that any kind of identification card like that sort of smacks of Big Brotherism," he said. But, he continued, he believes that the idea should be examined and that it is under discussion as part of the health care reform effort being headed by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Health care task force aides have discussed the likelihood that a reform program would provide all Americans with "health security" cards that would guarantee health benefits to all. But so far, they have not widely discussed the possibility that such a concept would be linked with the more controversial issue of a tamper-proof identification card. Both in the interview and in his past statements on immigration, Clinton has tried to toe a careful line -- advocating a tougher set of policies to handle illegal immigration while assuring the Democratic Party's base of voters in minority communities that he remains committed to continuing legal immigration and the cultural diversity it brings. Over the long term, Clinton said, he continues to hope that the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada will reduce immigration pressure by improving the standard of living in Mexico and by improving development in that country so that fewer people feel compelled to migrate to the maquiladora zone near the U.S. border, where American-owned factories offer employment. In the shorter term, the only way to avoid having the immigration debate damage the nation's social fabric, Clinton argued, is for the government to begin demonstrating to citizens that it is taking real action to enforce the nation's immigration laws. If the government can achieve that, he said, politicians will find that "the rhetoric of calling for more extreme solutions may be of limited usefulness" to them. On the other hand, he warned, if the government is unable to "show some more discipline" in its control of illegal immigration, "I'm afraid the genie out of the bottle will be passion to shut off legal immigration. "This country has greatly benefited from its immigrants for 200 years," Clinton said, and should not allow "aversion to illegal immigration" to create an "aversion to legal immigration." California, in particular, will continue to benefit from its large immigrant population, he predicted. "There's no question that California will have a rebound," he said, once the state's huge defense and aerospace industries complete the economically painful shrinkage brought on by the end of the Cold War. Once that rebound begins, the President argued, the state will benefit by "being able to interface with more societies" in Asia and Latin America by virtue of its immigrant population. But while he has been careful to praise legal immigration, Clinton has been eager to portray his Administration as having "taken a much more aggressive posture on (illegal immigration)" than his predecessors did. Clinton noted, for example, that his budget included additional money to strengthen the Border Patrol and to help California cope with the impact of large numbers of illegal immigrants. Although several border states are facing major immigration-related problems, California clearly "is getting the biggest hit," he said. The President also pointed to his announcement earlier this summer of steps to control smuggling of illegal immigrants into the country by boat and to revamp the nation's troubled system for judging requests for asylum.