COLUMN: Clinton understands immigration

---

by James Ling

---

Bob Dole wants to deny government benefits to illegal immigrants, spend more money on the border patrol and aggressively enforce laws expediting deportation of criminal aliens and illegal aliens. He plans to make English the official language of the United States and wants to make it harder for immigrants to become citizens.

Bill Clinton likewise wants to reduce illegal immigration by increasing the border patrol, increasing penalties for alien smuggling and streamlining deportation procedures. He also supports penalizing companies that have hired illegal immigrants. For legal immigrants, Clinton wants to take measures to reduce numbers moderately.

Both verge on xenophobia, and for good reason. However, it is Clinton who makes more sense and shows more careful thought and integrity in his position.

As political unrest spreads in this unstable post-Cold War climate, waves of immigrants will continue to arrive at our borders and drain social services, compound the problem of a questionable melting pot and, some fear, lead to the loss of America's identity. Increasingly, more state and local governments face bankruptcy for providing services like free public schooling and health care to the uninsured.

For example, California spends $2 billion a year educating illegal immigrants and $1.2 million per day to pay for school lunches for students illegally in the country.

Indeed, an immigration problem exists and both candidates realize it. Thus, they have similar agendas on this issue.

But what Clinton sees that Dole doesn't is that we are not an unsympathetic country. True, as recent polls show, we want legislation that will slow the flow of legal immigration. But that does not mean we hate those who have not been fortunate enough to have made it here before our own immigrations.

According to Clinton, "Legal immigration reform must be based on principles that are pro-family, pro-work and pro-naturalization, retaining opportunities for family reunification as the levels are lowered."

Dole, on the other hand, seems to be sending out a very clear message to the world that we in the United States do not want undesirables contaminating our identity and perverting our language.

I, for one, do not happen to fall into the natives' special interest group, and thus I am not appealed to by Dole's self-righteous crusade. In fact, from my picture you can probably tell that I am Asian. I, stereotypically, have many friends whose families recently arrived here, looking for a better life. And I'm glad they are here. They don't seem like useless parasites of society to me. (Unless, Mr. Dole, you are referring to those exploited immigrants upon which our big American corporations so often depend.)

But I digress. The important thing not to overlook is that the immigration issue, while carrying its own weight, also reflects on the campaign in general. Clinton shows himself to be a more capable, level-headed leader who wants to take the country forward, and that is what the world needs to see in such a crucial time of global uncertainty.

On this issue alone, both candidates share similar objectives, so it would be hard to decide where to put the check just by their stances on immigration. However, one has the better vision. It shows not only on his stance on this issue, but on others as well. Clinton is the better of the two real candidates, and I would rather trust him to take our country into the next millennium than Dole.

James Ling is a Hanszen College junior.

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the November 1, 1996 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.