Saturday, October 20 , 2018, 10:55 am | Fair 78º

 
 
 
 

Ric Oberlink: Barbara Jordan and Immigration Reform

Implementing the recommendations of her U.S. commission would have helped ward off many of today's problems

The U.S. Postal Service recently issued a stamp to honor Barbara Jordan, offering us an appropriate moment to reflect upon the life of this remarkable woman and her contributions toward resolving a complex and contentious issue that continues to resonate.

In December 1993, I was participating in a roundtable of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform in Los Angeles when, during a lunch break, a perceptible buzz circulated among attendees — President Bill Clinton had named the former Texas congresswoman as chairwoman of the commission. I was excited at the prospect that the appointment of this esteemed civil rights advocate would draw appropriate attention to this important issue, but, as one who believes that population growth and the immigration that drives it place inordinate strains on our environment and infrastructure, I was concerned that she would fall into the maelstrom of liberal clichés offered by her base of supporters. As environmentalist Edward Abbey said about immigration, “The conservatives love their cheap labor; the liberals love their cheap cause.”

Instead, Jordan and the commission members undertook a thorough, comprehensive examination of American policies on legal and illegal immigration. Over five years, the commission held 13 consultations and 15 roundtables with experts and scholars; commissioned 18 research papers; held eight public hearings across the nation; and conducted seven site visits.

The culmination was a series of forthright recommendations commensurate with the problem. Rejecting amnesty proposals, Jordan testified to Congress, “Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.”

Reflecting upon the impact of immigration on America’s working poor, a problem that is particularly worrisome during this long recession, the Jordan commission stated, “Immigrants with relatively low education and skills may compete for jobs and public services with the most vulnerable of Americans, particularly those who are unemployed or underemployed.” Ultimately, the commission concluded not only that the United States must enforce its laws against illegal immigration, but also that it should reduce legal immigration by one-third.

President Clinton embraced the proposal to cut immigration. His press secretary announced that “the president indicated to Barbara Jordan today that he will support such reductions.” Clinton then confined the commission’s report to a shelf where it continues to gather dust.

Even more astonishing, when viewed from today’s highly polarized political world, was the bipartisan agreement on the commission. After more than five years of exhaustive study of this highly controversial policy matter, the five Democratic and four Republican appointees were unanimous in virtually all of their major policy recommendations.

Immigration policy will remain contentious for the foreseeable future, and there is always room for debate about what is the appropriate level of immigration. However, had Clinton and Congress, and subsequent presidents and Congresses, taken steps to implement the commission’s recommendations, we would have resolved many of the immigration problems we now face. States would not feel compelled to pass laws to assist in immigration enforcement if the federal government had not abrogated its duties.

President Barack Obama and many others claim they support “comprehensive” immigration reform. They should review, as a starting point, the prodigious work done by the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, the most extensive examination ever taken of American immigration policy.

Jordan told Congress, “It is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest.” The “national interest.” Now there is a subject on which today’s politicians could use a refresher course.

— Ric Oberlink is a senior writing fellow for Californians for Population Stabilization.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >