Jack Martin [Special Projects Director, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)]: "The White House and Congress understand that the American public is concerned about the fast-growing concentration of illegal residents in our communities, schools and worksites. But there are two very distinct approaches to dealing with the issue. One is to get tough on border and interior enforcement to deter further illegal immigration and deny those already here illegally the opportunity to profit from their violation of our immigration law. The other is to open the door wider to immigrants so that illegal immigration can be channeled into legal entry paths.

Accommodation of the illegal population in 1986 backfired and led to increased illegal entry. From the restrictionist perspective, if an accommodationist approach is adopted again, the message sent abroad will reiterate that we are prepared to tolerate illegal entry and, because we are not prepared to entirely open our border, those who can't enter legally should continue to come illegally and await the next amnesty.

What does not make sense is why so many people who consider themselves liberals are supporting the efforts by the White House and the Chamber of Commerce to open the immigration door wider. Economics columnist Robert Samuelson hit the nail on the head in his May 2 commentary in the Washington Post. He wrote, "Tight labor markets raise wages. Admitting more poor, low-skilled Latino workers hurts Latinos already here by depressing their wages. It's anti-Hispanic and anti-assimilation. Almost certainly, it also hurts the wages of other low-skilled Americans. Businesses grasp this — hence their support for guest workers — even if some academic economists do not. Why many liberals don't is a puzzle."

See JURIST's legal news archive on immigration here.