For the United States, the problem of immigration is nothing new, having plagued the nation for decades. But while the issue stands as one of the most divisive in party politics today, there was a time when lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were able to reach a bipartisan agreement on what needed to be done.
Now, amid increasing concerns over record-high crossings at the U.S.–Mexico border, one advocacy group is calling on legislators to reconsider those decades-old recommendations.
The NumbersUSA Education and Research Foundation is the “nation’s largest immigration-reduction grassroots organization in the country,” according to the organization’s vice president and deputy director, Chris Chmielenski.
A nonpartisan nonprofit founded in 1996, NumbersUSA cites the recommendations of the bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform—a mid-1990s congressional effort led by the late Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-Texas)—as its primary inspiration and blueprint for fixing the nation’s immigration system.
“Our organization’s missions pretty much mirror what that bipartisan commission’s recommendations were,” Chmielenski told The Epoch Times. “And that was that having legal immigration of over a million per year—combined with uncontrolled illegal immigration—is bad for the national interest, it’s bad for American workers.”
An Untenable Situation
“They want some sort of an orderly process, but they’re not changing the message,” Chmielenski noted. “And the message is that if you can make it to the United States, we’ll let you in.”
Describing the administration’s overall handling of the crisis as “abysmal,” he added: “Until they start to discourage people from coming in the first place … the numbers are going to be unaffected and we’re going to continue to have rampant illegal immigration.
Enforcing the Law
In its 1994 preliminary report (pdf), the Commission on Immigration Reform wrote, “The credibility of immigration policy can be measured by a simple yardstick: People who should get in do get in; people who should not get in are kept out, and people who are judged deportable are required to leave.”In keeping with that sentiment, Chmielenski noted that one of the easiest reforms to implement would be for the administration to simply enforce the laws already on the books.
“Existing law already requires the federal government to detain everybody who crosses the border illegally, including those that claim asylum,” he said. “And what this administration is doing instead is they’re granting them parole and putting them in what they call ‘Alternatives to Detention,’ giving them ankle bracelets or cell phones so they can track their movements once they get into the United States.”
But such alternatives are easy to circumvent, Chmielenski added, noting, “You can rip off an ankle bracelet and you can toss the cell phone in the trash can, so people are disappearing left and right.”
NumbersUSA supports the measure as “a good first step,” Chmielenski said, but he noted that more needs to be done to address the exploitation of the nation’s current asylum policies.
Revamping the Legal Process
Another area for reform that NumbersUSA highlights is how eligible individuals are selected through the legal immigration process.“Two-thirds of all of our immigration comes from family preference Green Card categories—and it doesn’t just include nuclear family members,” Chmielenski noted.
Under current law, certain family members of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents—also known as green card holders—are eligible to become permanent residents.
For citizens, those family members can include not only their spouses and children (including married children), but also their parents and brothers and sisters, if the citizen is at least 21 years old. Those green card holders can then sponsor additional family members to join them, though for them, the list of eligible individuals is shorter.
“What happens is when you allow one immigrant to start sponsoring their parents, their parents can then sponsor their other children, their other children can sponsor their spouses, which then leads to in-laws, and it creates these endless chains of migration—hence the term ‘chain migration,’” Chmielenski explained.
“NumbersUSA is very much in favor of allowing new immigrants to be able to sponsor their spouses and their minor children to come here along with them, but when we start getting into extended family beyond the nuclear family, that’s where we would say we draw the line.”
Ending Birthright Citizenship
Lastly, Chmielenski said NumbersUSA advocates for an end to birthright citizenship in the United States—a proposal often met with backlash among some conservatives.
“Our position is that we don’t think that illegal aliens are covered by the 14th Amendment,” he said. “We think that Congress has the authority to determine who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof of the United States.”
While many feel the amendment is meant to cover every individual born in the United States, others argue the framers of the Constitution likely did not mean for that to include individuals in the country temporarily or illegally, and that certain exceptions already exist.
For instance, Chmielenski noted that birthright citizenship is denied to the children of foreign diplomats.
“But, you know, let’s have it out,” he said. “Let’s have a public debate and see what happens, if it gets to that point.”