Ted Kennedy's Immigration Legacy -- and why did he do it?

[Danno 1,228]

Ted Kennedy's Immigration Legacy -- and why did he do it?

By Roy Beck, Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 10:22 AM

I was dining in downtown Boston with a long-time acquaintance of Teddy Kennedy at the very time the Senator died a week ago. We had discussed what had caused Kennedy to pursue immigration policies that so fundamentally changed America. I got the news when I awoke the next morning to the Massachusetts TV stations doing their eulogies. I decided to wait until after burial to share my thoughts.

Since NumbersUSA is a truly non-partisan and non-ideological organization, I want to choose my words carefully because so many of our members absolutely hated Kennedy while many others of our members truly loved many of Kennedy's policies (although fully disagreeing with him on immigration).

The first group saw his immigration policies as emblematic of a Kennedy inclination to destroy the America as they loved it. The second group saw his immigration policies as an aberration that fatally undermined what they saw as many wonderful Kennedy initiatives to improve America.

Whichever it was -- or something in between -- Ted Kennedy's immigration policies have destroyed the ability of the United States to be an environmentally sustainable nation in any decade soon because of the gigantic U.S. population growth that he has forced.

And Ted Kennedy's immigration policies have knocked hundreds of thousands of Americans out of the middle class as their occupations have collapsed and wages declined because of inundation with Kennedy's favored foreign workers, or because they have directly lost their jobs to foreign competitors.

HE WAS AN EXCEPTIONALLY SKILLFUL OPPONENT

For those of us desiring the traditional lower numerical immigration that, ironically, Pres. John Kennedy had advocated in his A Nation of Immigrants book, it was our great misfortune that the person leading our opponents in pursuing ever-higher numbers these last 45 years was perhaps the most skillful Senator of the last half-century in getting things done his way.

Ted Kennedy surely was one of the most influential Senators in our history.

His influence on immigration alone brought more change to America than the work of any other Senator during my lifetime.

Just as a reminder, let's make a short list of the immigration policies that Kennedy and his extremely talented staff put into effect:

* The 1965 revamp of the entire immigration system. It ended 40 years of low immigration, got rid of solid numerical caps and opened up chain migration into every overpopulated country in the world, exploding annual immigration numbers.

* Massive expansion of the refugee programs in the late 1970s, opening up massive loopholes and encouraging a domestic resettlement industry that became a major lobby for more and more overall immigration.

* The 1986 blanket amnesty. Kennedy's skills may have been best seen here where he got legislators on our side to agree to the amnesty in exchange for enforcement rules that he made sure were written in a way that would not work. Within a decade, he would be using the inability to enforce the 1986 rules as an excuse for why we needed more green cards and more amnesties. An example of Kennedy's great skill was that he persuaded Ronald Reagan to enthusiastically support this bill.

* The 1990 immigration act, which increased overall immigration by another 35%. The first Pres. Bush was Kennedy's co-partner, just as the second Pres. Bush was Kennedy's eager co-partner in trying to force through another blanket amnesty 2001-2008.

* The 1990 act also established the lottery whereby we randomly give away 50,000 green cards a year to people in countries picked because they have the least ties and cultural association with the United States, and which disproportionately are terrorist-sponsoring countries. This was something of a compromise for Kennedy who was able to ensure that during the first few years, much of the lottery winners would be illegal aliens from Ireland -- his own ethnic group.

* The H-1B visas which have enabled corporations to keep hundreds of thousands of American kids from getting a foothold in the high tech industry.

* The total defeat of liberal civil rights champion Barbara Jordan's blue-ribbon commission recommendations to reduce overall immigration and eliminate chain migration and the lottery in 1996.

* Six mini-amnesties that passed in the 1990s, primarily aimed at specific nationalities.

BUT YOU BEAT HIM REPEATEDLY SINCE 2000

As depressing as his immigration victories are to contemplate, you should feel some comfort in the fact that he was totally a failure after the year 2000 in expanding his immigration dream still further.

Every year since 2000, Sen. Kennedy pushed an amnesty. Every year, he pushed increases in foreign workers.

But every year, Sen. Kennedy's efforts were stopped by public pressure.

I believe an important reason for that was that during the late 1990s, NumbersUSA was building a counter-force. Under Jim Robb's foresight, we created an innovative internet grassroots mobilization system and raised an ever-expanding army. And Capitol Hill veteran Rosemary Jenks had gone to Kennedy's territory to get her law degree from Harvard. She arrived back in Washington in August of 2001 and set up our Capitol Hill offices and operations.

After 25 years of almost always getting his way on immigration, Ted Kennedy's power and influence were checked after August 2001.

But his power has still been strong enough to prevent us from success in rolling back the destructive immigration policies he put in place from 1965 through 2000.

While he no longer was able to accelerate the change, his continuing immigration policies every year make the quality of life in the United States worse. Until we change those policies, Ted Kennedy's immigration legacy will continue to deteriorate our American dreams of economic justice and environmental sustainability and individual liberty.

Snip......

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog...d-he-do-it.html

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Did he force the 15 million illegals to come here or did he want people to do it legally? I'll bet more people are here illegally than those that came here as the results of his immigration work.

[Danno 1,228]

Did he force the 15 million illegals to come here or did he want people to do it legally? I'll bet more people are here illegally than those that came here as the results of his immigration work.

Ill offer a little guess-work.

Knowing the danger and exploitation, I doubt he "want's people to come here Illegally, but once they are here, he does everything to keep'em and add'em to his other tally.

One angle the writer did not seem to touch on (or maybe I missed it) was the oft cited reason:

Dems are using immigration to build an unbeatable voter base dependent on Govt Programs.

Very few Immigrants I have known embrace smaller Govt.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Did he force the 15 million illegals to come here or did he want people to do it legally? I'll bet more people are here illegally than those that came here as the results of his immigration work.

Ill offer a little guess-work.

Knowing the danger and exploitation, I doubt he "want's people to come here Illegally, but once they are here, he does everything to keep'em and add'em to his other tally.

One angle the writer did not seem to touch on (or maybe I missed it) was the oft cited reason:

Dems are using immigration to build an unbeatable voter base dependent on Govt Programs.

Very few Immigrants I have known embrace smaller Govt.

Do you really think it's to build voter base for the Dems? I guess it may be, but IMHO, that's pretty lame if it's true. Personally I have a problem with amnesty after all I went thru to get my wife here. But I imagine that's what's going to happen sooner rather than later. Also, IMHO, I think any legal immigrant should be in an uproar over amnesty.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Did he force the 15 million illegals to come here or did he want people to do it legally? I'll bet more people are here illegally than those that came here as the results of his immigration work.

Ill offer a little guess-work.

Knowing the danger and exploitation, I doubt he "want's people to come here Illegally, but once they are here, he does everything to keep'em and add'em to his other tally.

One angle the writer did not seem to touch on (or maybe I missed it) was the oft cited reason:

Dems are using immigration to build an unbeatable voter base dependent on Govt Programs.

Very few Immigrants I have known embrace smaller Govt.

And yet, you bring a spouse here from Russia? How dare you water down our great nation Danno? Or is it 'other' immigrants who are bad?

[Danno 1,228]

Did he force the 15 million illegals to come here or did he want people to do it legally? I'll bet more people are here illegally than those that came here as the results of his immigration work.

Ill offer a little guess-work.

Knowing the danger and exploitation, I doubt he "want's people to come here Illegally, but once they are here, he does everything to keep'em and add'em to his other tally.

One angle the writer did not seem to touch on (or maybe I missed it) was the oft cited reason:

Dems are using immigration to build an unbeatable voter base dependent on Govt Programs.

Very few Immigrants I have known embrace smaller Govt.

And yet, you bring a spouse here from Russia? How dare you water down our great nation Danno? Or is it 'other' immigrants who are bad?

My friend your line of argument is so weak it's laughable.

Immigration of direct family members has always been part of our nations immigration practice.

K-1 type immigration has a long history too.

Are you stacking that type of immigration against whats going on today?

We even have a "visa lottery" which randomly awards 50,000 lucky winners a year a green card for no logical reason.

This never ending Chain Migration is another run away train which needs to stop.

You import one person and within a few decades you have brought the whole village over.

I'm all for people bringing their Spouse or children over but Inlaws are another story because if "family reunification" is the goal, there is always someone left behind as the circle grows wider and wider.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Did he force the 15 million illegals to come here or did he want people to do it legally? I'll bet more people are here illegally than those that came here as the results of his immigration work.

Ill offer a little guess-work.

Knowing the danger and exploitation, I doubt he "want's people to come here Illegally, but once they are here, he does everything to keep'em and add'em to his other tally.

One angle the writer did not seem to touch on (or maybe I missed it) was the oft cited reason:

Dems are using immigration to build an unbeatable voter base dependent on Govt Programs.

Very few Immigrants I have known embrace smaller Govt.

And yet, you bring a spouse here from Russia? How dare you water down our great nation Danno? Or is it 'other' immigrants who are bad?

My friend your line of argument is so weak it's laughable.

Immigration of direct family members has always been part of our nations immigration practice.

K-1 type immigration has a long history too.

Are you stacking that type of immigration against whats going on today?

We even have a "visa lottery" which randomly awards 50,000 lucky winners a year a green card for no logical reason.

This never ending Chain Migration is another run away train which needs to stop.

You import one person and within a few decades you have brought the whole village over.

I'm all for people bringing their Spouse or children over but Inlaws are another story because if "family reunification" is the goal, there is always someone left behind as the circle grows wider and wider.

Did you not bring an immigrant here? How is your clear anti-immigration stance not at odds with you bringing an immigrant here? After all, K-1, K-3 or any immigrant arriving here is one more non-American on our precious soil. Eating our food, breathing our precious American oxygen, and changing our cultural make up. So again, I ask, is it only immigrants who are not your wife who are bad?

Really can't be both ways. And it appears weak, or perhaps illogical is a better word, for you to be so anti-immigrant, yet have an immigrant spouse.

Is there no one in your wife's family she wishes could be here too? Wanting your family to be with you after you immigrate is quite understandable.

Are you not a rabid anti-immigrant? You seem to be after having posted so many threads which are anti-immigration in nature. One gets the impression now that your wife is here, you think it is time to close America's doors.

[Danno 1,228]

Did he force the 15 million illegals to come here or did he want people to do it legally? I'll bet more people are here illegally than those that came here as the results of his immigration work.

Ill offer a little guess-work.

Knowing the danger and exploitation, I doubt he "want's people to come here Illegally, but once they are here, he does everything to keep'em and add'em to his other tally.

One angle the writer did not seem to touch on (or maybe I missed it) was the oft cited reason:

Dems are using immigration to build an unbeatable voter base dependent on Govt Programs.

Very few Immigrants I have known embrace smaller Govt.

And yet, you bring a spouse here from Russia? How dare you water down our great nation Danno? Or is it 'other' immigrants who are bad?

My friend your line of argument is so weak it's laughable.

Immigration of direct family members has always been part of our nations immigration practice.

K-1 type immigration has a long history too.

Are you stacking that type of immigration against whats going on today?

We even have a "visa lottery" which randomly awards 50,000 lucky winners a year a green card for no logical reason.

This never ending Chain Migration is another run away train which needs to stop.

You import one person and within a few decades you have brought the whole village over.

I'm all for people bringing their Spouse or children over but Inlaws are another story because if "family reunification" is the goal, there is always someone left behind as the circle grows wider and wider.

Did you not bring an immigrant here? How is your clear anti-immigration stance not at odds with you bringing an immigrant here? After all, K-1, K-3 or any immigrant arriving here is one more non-American on our precious soil. Eating our food, breathing our precious American oxygen, and changing our cultural make up. So again, I ask, is it only immigrants who are not your wife who are bad?

Really can't be both ways. And it appears weak, or perhaps illogical is a better word, for you to be so anti-immigrant, yet have an immigrant spouse.

Is there no one in your wife's family she wishes could be here too? Wanting your family to be with you after you immigrate is quite understandable.

Are you not a rabid anti-immigrant? You seem to be after having posted so many threads which are anti-immigration in nature. One gets the impression now that your wife is here, you think it is time to close America's doors.

Your post sounds like a person off meds (seriously)

Because I am against unreasonable immigration does not mean I am against ALL immigration.

I don't want to "close the door" of immigration but I do want to reduce the flood back down to a flow.

And no, there is no one in my wifes family i want to bring here, after all if I were to bring a bother or sister or parent, they would be leaving behind others as well and want to bring them too, and this chain migration never stops.

Now the law is, what it is right now and I don't blame anyone who "takes advantage" of it but we must realize the folly in basing immigration laws around the comfort and happiness of foreigners and not what is good for our country.

[Heracles 417]

Did you not bring an immigrant here? How is your clear anti-immigration stance not at odds with you bringing an immigrant here? After all, K-1, K-3 or any immigrant arriving here is one more non-American on our precious soil. Eating our food, breathing our precious American oxygen, and changing our cultural make up. So again, I ask, is it only immigrants who are not your wife who are bad?

Really can't be both ways. And it appears weak, or perhaps illogical is a better word, for you to be so anti-immigrant, yet have an immigrant spouse.

Is there no one in your wife's family she wishes could be here too? Wanting your family to be with you after you immigrate is quite understandable.

Are you not a rabid anti-immigrant? You seem to be after having posted so many threads which are anti-immigration in nature. One gets the impression now that your wife is here, you think it is time to close America's doors.

I don't agree with that, as do not many (if any) other OECD nations out there. There is a huge distinction between legal and illegal aliens.

There are a few basic reasons that come to mind:

• Allowing anyone to enter a country is a huge risk, since you have no idea who is entering. Convicted killers, child rapist, you name it really.
• It prevents equitable and controlled immigration; as is the case in the US where a finite number of nationalities make up the majority of illegal aliens. Which is technically racist.
• There are a range of health risks for everyone else associated with people entering illegally.
• It's not fair for those who have entered a nation through the proper legal channels and have been screened accordingly
• It allows citizens of other nations to decide when and where they can enter rather than the country.
• It puts undue strain on a country's resources and does nothing to assist a nations poor.

That is not anti-immigration, that is common sense. America is not a country with bottomless resources to feed everyone. As we speak, you have over 15,000,000 people unemployed and over 50,000,000 people living in poverty. You have the worst recession since the depression; with many of the 15,000,000 Americans having lost everything and are living in their cars. Where families have been thrown out on the street. It is disgraceful that some are actually advocating America still look after another nation's poor while abandon the need and desperation of their own. You will not find one OECD country that would accept that.

Various OECD countries that have not even been hit as hard by this recession have cut back their immigration quotas to protect their citizens. However, you are advocating America do nothing and just let more and more unskilled poor come in from the southern border. Sorry but that is ridiculous by any stretch. I think you guys have a misguided concept of compassion regarding immigration.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Booyah!

[justashooter 430]

One angle the writer did not seem to touch on (or maybe I missed it) was the oft cited reason:

Dems are using immigration to build an unbeatable voter base dependent on Govt Programs.

Very few Immigrants I have known embrace smaller Govt.

bingo, we have a winner!

[mawilson 2,133]

Dems are using immigration to build an unbeatable voter base dependent on Govt Programs.

Very few Immigrants I have known embrace smaller Govt.

Funny, most immigrants I know (myself included) are against big Gov't and welfare handouts.

As a rule, people don't move to America - the land of opportunity - to be a welfare-collecting unemployed loser.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

NumbersUSA claims that the US is overpopulated. Funny claim seeing that out of 238 countries, the US ranks 177 in population density at 80 people per square mile. In comparison, Spain (110) has 220/sqm, France (94) has 280/sqm, Poland (86) has 320/sqm, Switzerland (65) has 460/sqm, Germany (54) has 600/sqm, Belgium (32) has 880/sqm and The Netherlands (27) come in at 1020/sqm.

Now, if we compare the US to Canada (227) with 7.8/sqm, then yes, we're overpopulated. Otherwise, that particular claim is hard to defend.

Has NumbersUSA figured out yet how - without immigration - we would support an ever growing population - both in real and relative terms - of retired people?

[Peikko 1,575]

Dems are using immigration to build an unbeatable voter base dependent on Govt Programs.

Very few Immigrants I have known embrace smaller Govt.

Funny, most immigrants I know (myself included) are against big Gov't and welfare handouts.

As a rule, people don't move to America - the land of opportunity - to be a welfare-collecting unemployed loser.

It's an easy argument to get the gullible masses to affect outrage. Divide and conquer

[SMR 368]

An anti-immigration stance is fundamentally based on the veiled assumption that people born in America are better than others based solely on their location of birth. There are few who will agree with that when you put it that way, but think about it. There are two reasons for opposing immigration. 1. National Security. This is reasonable and should be supported. We need to know who is coming in, in order to keep out murderers, terrorists, etc.

2. Protect the economy, jobs, oxygen, whatever you want to call it. This is an argument made by people who think that just because they were born in the US, they should get the jobs, education, economy, and resources they want without competition. This isn’t good for America in the long term. As long as we avoid competition and artificially choke the workforce to inflate wages, American jobs will continue to be shipped overseas. If you try to penalize companies for doing this, either the companies themselves will leave our shores entirely, or they won’t be able to compete with foreign equivalents.

We like to calm ourselves by thinking that the outsourced jobs are sweat-shop factory jobs. While some of them are, other countries are developing middle class professionals that are more qualified, and willing to do more for less money. The jobs that are outsourced overseas are becoming more technical and skilled. While this pattern continues, America continues to be more and more populated by middlemen. I’m not saying that this process is irreversible and it probably could never lead to a crash but only a rapid decline. But trying to protect ourselves with a by bottlenecking immigration is just burying your head in the sand.

Furthermore, such a policy is based on the unwarranted assumption that everybody on the inside of this immigration barrier is better than everybody on the outside. This policy could be continued indefinitely, but eventually you will end up with the inside being a cesspool of figuratively inbred underachievers and nobody left that wants to get in.

Immigration should be expanded to an open door policy. Applicants would be screened for National Security and a fee would be charged to cover the cost of that screening. But the process could be done in a relatively short period of time (months) and wouldn’t be based on quotas. Everybody who applies and doesn’t pose a threat would be admitted. At that point, anybody without proper documents could rightly be considered a national security threat, since anybody who wasn’t a threat could receive documents reasonably easily.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, we can't have that. Impossible, not everyone wants to come to the US to live? It can't be true, is it?